INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to
photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of
the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the material submitted. For example:
•

Manuscript pageB may have indistinct print. In such
cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

•

Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such
cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to
obtain missing pages.

•

Copyrighted material may have been removed from
the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the
deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are
photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is
also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an
additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23”
black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive
microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic
copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge,
35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints
are available for any photographs or illustrations th at
cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

8707165

M o ra n , K a th ry n A n n e

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY O F ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM RATES (ITM) FOR MILDLY
HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Michigan Stale University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D.

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s this m aterial h a s b e e n filmed in th e b e s t p ossible w a y from th e available copy.
Problem s e n c o u n te re d with this d o c u m e n t h av e been identified herew ith a c h e c k mark V

1.

G lossy p h o to g ra p h s or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, p a p e r o r p rin t_______

3.

P hoto g rap h s with d a rk b a c k g ro u n d _____

4.

Illustrations a re p o o r c o p y _______

5.

P a g e s with black m arks, not original c o p y ______

6.

Print show s th ro u g h a s th e re is tex t on b o th sides of p a g e ________

7.

Indistinct, broken o r small print on several p ag es

8.

Print e x c e e d s m arg in re q u ire m e n ts ______

9.

Tightly bound c o p y with print lost In s p in e ________

.

i f

10.

C om puter p rin to u t p a g e s with indistinct p rin t_______

11.

P a g e (s )_____________lacking w hen m aterial received, a n d not available from sch o o l o r
author.

12.

P a g e (s )_____________seem to b e m issing in num bering only a s text follow s.

13.

Two p a g e s n u m b e r e d

14.

Curling and w rinkled p a g e s _______

15.

D issertation c o n ta in s p a g e s with print a t a slant, filmed a s received

16.

O ther_______________________

. Text follows.

University
Microfilms
International

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM RATES (ITM) FOR MILDLY
HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS
BY

Kathryn A. Moran

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology
and
Special Education
1986

ABSTRACT
A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM RATES (ITM) FOR MILDLY
HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS.

by
KATHRYN ANNE MORAN
Understanding the interaction
special

education

systems

as

it

between the
relates

general and

to

integrated

programming for mildly handicapped students (LD, El, EMI) is
limited.

This study examines organizational characteristics

that

are correlated to mainstreaming rates,

low,

for

the

both high

and

purpose of locating predictive measures

for

determining integrated, effective special education programs
in elementary and middle school buildings.
Using
were

existing data,

assigned

one

sponding to a high,
one

of

528 Michigan

of three
mid,

school

identification

districts

rates

corre­

or low identification range,

two Instructional Time in the

Mainstream

and

ratings:

High -ITM and Low-ITM.

Sixty school districts were found to

similarly

the

identify

identification
mainstreamed

range.

population
Thirty

of

within
these

a

mid­

districts

the population at a H-ITM rate while the other

thirty mainstreamed at a L-ITM rate.
Four
H— ITM
ratios,

hypotheses speculating on no differences

between

and L-ITM districts regarding district teacher/pupil
district size,

and district expenditures for both

general and special education instruction were

tested.

Of

Kathryn A. Moran

the

four district hypotheses tested,

not

rejected

difference

three hypotheses were

with the fourth hypothesis speculating on

in the size (state aid membership) of H-ITM

no
and

L-ITM districts being rejected.
From the 60 school districts identifying within a
identification
districts

range,

were

9

randomly

H-ITM

selected from

population

representative

of

districts.

Questionnaires

were

special

districts

the

a

and

10

L-ITM

size-stratified

original

sent

mid­

to

528

school

principals

education teachers in 5 6 elementary and

21

and

middle

schools. Data were received from nineteen districts and used
to

test four building level hypotheses.

speculated
L-ITM
classes

accessed

special

education

alternative

remedial
volunteer
were
no

regarding the type

referrals,

programs

Headstart,
reading,

of

general

by mainstreamed students,

buildings.

include;

hypotheses

on no differences between buildings in H-ITM and

districts

school

These

the number

and the number and

available in
The

education

elementary

alternative programs

type

and

of
of

middle

investigated

transition rooms, bilingual programs,
remedial

aide programs.

math,

and

Three of these

instructional
four

or

hypotheses

not rejected with the fourth hypothesis speculating on
differences in the number and type of general

education

classes attended by mainstreamed students in H-ITM and L-ITM
districts being rejected.

DEDICATION
To my father and mother,
ROBERT BRYNE MORAN
smart, tough Irishman whose lessons in determination
sustained me throughout my education, and
MARY HAZEL MORAN
warm, caring woman who, in spirit, has been with me
every step of the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my sister, JANET MORAN HEEKE,
and her family,
David Sr., David Jr.,
Rob, Jenifer and
Kathryn who have taught me family can be best friends; and,
my friends Dr.
Patt Kearly,
Dr. Rebecca Rude and Mr. Don
Anderson who have taught me best friends can be family.
I would also like to thank my committee members,
each
a mentor for me in the goals I set for
myself as an
advocate for special education students, a dedicated educa­
tor,
an insightful researcher,
and an administrative
leader.

CHAIRPERSON : DR. DONALD BURKE
DR. RICHARD FEATHERSTONE
DR. LAWRENCE LEZOTTE
DR. EDWARD BIRCH

A special acknowledgement and a special thank you is
extended to Captain John Wissink and our enterprise,
’‘Alternative'.
The combination has provided for me beauty,
excitement, knowledge, challenge, exploration, fun, friend­
ship and love.

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

vii

Chapter
I.

THE PROBLEM........................................

1

Purpose of the S t u d y ..........................
5
Definition of Terms
..........................
7
Research Questions ............................
9
Significance Of The Study........................ 11
Delimitations and Limitations
...............
12
Organization of the Dissertation .............
14
II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE...............................
A Historical Perspective of Mainstreaming.

. .

17
18

Deinstitutionalization and Normalization. . 21
Integration and Zero R e j e c t .................. 24
Mainstreaming ...............................
31
Summary......................................... 34
Current Issues of Mainstreaming.............

.

35

Merger of Special and General Education . . 35
Evaluation Issues ..........................
36
Classification and Efficiency Issues. . . .
38
Expansion and Cost Efficiency Issues. . . .
45
Rationale for a Merger.........................50
S u m m a r y ........................................ 52
III. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS..............................

54

Identification Measures........................... 55
State Mean Identification Rates and Ranges
for Three Diagnostic Categories ...........
Aggregated Identification Rates
for Three Diagnostic Categories ...........

iv

55
57

Instructional Time in the Mainstream Measures.

62

State Mean ITM Rate for Three Diagnostic
Categories......................................62
Aggregated ITM Rates for Three Diagnostic
Categories......................................64
Comparison of Identificiation Ranges and
ITM Rates.......................................... 66
ITM Rates within Identification Ranges. . . 67
Comparison of Aggregated ITM Rates and
Aggregated Identification Ranges..............70
IV. METHODOLOGY .......................................

72

Major Research Question and Hypotheses . . . .
72
Design of the Study............................... 74
Procedures for Selecting the Sample Population 75
Instrumentation................................... 81
Procedures for Data C o l l e c t i o n .................. 82
Analysis and Rationale ........................
83
Summary............................................ 85
V. RESULTS AND FINDINGS..............................

87

Cross Sectional Survey Response.................. 87
Educational Descriptive Profile.................. 90
General Education Classes Accessed. . . .
90
Length of Time in the Mainstream........... 92
Results of Hypotheses Testing.................... 95
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings

for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for

Review of Findings

Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. 95
. 96
. 97
. 104
. 106
. 113
. 115
. 117

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

118

v

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypotheses
Hypotheses
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........
S u m m a r y .....................

122
123

Problem......................................123
Questions................................... 125
Methodology................................. 125
A n a l y s i s ................................... 12 8
F i n d i n g s ................................... 128
Discussion........................................... 129
The Uncontrolled Identification Variable . . 129
The Controlled Identification Variable . . . 138
Educational Descriptive profile . . . . 138
Composition........................ 138
General Education Classes Accessed . 141
Time in the. M a i n s t r e a m ........... 145
Profile Summary.................... 146
System Characteristics and ITM Rates. . 148
Recommendations.................................... 154
Policy Development .......................... 154
E v a l u a t i o n ................................. 157
R e s e a r c h ................................... 159
APPENDIX A ..............................................
A.
B.
C.
D.

163

Cover Letter................................. 164
Principal Questionnaire ..................... 16 5
Special Education Teacher Letter........... 166
Special Education Teacher Questionnaire . . . 167

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

vi

168

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER THREE
Table
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

3.7
3.8
3.9

Page
Mean Identification Rates for Three Diagnostic
Categories :LD, E l ,EMI: 1984-1985...................

57

State Identification Ranges for Three Diagnostic
Categories: LD, El, EMI: 1984-1985..............

57

Identification Ranges for Three Diagnostic
Categories by District: 1984-1985...............

58

Aggregated Identification Rates for Three
Diagnostic Categories: LD, El, E M I ..............

59

State Mean Instructional Time in the Mainstream
ITM Rates for Three Categories: LD, El, E M I

64

Instructional Time in the Mainstream ITM Rates
for Three Diagnostic Categories by District:
1984-1985.........................................

64

Aggregated Instructional Time in the Mainstream
for Three Diagnostic Categories: LD, El, EMI....

65

ITM Rate Within Three Identification Ranges for
Three Diagnostic Categories: 1984-1985..........

68

Comparison of Aggregated ITM Rate for Three
Categories Within Aggregated Identification
Ranges.............................................

70

CHAPTER FOUR
4.1

Number of Michigan School Districts and Number of
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts in Thirteen Levels of
Membership Size...................................
79

4.2

Number of Michigan School Districts and Number of
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts in Four Levels of
Membership Size...................................
80

vii

CHAPTER FIVE
5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

Summary of Response Rates for School Districts,
Principals and Special Education Teachers in the
Cross Sectional Survey of Nineteen School
Districts..........................................

88

Percent of Mildly Handicapped Students Main­
streamed into Seven General Education Classes
in Elementary Schools in H-ITM and
L-ITM Districts...................................

91

Percent of Mildly Handicapped Students Main­
streamed into Seven General Education Classes
in Middle Schools in H-ITM and
L-ITM Districts...................................

92

Percent of Mildly Handicapped Students Main­
streamed for Different Time Periods in
Elementary Schools in H-ITM and
L-ITM Districts.................

93

Percent of Mildly Handicapped Students Main­
streamed for Different Time Periods in Middle
Schools in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts.............

94

Test of Sample Means of the Per-Pupil Expen­
ditures for Basic Instructional Programs in
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts.........................

96

Test of Sample Means the Per Pupil Expenditure
for Added Needs Instructional Programs in
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts........................

97

Test of Sample Means of the District Teacher/
Pupil Ratio in H-ITM and L-ITM
School Districts..................................

98

Test of Sample Means of the Teacher/Pupil
Ratio in Elementary School Buildings in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts...............................

99

Test of Sample Means for the Teacher/Pupil
Ratio in Middle School Buildings in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts...............................

99

Test of Sample Means of the Special Education
Teacher/Pupil Ratio in Elementary Buildings in
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts........................

100

5.12

Test of Sample Means of the Special Education
Teacher/Pupil Ratio in Middle Schools in
H-ITM and L-ITM Districts........................

100

5.13

Chi-Square Analysis of Contract Language
Regarding Weighting Mainstreamed Students in
Elementary Buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM
Districts.......................................... 102

5.14

Fisher's Exact Test Analysis of Contract
Language Regarding Weighting Mainstreamed
Students in Middle School Buildings in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts............................... 102

5.15

Chi-Square Analysis of Principal Intervention
when Mainstreaming Mildly Handicapped Students
in Elementary Buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM
Districts.......................................... 103

5.16

Fisher's Exact Test Analysis of Principal
Intervention When Mainstreaming Mildly
Handicapped Students in Middle School Buildings
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts.....................

103

Test of Sample Means of District Size in H-ITM
and L-ITM School Districts.......................

105

5.17
5.18

Test of Sample Means of Size of Elementary
Buildings Surveyed in H-ITM and L-ITM School
Districts.......................................... 105

5.19

Test of Sample Means of Size of Middle School
Buildings Surveyed In H-ITM and L-ITM School
Districts.......................................... 106

5.2 0

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of Learning
Disabled Students Mainstreamed into Reading
Classes in Elementary Buildings in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts..............................

108

5.21

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of Learning
Disabled STudents Mainstreamed into Language Arts
Classes in Elementary Buildings in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts.............................. 108

5.22

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Reading Classes in Elementary Schools in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts..............................

ix

109

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Math Classes In Elementary School In H-ITM and
L-ITM Districts..................................

109

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Language Arts Classes in Elementary Schools
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts....................

110

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Social Studies Classes in Elementary Schools
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts...................

110

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Science Classes in Elementary Schools in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts..............................

110

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of Educable
Mentally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Science Classes in Elementary Schools in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts.............................

111

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of
Emotionally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Social Science Classes in Middle Schools
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts....................

112

Test of Sample Means of the Percent of Educable
Mentally Impaired Students Mainstreamed into
Science Classes in Middle Schools in H-ITM and
L-ITM Districts..................................

113

Test of Sample Means for the Number of
Alternative Programs in Elementary Schools
Within H-ITM and L-ITM School Districts.........

114

Test of Sample Means of the Number of
Alternative Programs in Middle Schools
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts.....................

115

Chi-Square Test of Type of Alternative Programs
Available in Elementary Schools in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts.............................

116

Fisher's Exact Test of the Type of Alternative
Programs Available in Middle Schools in H-ITM
and L-ITM Districts............................. .

117

x

5.3 4

5.35

Test of Sample Means of the Number of Special
Education Referrals Received in Elementary
Schools in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts............

118

Test of Sample Means of the Number of Special
Education Referrals Received in Middle Schools
in H-ITM and L-ITM Districts.....................

118

xi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
America's

dedication

to protect the human and

rights of the nation's citizens,
different

times

composition

of

in history,

young and

substantially

public school classrooms.

old,

In

the

parents of handicapped children initiated

legal

action

attention

to

public

existing

educational

system.

Association

for

The

Retarded

Pennsylvania (1971,

school

segregation

the
early

extensive
bringing

policies

in

v.

1972) and Mills v.

of

the

educational

the

Pennsylvania

Commonwealth

of

Board of Education

of the District of Columbia (1972) clearly established
responsibility

at

districts

landmark cases of
Children

has,

reshaped

1970s

against

civil

system

to

the

provide

handicapped students equal opportunities and, when shown to
be

educationally beneficial for the

programming.
142,

the

mandating

By

students,

integrated

1975 Congress had passed Public Law

Education

for

All

Handicapped

Children

that educational systems provide a continuum

94Act,
of

educational services to ensure all handicapped students are
educated within a 'least restrictive environment.1
The
federal

increased
government

interest and financial support of
to

educate

handicapped

the

children

strengthened the special education division in
systems.

With

the

educational

eventual growth of special

education

programs and an increase in personnel, a dyadic rather than
a

unified

special

educational

developed.

Technically,

education as an educational delivery system

subsystem

of

regular education (Reynolds &

Ysseldyke & Algozzine,
dual

system

1984).

Birch,

"In practice,

staff,

each with its own pupils,
funding

systems,"

and

(Stainback & Stainback,

1984,

analysts

sustain

warn,

segregation

may

a

1982;

however,

system of education for regular and special

operates,

is

a

students

teachers, supervisory
evaluation

p.102).

processes

The dyadic system,

rather

than

eliminate

policies (Lilly, 1983; Martin; 1973; Ysseldyke

& Algozzine, 1984).
Recently,
education

and

literature

discussions focusing on a merger of special
general education have

(Dunn,

1968; Hobbs, 1975;

resurfaced

in

the

Meyen, 1978; Lilly,

1979; Reynolds & Birch, 1982; Stainback & Stainback, 1984).
Various

philosophies

generated

over

the

years

in

the

special education movement have been bound together for the
prevailing

purpose of integration.

(1984) pointed out,

Stainback & Stainback

trends in the direction of

eventually

eliminating the dichotomy between educating exceptional and
nonexceptional students have existed throughout the history
of
past
as

special
several

education.
decades by

"This
the

deinstitutionalization,

has

been

reflected in the

emergence

of concepts such

normalization,

integration,

3

mainstreaming and zero rejection"
Reynolds

(p.110).

and Birch (1982) suggest "The whole

history

of education for exceptional students can be told in
of

one

steady trend that can be described as

'inclusion'"

(p.27).

However,

progressive inclusion trend,

"at

this

progressive

point

instead

turn

capabilities

of

the

the

in

the

it is time to stop developing

criteria for who does or does not belong in the
and

terms

spotlight

regular

to

school

mainstream

increasing

the

environment,

the

mainstream, to meet the needs of all students"

(Stainback &

Stainback, 1984, p.110).
Developing
services

a

continuum

of

effective

programs

for handicapped students which includes

a

and
least

restrictive environment opportunity as mandated by P.L. 94142

requires

offered

that eligible handicapped children

must

instructional time in general education

be

programs.

As a result, general educators became, in part, responsible
for educating a segment of the handicapped population.
an

attempt to meet these responsibilities,

or

providing

general
accepted
A

mainstreaming,

handicapped students instructional

education

programs,

has

become

understanding

of

necessary

time

the

delivery system model for most school
current

In

in

generally
districts.

interactions

between general and special education systems that lead
effective

mainstreaming

reasons.

First, the student population referred to as the

mainstreamed

population

practices is limited for

to

has

several

not been clearly identified.

4

The number of special education categories,
number

of students within the categories,

as well as the
represented

in

mainstreamed populations vary considerably from district to
district

as

well

as

from

building

to

building.

Additionally, the size of the group of students reported as
mainstreamed also varies considerably across the districts.
Second,
actual

there

amount

is no available information as to

of time handicapped students spend

general education programming.
the

mainstreamed

student

in

the
the

Currently, Michigan reports

as

any

identified

special

education student who attends general education classes for
a

minimum

formula
of

of 2.5 hours per day.

The use of

a

half-day

may significantly underrepresent the actual amount

instructional

time

accessed

by

the

mainstreamed

population.
Third, there is no information available regarding the
type

or

content of general education classes

attended by mainstreamed students.
speculations

most

often

At best, there are only

that handicapped students may be mainstreamed

into basic academic classes of math, reading and science in
one

district and supplementary classes of gym and

other

districts.

mainstreamed
vague.
and
will

Without

population

clear

definitions

art
of

the needs of the populations

in
the
are

Understanding the responsibilities of both special

general education to develop mainstreamed
continue

to

be

limited

until

the

programming
mainstreamed

population and their needs are more precisely identified.

5

A related problem and an impetus for this study is

the

concern special and general educators have expressed in the
availability of

evaluation

models sensitive to the unique

needs of the mainstreamed population.
goal

statements

education
field.

associated

However,
and

these
often

differences

unrelated

educational programming.

overlap

general

and

special

systems have been recognized and accepted in the

different

students

with

Differences between

educated

in

have

resulted

evaluation

models

in
for

Yet an increase in the number of
an environment where

there

is

an

of general and special education provisions brings

attention

to

the need for

new,

interrelated

evaluation

models responsive to integrative programming.
The
how

lack of understanding but increasing interest

the special education system merges with

education

the

in

general

system to provide integrative programming forces

a renewed interest in mainstreaming and its related issues.
Mainstreamed programming is the arena in which the
and

general education systems interact.

mainstreamed
Identifying
examining

special

Correspondingly,

students are the product of the
the

interaction.

group

characteristics

of

products

system

characteristics

associated

with

and
the

interaction are the purposes of this study.
Purpose of the Study
The
attention

purpose
was

of

the

given to

study

was

twofold.

First,

identifying group characteristics

6

of

the

mainstreamed population to develop

educational
currently

profile

of

the

a

descriptive

mainstreamed

population

in Michigan elementary and middle schools.

The

characteristics examined for the profile included:
1.

amount of time in the general education
programming accessed by mainstreamed students,

2.

special education categories represented in
the mainstreamed population,

3.

course content of the general education classes
accessed by mainstreamed students.

The second purpose of the study was to identify system
characteristics associated with high and low
rates
two

in educational systems.
levels,

examined.

district

level

mainstreaming

System characteristics
and

building

level,

The characteristics examined included:

DISTRICT LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS
1.

district per-pupil expenditure for the basic
instructional programs (general education),

2.

district per-pupil expenditure for the
added needs instructional programs (special
education),

3.

district teacher/pupil ratio for general
education programs, and

4.

district size ( state aid membership).

BUILDING LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS
5.

type of general education classes accessed
by the mainstreamed population,

at
were

7

6.

number of 'alternative educational programs'
available in elementary and middle schools,

7.

type of 'alternative educational programs'
available in elementary and middle schools, and,

8.

number of special education referrals in
elementary and middle school buildings.
Definition of Terms

For

the

purposes

of

this

study,

the

following

definitions were employed.
ALTERNATIVE
remedial

focus

EDUCATIONAL
available

difficulty in learning.
this

study

Headstart,

include

PROGRAMS:
to

students

Alternative
remedial

programs

a

experiencing

programs examined

reading,

bilingual programming,

with

remedial

transition

in

math,

classrooms,

instructional aide programs, and volunteer aide programs.
ADDED

NEEDS

COSTS:

the costs of activities

dealing

directly with the teaching of students in the classroom
classroom
added

situation

needs instructional programs of

compensatory
added needs
BASIC
activities
in

including the classroom costs of

the

education,

preschool,

education

the

education,
and

other

programs.
INSTRUCTIONAL

PROGRAM

COSTS:

thecosts

dealing directly with the teaching of

classroom

classroom

vocational

special

or

costs

or classroom
of

the

elementary,

basic
middle

situation

of

students

including

the

instructional programs of
and

high school

grades.

8

SPECIAL EDUCATION CATEGORY:
label

determined

an educational/diagnostic

by the Individual

Educational

Planning

Committee (IEPC) describing the handicapping condition.
LEARNING DISABLED,(LD): a condition which is
characterized by a disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in under­
standing or in using language, spoken or written.
The disorder may be manifested in an imperfect
ability to listen,
think,
speak,
read,
write,
spell,
or do mathematical calculations.
The
category includes such conditions as perceptual
handicaps,
brain
injury,
minimal
brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
It
does not include children who have
learning problems that are primarily the result
of mental retardation;
of emotional disturbance;
visual hearing,
or motor handicaps;
or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED,(E l ): a condition which
is characterized by problems primarily in the
affective domain,
over an extended period of
time,
which
adversely
affect
education
achievement to the extent that the subject cannot
profit from learning experiences without special
education support.
The problems
result
in
behaviors manifested by one or more of the
following characteristics: (a) inability to build
or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relation­
ships
within
the school
environment, (b)
inappropriate behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances,
(c) general
pervasive mood of
unhappiness or depression,
and (d) tendency to
develop physical symptoms or fears associated
with personal
orschool problems.
The term
"emotionally impaired" also includes persons who,
in addition to the preceding characteristics,
exhibit
maladaptive
behaviors
related
to
schizophrenia or similar disorders.
EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED,(EMI): a condition
manifested
by
all
of
the
following
characteristics:
(a) development at a
rate
approximately two to three standard deviations
below
■the
mean,
as
determined
through
intellectual
assessment;
<b) scores
within
approximately the lowest six percentile on a
standardized test in reading and arithmetic;
(c)
lack of development primarily in the cognitive
domain; and, (d) impairment of adaptive behavior.

9

INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM RATING,(ITM):
a

rating assigned to each

indicates

Michigan school district

which

the percentage of mildly handicapped students in

the three diagnostic categories of LD,

El, and EMI who are

mainstreamed

programming

into

general

education

minimum of 2.5 hours per day.

for

a

The rating is established by

averaging the district's individual school building reports
that

publish

the numbers of mildly

handicapped

students

participating in mainstreaming programs.
HIGH INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM,(H-ITM)
a rating assigned to Michigan school districts
which
educate
an
average-to-above-average
percentage of mildly handicapped students in the
general education program.
LOW INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM, (L-ITM)
a rating assigned to Michigan
school districts
which educate a below average percentage of
mildly
handicapped
students in the
general
education program.
Research Questions
The
explored
public

research

questions

addressed

in

school

districts:

(a)

the

amount

population

spends in the

programming,

(b) special

education categories

the mainstreamed population,

classes

study

four issues related to mainstreaming practices in

mainstreamed

in

this

attended

characteristics

by

of

general

time

education
represented

(c) the general education

mainstreamed

students,

and

of educational system related to high

low mainstreaming rates.

the

(d)
and

10

It

was

mainstream

an

handicapped

on

that

school

districts

above-average percentage of the
population

mainstreaming
students

postulated

differ

from

several

district's

school

a below average percentage

of

districts
handicapped

system characteristics.

It was also

speculated

that

the variation in

associated

with

high and low mainstreaming rates is

localized

system

which

at the building level rather than

characteristics

the

more

district

level in educational organizations.
The

following

research questions were

evaluated

this study.
1.

Hhat amount of time does
student
spend
in the
programming?

the mainstreamed
general
education

2.

What is the composition of the
population?

3.

What type of general education classes
the mainstreamed student access?

4.

Do the monetary resources
available
for
instruction in general and special education
programs
differ
significantly in high and
low mainstreaming districts?

5.

Do the teacher/pupil ratios differ signifi­
cantly
in high and
low
mainstreaming
districts?

6.

Does
the
size of
high
mainstreaming
districts differ significantly from the size
of low mainstreaming districts?

7.

Does
the number and/or type of alternative
programs
available in the general education
system vary significantly
in high and low
mainstreaming districts?

mainstreamed
does

in

11

8.

Does
the number of referrals
for special
education
services vary significantly
in
in elementary and middle school buildings
in high and low mainstreaming districts?
Significance of the Study

The implications which may be drawn from this research
have

the

potential

educational
special

issues

for
at

application

a number

of

a

variety

levels.

from

a

study of

processes,

mainstreaming

of

Since

education system and the general education

operate under different evaluation
derived

to

the

system

information

practices

could

provide information for evaluation and monitoring personnel
interested

in measuring

the continuum of

exist for handicapped students.
from

one

both

general

services

The movement of

system to another should generate

evaluation

students

interest

and special education personnel

models

that

to

for

develop

that examine the effectiveness of

this

transition.
Any

study

of

mainstreaming

identification issues be addressed.
the

issue

This study

of variance in identification

persists among Michigan school districts.
provide

pertinent

consultant

valuable

role.

Also,

practices across the State

information

multidisciplinary

practices

team

the

in

review

should

interested

appropriate education for all students.

that

The results may

to members of the special

evaluation

that

addressed

information to personnel working

or diagnostic

identification

requires

a
of

provide
education
in

free,

12

Increased
might

also

be

educational
building

mainstreaming

generalizable to

level.

The

a

wider

influence

principals,

is

widely

mainstreamed
over

of

practices

population

administrators who develop programming at

particularly
schools

understanding

have

on

recognized.

programming,

that

is

the

administrators,

the

effectiveness

of

Their

understanding

of

programming that today includes

ten percent of the total student population

districts,

of

in

necessary for developing effective

some

schools

for all students.
Finally,
increasingly
this
and

area
insure

since

mainstreamed

programming

expanding in the public schools,
is necessary to understand
future

provisions

meet

research in

current
the

is

needs

provisions
of

both

only

the

general and special education students.
Delimitations and Limitations
This
population
ages

6-17,

1984-1985.

study

was

delimited

of mainstreamed,

to

include

mildly handicapped

students,

in the State of Michigan for the school
Furthermore,

identification practices,

due

to excessive

variation

year
in

only those districts identifying

mildly handicapped students within an established mid-range
were

examined to determine characteristics associated with

high and low mainstreaming practices.
limited to this population.

Generalizability is

13

A limited number of system characteristics
with

high

associated

and low mainstreaming practices were

examined.

The study does not view the selected system characteristics
as

determinants of high or low mainstreaming rates nor

the

only

characteristics

mainstreaming

rates.

selected

not

may

characteristics

associated with

Additionally,

the

be representative
associated

of

with

high

or

as
low

characteristics
all

the

various

system

rates

of

mainstreaming.
Limitations
also

related

imposed by the design of the

to the subjective nature of the

used in the study.
as

were

instruments

A portion of the study was constructed

survey research and results are based on

data.

study

self-reported

Personal interpretations are limited, as always, to

subjective perceptions and understanding.
Limitations

imposed by the design of the study

also

related to constraints of limited

data

regarding

population

the characteristics

were

of

resources.
the

While

mainstreamed

available for the 1984-1985 school

system characteristics related to size of district,
resources

were

and teacher/pupil ratios for the same year

year,
dollar
were

not available at the time of data collection for the study.
Typically

this type of data is not published until

twelve

to eighteen months after the school year of which the

data

represents.

were

However,

system

characteristic

data

available for the school year 1982-1983 and was used in the
study.

When

the

1983-1984

data

regarding

the

system

14

characteristics was published in late Spring of 1985 during
the data analysis of this study,
were examined for change.

the data from both years

The comparison of the two

sets

of data showed no substantial differences.
Finally,
error

and

child count data are subject to considerable

open

to

debate.

Data

derived

from

local

education districts are aggregated, often revised, and tend
to

disguise

dissimilarities in collection procedures

variability in both state and local educational
Consequently,

data

may

be

more

and

practices.

representative

of

the

dissimilarities in collection procedures and practices than
the population they are intended to represent.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter
events

and

renewed

I reviews social,

political and

educational

inquiries that led to the problems

forcing

interest in mainstreaming and its related

a

issues.

The dual purpose of the study is presented, and definitions
of

terms used throughout the dissertation are provided for

clarity.

The

research

potential

significances

questions
of

the

are
study

presented,
are

and

previewed.

Additionally, delimitation and limitations of the study are
offered

for examination.

The chapter concludes

with

an

overview of the organization of the dissertation.
Chapter

II is divided into two sections.

The

first

section provides a review of the literature related to five
special education principles most often associated with the

15

successful

inclusion

mainstream

of

life

mainstream

of

public school

periods
and

of

handicapped

and handicapped

citizens

of

the

to

the

children in

education.

Different

associated with the development of the

implementation

into

accompanying

time

principles

policies

adds

an

of

the

historical perspective to the review.
The

second

section provides a brief

review

efficacy and continued use of two program evaluation models
most

often associated with evaluation of special education

services.
of

the

The section continues with an extensive
literature

interest

in

associated

merging

with

general

a

current

education

review
academic

and

special

a preliminary analysis of

existing

education.
In
data
in

Chapter

III,

regarding identification and mainstreaming
528

school

provided.

districts

in the

State

of

Michigan

Identification rates of the mildly

population

are

Additionally,

established

for

practices
is

handicapped

each

district.

statewide mainstreaming rates for the mildly

handicapped population are established.

The identification

and

and a

mainstreaming

portrayal
school

of

rates are compared,

the mainstreaming practices

districts

of

descriptive
489

identifying mildly handicapped

public
students

within a average identification range is presented.
Chapter
for the study.

IV presents a description of the
The eight hypotheses tested are

methodology
presented

with a description of the general research design following.

16

The population of interest is defined,

and the process for

selecting the research groups and the sample population for
testing

the

hypotheses

instrumentation

and

is presented.
data

A

collection

discussion

procedures

of
are

presented.
Chapter

V begins with a report of

for the cross-sectional survey.
a

presentation

presentation
for

the

of

mainstreamed

programming,

and

hypotheses.

Findings

level

hypotheses

section,

results

with

(b)

profile of
into

rate

The report is followed by
of

the

study. The

is divided into two sections:

descriptive

student

the

theresponse

the
the

(a) statistics

mildly

handicapped

general

education

the results of the

test

of

for the tests of the four

eight

district

are reported in the first part

of

this

the findings for tests of the four building

level hypotheses reported in the second part.
In

Chapter

VI,

a summary of theresearch

study

is

presented to include a brief review of the problems leading
to

the research questions.

leading

to

the

reviewed.
expanded
several
The

A

are

also

discussion of the results of the

levels within the education system in

development,

system.

findings of the study

analysis
briefly
study

is

to include implications for educational issues at

chapter

audiences

The methodology and

ends

with

recommendations

the
for

State.
policy

evaluation, and research addressed to several

within both the special and general

educational

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Education and evaluation of special education students
mainstreamed

into

general

education programming

interest to both general and special educators.
overlap
same

of

the two systems in providing services

are

of

While

an

to

the

students is a relatively new development in America's

public schools,

the demand for integrative programming has

escalated rapidly in the last decade.

This escalation has

prompted

an

the

delivery

model

increased

accompanying
students.

referred
student

Yet,

educational

interest

a

of

as

has

instructional

mainstreaming

population

recognized

systems

responsibilities

to

in

known

as

separateness

confounded

and

mainstreamed
of

the

understanding

each system to educate

the

and

two
the

evaluate

mainstreamed students and mainstreaming programs.
This

review

political,

and

development
model

the

organized
literature

literature focuses

on

the

social,

economic factors which contributed to

of mainstreaming as an instructional

and

between

of

the

delivery

which

continue to

influence

the

interaction

two

educational

systems.

The

review

is

section,

the

into

two sections.

reviewed

In the first

focuses on the

development

of

five

special education principles most often associated with the
17

18

successful

inclusion

mainstream

of

life

mainstream

of

public school

periods
and

of

handicapped

citizens

into

the

and

handicapped

children

into

the

education.

Different

associated with the development of the

time

principles

the subsequent implementation of accompanying policies

add

an

historical

perspective

to

the

acceptance

of

mainstreaming as an instructional delivery model.
The review of literature in the second section

begins

with an examination of some of the problems associated with
operating

separate educational systems.

continued

use of two program evaluation models most

associated
briefly

with evaluating special education

reviewed.

inquiries

resembling

questions

review

of

the

of an

often

services

A third line of evaluative

efficiency model, are reviewed.
a

The efficacy and

is

inquiries,

evaluation

of

an

The chapter concludes with

literature associated

with

a

academic interest in merging general and special

current
education

systems.
An Historical Perspective of Mainstreaming
Prevailing attitudes of a society directs the type and
quality

of

care and treatment given

disabled in that society ( Doll,
zine,

1984).

another,

the

1972;

developmentally

Ysseldyke & Algoz-

The changing attitudes have, at one time or

inspired

feelings of dread,

reverence,

menace,

charity, obligation, and love (Kanner, 1964; Wolfensberger,
1976).

A

review

of

the

history

of

special education

19

indicates

the

trends

general

have

eliminating

been

prevailing
in

direction

of

eventually

the dichotomy between serving exceptional

nonexceptional students.
past

the

attitude and resulting

and

"This has been reflected in

the

several decades by the emergence of concepts such

deinstitutionalization, normalization,

as

integration,

main-

streaming and zero rejection (Stainback & Stainback,

1984,

p. 110).
Ironically

the growth of institutionalization and the

subsequent acceptance of segregated facilities for disabled
citizens

were

a legacy of the cultural

movement of humanism.
the

human

side

interests,
America

in

century.
of

was

Humanism,

of life,
the

the

human

and

intellectual

a philosophy emphasizing
achievements

prevailing philosophy in

late 18th century and most

and
Europe

of

the

1972;

turn

of

mentally

and
19th

The philosophy effected an increase in the number

large institutions throughout the United States

1967,

human

Kanner, 1964; Sarason & Doris, 1969).

the

century

retarded

25

institutions

individuals in the

serviced
United

estimated two percent of the retarded population

(Doll,
At the
15,000

States,

an

(Kuhlmann,

1940).
The
care

international model of

institutional-residential

facilities for the retarded was built on Guggenbuhl's

Abendberg, a residential treatment center founded in Europe
in 1841.
practices,

Abendberg, combining both medical and educational
was

located

in

a

peaceful

setting

in

the

20

mountains.

It was speculated that

"pure mountain air, the

incredible beauty of Nature, simple diet, massage, and warm
baths

could

not

fail

to "awaken

unfortunate children” (Heal,

the

souls'

of

these

Sigelman, & Switzky, 1978, p.

211 ).
The

predominant

institutions
Sequin's

during

educational
this

period of time

educational model.

training.

predominantly
schools:

in

based

on

curriculum

viewed

institutions

educational setting similar to

as

boarding

students were to attend classes organized around

habilitation
upon

used

was designed around sensory-

Sequin

an

were

This educational

and instructional methodology
motor

techniques

objectives but would eventually

completion

Sequin,

of

the course of

study.

return

home

According

to

permanent custodial care was not the intent of the

institution.

However,

"once

established,

institutions

experienced inexorable pressures to grow and their original
intent

to

habilitate

the

mentally

retarded

was

often

frustrated by parent, professional, and public pressures to
prevent

re-entry

of the handicapped into

the

community"

(Heal, Sigelman & Switzky, 1978, p. 211).
As
attitudes

the number and size of institutions
toward

the

retarded

changed.

grew,
The

public
general

community reaction to the retarded population was fear, and
the

concept

emerge.
retarded

of the retarded as a social menace

Ignoring
were

convincing

research

not necessarily destined

began

indicating
to

develop

to
the
into

21

social

deviants,

retarded

the social menace image of the

persisted,

and public groups rallied against re­

entry of the graduates.
retarded

mentally

By 1925,

the number of

mentally

individuals institutionalized showed an

increase

of 230% in only five years (Kuhlmann, 1940).
Deinstitutionalization and Normalization
Eventually
individuals

the humanistic view of

institutionalizing

came under scrutiny by members of an

psychological

school

Behaviorists,

of

advancing

thought,

the

notion

emerging

behaviorism.

that

objectively-

observable organismic behavior constitutes the essential or
exclusive

scientific

investigation,
determinant

basis

stressed

of

the

of

psychological

role

human and animal

of

data

environment

behavior.

A

and
as

round

a
of

research inquiries into the effects of institutionalization
followed.
While

there

is

often

inconsistency

regarding

accurate operational definition of the intervention
'institutionalization',

nevertheless,

the

an

called

literature

is

reasonably consistent in its indications that commitment to
an

institution

(Crissey,
Sloan

1937;

& Harmon,

Sigelman,

often

occasions a decline

Kaplan,
1947;

& Switzky,

1978).

the

large

IQ

Kephart & Strauss,

Sternlicht & Siegel,

peoples' expectations,
placement in

1943;

in

However,

1946;

contrary to

scores
1940;
Heal,
many

there is considerable evidence that
institution can be beneficial for

22

retarded persons
&

Zigler,

(Balia & Klein,

1974).

1981; Balia, Butterfield,

"The preinstitutional environments

of

retarded persons in such cases may have been so deleterious
that placement in the less-than-adequate environment of the
large

institution was a substantial improvement" (Switzky,

& Haywood, 1985, p. 268).
Efforts toward empirical resolution of the educational
efficacy

of

institutionalization

were

eventually

over­

shadowed in importance by changing sociological, political,
and legal issues associated with institutionalization.
of

the

most

pervasive and

incorporating
parents

of

pointed

out,

Citizens)
develop
dignity
The
in
The

"in
for

students.

the

a

Retarded

posture
of

States,

Children

and an

mentally

ideology

retarded

developmental model and

normalization

possible

possible.

principal

of means

that

are

to establish and/or

characteristics

that

Regardless

are
of

society, the handicapped,
to

United

Heal

(now

et

al.

were
(1978)

the

National

for

Retarded

appropriate

individuals"

culturally

as

normalization
had
as

come

to

(p.

emerging ideology of the advocate groups is
the

groups

has been especially persistent in its effort

utilization
as

political

themselves for the purpose of advocacy
handicapped

Association

persuasive

One

to

the
214).

expressed
principle.
mean

culturally

to

the

normative

maintain

behaviors

and

culturally

normative

as

any inconvenience to the larger
advocates argued,

normative

were entitled

opportunities,

rhythms,

23

surroundings,

experiences,

(Wolfensberger,
parents

1972).

argued,

The

associations,
disabled,

and

risks

Wolfensberger and

should be entitled to forms

of

address,

labels, expectations, roles and environments afforded other
members of the culture.
is

At the very basis of normalization

integration and continuity

in

the

mainstream

of

of activities and

society.

This

services

posture

and

accompanying ideology revolutionized residential services.
Other
should
focus

expectations

be

afforded

encouraged the advocates.

an

incurable

combined

disabled

individual

of a developmental focus rather than a

should be one of a growing,
of

a

with

individual
commonalities
individuals.

for

between
Basic

The

normalization

developmental

focused,

disabled

developing person and not

invalid.

the

The view of the

medical

the

view

of

first

handicapped

the

time,

and

one

principle
disabled
on

the

nonhandicapped

human wants and needs,

the

principle

posited, follow the same pattern for all individuals, and a
handicapped

individual is "more like" than "less

like"

a

nonhandicapped individual.
Advocacy
of

the

began

to

question the isolation

handicapped population from the

arguing

general

society,

the isolation resulted in a limited access to

resources
large,

groups

of

that society.

usually

were transferred

Eventually individuals

publicly-supported residential
to

smaller,

facilities in the community.

usually

the
from

facilities

privately-owned

By 1967, over 100 years after

24

Abendberg's
the

first

influence on America's residential facilities,
reported decline in the number

of

handicapped

citizens institutionalized was recorded.
Integration and Zero Reject
The

return

communities

of institutionalized

citizens

affected the society at every

to

level.

local
Adults

were relocated into small, family-style living units in the
community, and children were placed with foster parents or,
through

adoption,

became brothers and sisters in

family

units.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the civil rights of

these

individuals

were

supported in the courts.

recognized

and

consistently

Courts upheld the

right of
institutionalized handicapped persons
to be free from unusual and cruel treatment;
the
right of institutionalized handicapped persons to
be freed from employment without
reimbursement
and without rehabilitative purpose;
the right to
avoid
involuntary
institutionalization
on the
part of persons who represent neither a danger to
society nor to themselves;
the right of
the
handicapped
to exercise the power to vote;
the
right of the handicapped both to marry and to
procreate; the right of the handicapped to travel
on the nation's public conveyances; and the right
of
the handicapped
to access
to
America's
buildings
by means of removal of environmental
barriers (Abeson, 1976, p. 5).
One system of the community, however, lagged behind in
the civil rights' revolution of the handicapped— the educa­
tional system.
that
the

a

Advocacy groups for the handicapped argued

goal of the American educational system should

right to an education for all American

be

children,

and

particularly those usually known as 'the handicapped.'

In

25

1971,

it

was

American

estimated that seven

schools

were

education services.
no

educational

of

handicapped

and

students

needed

in

special

One million of these children received

services at

Braddock, 1971).

million

all

(Weintraub,

Abeson,

&

"Further, only 40% of these children, all

whom will be in need of special education

services

at

some time during their education careers, are receiving the
services they need" (Weintraub & Abeson, 1974, p. 7).
The

obstacles facing parents of and advocates for the

handicapped

seemed

overwhelming.

Yesseldyke

(1982)

suggested that one way that the schools have coped with the
failure of certain students to acquire education objectives
is

by

simply doing nothing about

it.

A

comprehensive

review of the diversity and complexity of the obstacles
succinctly

stated

initiated

in

1970

in
to

children not in school.
labeled

"bureaucratic

a

Children’s
examine the

Defense
problem

Fund
of

is

study

American

Thirteen factors which the authors
excuses"

for

inaction

were

identified.
1.

W e 1re the Experts.
Parents are often told that they
(parents)
do not understand the complexity of the
problem and that they (educators) know best.

2.

Agency Denial.
Many state and local
education
agencies
deny that students are not being served,
that students are being excluded from school,
or
that
they
may
be
inappropriately
classifying
students.

3.

The Exception. When school officials are confronted
with evidence of failure to educate
students,
they
often labeled these as exceptions to the normal
state
of affairs.

26

4.

Priorities. Those who call attention to the problem
are told that the problem just is not as important as
others.

5.

Confession and Avoidance.
School officials
often
admit
to the facts but claim that
"overriding
considerations" keep them from acting.

6.

Improper Jurisdiction. School officials often claim
that it is not their responsibility to deal with
instances of academic and/or social deviance,
but
the
responsibility
of the
family
and
other
institutions.

7.

8.

Prematurity
of Request.
Those who confront
school with evidence of failure are told that
school has "a plan to correct the situation."
Generalized
told
that
problems."

the
the

Guilt.
Those who confront the school are
"other school systems
have
similar

9.

Improper
Forum. School officials often claim that
the problem is in the hands of local,
state and/or
federal
government agencies,
and
that there
is
little they can do to alleviate the problem.

10.

Recrimination.
School
officials
often
simply
recognize that there are students who are excluded and
who have problems, but simply state "It's
their
own fault."

11.

Further
Study. School officials often say that
have referred the problem for further study.

they

12.

Community Resistance. Schools often fail
to take
action under the guise that the attitudes of the
community are such that they (the community) won't
support action.

13.

Funding.
Parents
and others who confront
officials are told there is no money.
(Washington Research Project, 1978, p.12-14).

school

The summary of the study personalized the victims.
We found that if a child is white but not middle
class,
does
not speak English,
is poor,
needs
special help with
seeing,
hearing,
walking,
reading,
learning,
adjusting,
growing up,
is
pregnant or married at age 15,
is not smart
enough or is too smart,
then, in too many places
school officials decide school is not the place

27

for that child.
In sum,
out of school children
share a common characteristic of differentness
by virtue of race,
income,
physical,
mental or
emotional 'handicap', and age.
They are, for the
most part,
out of school not by choice but
because they have been excluded.
It is as
if
many school officials have decided that certain
groups
of
children
are
beyond
their
responsibility and are expendable.
Not only do
they exclude these children they frequently do so
arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and with impunity.
(Washington Research Project, 1974, p. 4).
It is not surprising in light of the complexity of the
problems
groups

and
turned

the

apparent lack of action

to the legal system for

that

support

requests and demands of the educational system.
is

advocate
in

Education

not a fundamental right protected by the United

Constitution

(San

their

States

Antonio Independent School District

v.

Rodriguez,

1973) but rather a state created property (Goss

v.

1975) which could,

Lopez,

withdrawn by the state.
Brown

v.

racial
state

in some

However,

circumstances,

be

in the landmark case of

Board of Education of Topeka (1954) dealing with

discrimination,

the Supreme Court made it clear

may not chose to provide education to some

and

others.
Today,
education
is perhaps the most
important
function
of
state and
local
governments.
Compulsory school attendance laws and the great
expenditures
for education both demonstrate our
recognition of the importance of education in a
democratic society.
...It is the very foundation
of good citizenship.
...In these days,
it is
doubtful
that any child may reasonably
be
expected
to succeed in life if he is denied
the
opportunity
for
an
education.
Such
an
opportunity,
where the state has undertaken
to
provide
it,
is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms" (Brown v.
Board
of Education of Topeka (1954).

a
not

28

This

landmark case provided a model for advocates

seeking

an education for all handicapped students, with integration
into the mainstream as the preferred model.
The

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded children v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC),
first

class

action

civil

(1971,

rights

suit

1972) was the

challenging

educational system for handicapped students.
the

Specifically,

four

Pennsylvania

statues regarding mentally retarded children.

The statutes

in
the

suit challenged the application of

the

question (a) relieved the State Board of Education from
duty

to

educate

children

certified

postponement

of admission to public school of children who

children

attained
from

the mental age

compulsory

allowed

as

or

not

(b)

were

untrainable

had

uneducable;

who

of

attendance

indefinite

five;

(c)

if

psychologist

a

excused

determined that they were unable to profit from school; and
(d)

defined compulsory school age as eight

allowing

to

seventeen,

school officials to exclude children who did

not

fall within that range (PARC, 1971, 1972).
The resulting consent agreement between the parties in
the

case established three broad guidelines for

providing

education to handicapped students:
1.

all mentally retarded persons are capable
benefiting

from

a program of education

of
and

training;
2.

placement in a regular public school class is
preferable

to placement in a special . public

29

school

class,

and

public

school

class is

other

type

of

placement in

a

special

preferable

program

of

to

any

education

and

training; and
3.

every retarded person between the ages of six
and

twenty-one

free

would receive access

educational program appropriate to

or her capacities.
One

of

judicial
reject'

for

the

a
his

(PARC, 1971, 1972)

most significant outcomes

of

PARC

acceptance of what has become known as the
(Yeagley,

principle

1982).

Zero

reject

refers

that all handicapped children can

some kind of educational program.

was
'zero

to

benefit

the
from

Similar to Pennsylvania,

many states had statutory provisions which provided a legal
basis
Two

for

excluding children from an

classifications

education

of retarded children,

program.

based

testing,

had developed over the years:

retarded

(EMI) and trainable mentally retarded (TMI).

most

educable

on

IQ

mentally

states only educable mentally retarded students

In
were

admitted to public schools.
The

PARC

case,

however,

required

provisions for all retarded children.
this
are

action

for

educational

"Expert testimony in

indicates that all mentally retarded

persons

capable of benefiting from a program of education

training;

that

the

greatest

and

number of retarded persons,

given

such education and

training, are capable of achieving

self

sufficiency,

the

and

remaining

few,

with

such

30

education

and

training,

are

degree of self care . . . "
The

zero

achieving

in

a

"There is no distinction between the

training and education.

read and write,

some

(PARC, 1971,1972).

reject principle was addressed again

Maryland state court.
words

capable of

A child may be trained

or may be educated to read and

write.

to
A

child may be educated to tie his shoes or may be trained to
tie his shoes.
category

Every types of training is at least a sub­

of education."

(Maryland Association for Retarded

Children v. State of Maryland, 1974)
The

slowness of the Pennsylvania school districts

implement

the court agreement promoted a second

court case,

namely,

Mills v.

District

of

Columbia (1972).

results

of

the

established

in

Mills
the

important

Board of Education of
One of the many
was

that

the

principles
to

By this time several categories

conditions

the

important

PARC agreement were expanded

exceptional children.
handicapping

case

to

had been identified and

all
of

defined.

Civil and educational rights of all handicapped students in
all the categories were now protected under the law.
An
issues

unprecedented list of courts cases
of

civil

and educational rights

students continued.
an

all

Finally,

inclusive law,

regarding
for

handicapped

in 1975 the congress passed

P.L.94-142 the Education

Handicapped Children Act, which stated:

for

that

all

handicapped

All

The purpose of the

Act is to:
1. assure

the

children

have

31

available

to

them

a

free

and

appropriate

public education,
2. assure that the rights of handicapped children
and their parents are protected,
3. assist

the

States and localities to

for an education of all handicapped

provide
children,

and
4. assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts
to educate handicapped children.
The
into

rights

society

of handicapped children to be

and

particularly into

the

integrated

public

schools

across the nation were firmly established.
Mainstreaming
Of

all the principles covered in

principle
impacted

P.L.

94-142,

of the least restrictive environment
the

general

education

system

the

the

(LRE)

has

most.

The

principle refers to the right of handicapped children to be
educated

in the least restrictive environment.

While the

determination of which environment is least restrictive for
a

student

needs,

is individual and dependent

in

student

on

the

student's

general the most restrictive environment for
is

a

segregated

institutional

setting

a

which

provides no opportunity for integration with nonhandicapped
peers.

The

education
opportunity

least

restrictive

classroom

setting

environment
which

is

provides

a general
unlimited

for interaction with nonhandicapped peers

and

32

other normative experiences.
Advocacy
that

groups were persistent in their expectations

public

schools

programmatically

should

adhere

to

conscientiously
the

least

environment principle for all students.
that

integration

development
the

education
delivery
their

On the assumption

would increase the academic

of

being

settings,
model

and

social

as

reduce

programming,

was

educated

in

segregated

mainstreaming,

an

special

instructional

integrating the handicapped students

nonhandicapped

1968;

restrictive

of the handicapped student as well

stigma

and

peers

in

general

advanced as the preferred

with

education
model

(Dunn,

Birch, 1974; Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard & Kukic, 1975;

Salend,
students

1984).

The

practice of integrating

handicapped

into public school buildings but not into general

education

classes was,

argued advocates,

not in

keeping

with the original intent and spirit of the law.
In 1976 an influential advocacy group, the Council for
Exceptional
following

Children ( C E O
definition

Delegate Assembly,

adopted the

of mainstreaming:

a belief which involves an education placement
procedure and process for exceptional
children
based on the conviction that each such child
should be educated
in the least restrictive
environment
in which his education and related
needs
can be satisfactorily provided.
The
concept recognizes that exceptional children have
a wide range of special educational
needs,
varying greatly in intensity and duration;
that
there
is a recognized continuum of education
setting
which may,
at a given
time,
be
appropriate for an individual child's needs; that
to the maximum extent appropriate,
exceptional

33

children
should be educated with
nonexceptional
children and that special classes,
separate
schooling,
or other removal of an exceptional
child from education with nonexceptional children
should occur only when the
intensity of the
child's special education and related needs
is
such
that they cannot be satisfied
in
an
environment
including non-exceptional children,
even with the provisions of supplementary aids
and services.
Tracing
nation's
the

general education programming began in 1976

first

recorded
Six

the number of students mainstreamed into

annual special education
number

years

of mainstreaming programs

later

the

Annual Report to

Implementation of P.L.
the

Education

student

count.
grew

with
The

rapidly.

Congress

on

94-142 reported that the impact

for All Handicapped Children Act had

primarily positive,

the

the
of
been

and the law had been a major factor in

effecting change in special education.
"Specifically, the

law

had increased the

scope

and

comprehensiveness of special education programs and related
services at the local level: 10.76% of the nation's student
population,

Pre-K to 12,

education services.

were currently receiving special

Of the 4,298,327 served, 93% of these

student were educated in 'regular' schools and a relatively
stable

68%

Report,

1984,

handicapped
the

are served in
Executive

'regular'
Summary).

classrooms” (Annual
The

students into the general

integration

education

of

classes,

missing link in the continuum of services demanded

by

advocate groups and supported by Federal and State statues,
had

finally

model,

become

an

accepted

instructional

delivery

34

Summary; Historical Perspective
Special education policy,
of

institutionalization

preferred

of

treatment model,

successfully
inclusion

starting with an acceptance
handicapped

children

as

has moved through a period

orchestrated judiciary action leading

of a significant number of handicapped

in the general education classrooms.

The evolution of five

policy

change

fundamental

principles,

by

political,

social,

time,

in

an

children

education principles generating and directing
reviewed

of

to

special

was

a

this

section.

the
These

each being influenced differently
and economic philosophies

of

the

shared a common goal of inclusion of the handicapped

population into the mainstream of the American way of life.
The

review

of

current

literature

suggests

a

continuation of an inclusion trend, yet researchers are now
increasingly

recognizing

conceptualizations,
Yesseldyke,

1983;

a

directions
Gerber,

population

whether

"positive impact"

all handicapped
prevalence
service

of

children.

greater social

and
than

rate

overlap

an

of

the

Gerber

education

law

question

is true

(1984) suggests
students

integration

probably exists"
of

&

An examination of the

in

and

" the

much

resulting from

(p. 222).

handicapped

for

mainstream

permits the Annual Report to imply

P. L. 94-142
of

alternative

has led some critics to

learning disabled

programs

for

and theories (Algozzine

1984).

mainstreamed
the

need

The growing

nonhandicapped

35

students

in general education classrooms across the nation

has generated new questions for
are

the

special

differences
and

educators;

specifically,

between the two types

regular,

so

distinctive

of

they

students,

warrant

the

operation of a dual system of education?
A current trend advocated in the literature sustains a
dedication

to

the inclusion philosophy yet focuses

new,

for

some

and

inclusion.
existing

educators,

This trend
between

a

radical

on

a

approach

of

focuses on eliminating the dichotomy

serving exceptional

and

students through a new course of direction —

nonexceptional
a

merger

of

special education and general education systems.
Current Issues of Mainstreaming
Merger of Special Education and General Education
A

suggestion to merge special education

education implies that,
exist.
policy

A

review

makers

whether

special

indicates

education

exists

flow

as

a

dual

as to
system

1984) or as a subsystem of general

education {Yesseldyke & Algozzine,

as

researchers,

other professionals are divided

{Stainback & Stainback,

1982).

general

at a minimum, two apparent systems

ofliterature

and

and

1984; Reynolds & Birch,

Setting aside nomenclature or taxonomy differences

to where special education exists on an
chart,

literature

there

is

consistent

organizational

recognition

of a disconnectedness of special education

general education.

in

the
and

36

The disconnectedness has "fostered competition and, in
some cases, unnecessary duplication rather than cooperation
among professionals and services.
artificial

barriers between people and divides

(Stainback & Stainback,
then

The dual system creates

1984,

p,

105).

resources"

In 1973, Martin,

Associate Commissioner of Education and Director

for

the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped stated, "One of
the
been

places where many of us concerned with education

have

wrong has been in our conceptualization of the normal

child

as

child"(p.

sharply
2).

dichotomized

from

the

handicapped

Five years later, commenting on the future

of education for the exceptional students, Martin wrote:
We need to examine the assumptions that have led
us to think of regular education and special
education as dichotomous constructs.
This kind
of thinking has led to the treatment of common
problems
by separate groups who use different
language
constructs,
publish
in
different
journals, and in general, cannot communicate.
We
need to find a way to share and to work together,
rather
than to continue to divide our tasks
(Martin, 1978, p. iv).
Evaluation Issues
An

ideology

behind a merger of special

and

education

is

being developed from what appears

movement

in

special

efficiency
outcomes.

and

education

away

from

toward

evaluations

general
to

evaluations
of

process

be

a
of

and

Widespread process evaluations under the rubric

of compliance and monitoring followed unprecedented changes
in

special

Handicapped

education
Children

after

the

Act was passed

Education
in

1975.

for

All

However,

37

Yesseldyke

& Algozzine (1984) suggest "a system driven

change

legislation

by

and litigation

will

to

make shallow

gains by keeping only one step ahead of the threat of court
action for compliance11 (p. 383).
Evaluations
programs

for

(1984)

that

parallel

the

students.
empirical

However,
resolution

since almost before research can

question

political,

the

Furthermore,
schools,

and

precarious
Polloway

teachers,
at

educational
findings

continues,

and

students

today

direct generalization from

Moreover,
provided

little
the

placement

effectiveness

of

evidence

the
that

gradually

would

of 50 primary

regular class
literature
establishes

or

the

make
or

(p. 296).

thirty

also

have

supports
regular

research

or

class

to

studies

concluded:
reveal

superiority

Carlberg & Kavale noted:

of
"The

unilateral

educational arrangement over another on academic or
criteria"

any

Carlberg & Kavale's

placement

failed

the

(p. 19).

that

of special

days."

nature of

twenty

evidence

for the exceptional child.

versus

sociological,

evaluations of outcomes

convincing

meta-analysis

special
review

recent

be

reported,

previous

"the

years ago an extremely doubtful practice"

(19 80)

of special

trends
of

of

Polloway

be

inevitably changes as various
legal,

invalidate

rejects

creation

student placement issues "will perhaps never

attainable

attempt

outcomes

handicapped

suggests

education

the

of

of

one
social

38

No great differences among classes
of outcome
measures were identified,
Thus,
regardless of
whether achievement, personality/social, or other
dependent
variables
were
chosen
for
investigation,
no differential placement effects
emerged across
studies.
Similarly,
variables
such as IQ, age,
percent of male subjects,
duration of treatment,
sample size, blindness of
measures,
internal
validity,
and date
of
publication had little effect on the relative
superiority of regular class placement to special
class placement (p. 304).
Category

of

exceptionality,

however,

revealed

differential placement effects.
The results
suggested that the problems
of LD
and BD/ED (behaviorally disturbed or emotionally
disturbed)
children
were
apparently
more
tractable
in the special class
than children
whose primary problem was low IQ.
Thus slow
learners
and
EMRs
experience
negative
consequences because of special class placement,
while
positive
effects
from special
class
placement were found for LD and BD/ED children
(Calberg & Kavale, 1980, p. 304).
The ambiguous results of efficacy studies and lack
direction

from

process

evaluation,

both

throughout the growth of special education,
efficiency

evaluations.

education,

indications

and

Unlimited

prominent

have

prompted

expansion of

of misclassification of

exponential growth in the costs of

special

of

special
students,
education

have accelerated the interest in evaluations of efficiency.
Classification and Efficiency Issues
While
precipitous

there

have

been

time

periods

demonstrating

growth patterns for special education,

it

is

the consistency in the growth of special education over the
past

eighty

years

that marks the field

for

renovation.

39

"The

continual expansion of special education has

reached

the point that many educators are beginning to ask where it
will

(and

should)

education

which

analysis

are

end.

have

Many basic

never

been

now the subject of

tenets

of

special

subjected

to

probing

substantial

discussion"

(Lilly, 1983, p. 1).
The
both

growth of special education has been recorded

the

within

number of categories and the number of

the categories recognized by the special

classification
century,
the

framework.

primary

“categories

of

emotional disturbance,

deficiency"

(Lilly,

education

1983,

p.

20th

field,

exceptionality*

recognized were sensory impairments,
severe

children

"At the beginning of the

special education was a very limited

in

which

and
were

physical impairments,

and severe/profound
30).

mental

Today the number of

handicapping conditions recognized in P.L. 94-142 is 11 and
some

state

categories.
as

20-25%

regulations

recognize

up

to

14

different

Additionally, in some school districts as many
of elementary aged students are receiving

sort of special education services (Pugach & Lilly,
Throughout
social
large

education,

various

1983).

political,

and economic trends have resulted in an influx of a
population of students moving into already

educational
special

the history of

some

programs.

During

these

periods

education was used to alleviate the

of

existing
influx,

pressures

of

serving new groups of students in the schools (Lilly, 1983;
Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1984).

40

Child labor laws,
(including

compulsory

development
dramatic
19 00s.

movement towards universal schooling
school

intelligence

change
A

in

new

experiencing

tests

were

laws) and

catalysts

the school population

population

"a

attendance

moved into

in

for

the

America's

system and a curriculum

which

the
a

early
schools

had

been

designed for the elite of society, and encountered teachers
and

other

that

is

finally

school personnel who were not prepared for
implied

when

diagnostic
the

in ‘schooling

for

the

masses.'

the inevitable school problems

all
And,

occurred,

system existed which pinpointed the problem

child by labeling him/her as 'moron' based on

a
in

results

of

a test of intelligence which bore striking

resemblance

to

the same school curricular which was implicated in

the

original problem” (Lilly, 1983, p. 4).
America's

of

students

into existing programs

again in the desegregation

movement

following the Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka.

landmark
and

schools

civil rights case drastically changed the

socio-economic

population

of

composition

rapid
classes.
labeled

of

the

expansion
Not
EMR

the

racial

schools.

"The

of

students.

Increased

schools was followed closely
EMR

(educable

coincidentally,
and

and

middle class schools experienced an

of poor and minority

integration

of

This

individual schools became more diverse

many previously white,
influx

faced another influx

mentally

the majority

put in these classes were

racial
by

the

retarded)
of

students

minority

and

41

poor"

(Lilly,

expansion

1983,

in

education,

the

Lilly

p.

7).

school

In

both incidents of rapid

population,

(1983) concluded,

providing

became the

special
accepted

general solution to the complex educational problems facing
the growing American education system.
he suggests,

was "the removal of children from the common,

diverse educational settings"
The

The simple solution

concept

(Lilly, 1983, p. 4).

that special education at any

point

in

history will be what society needs and permits it to be

is

also advanced by Yesseldyke & Algo 2 zine (1984). "If society
and

the

agencies

provide

that

extensive

perceived

as

reflect society

services,

in

need of special

services

If,

restrictive social policy is in force,

services"
An

will

and

will

be

will

be

on the other hand,

be seen as in need of special

in

the

identification

in the category of learning disabilities,
in

relationship

education

the
to

role
general

of

of

mildly

particularly

has sustained an

special

education

education.

Special

and

its

education

services

are provided,within a categorical framework,

learning

disabilities emerged

rate

a

then relatively few

handicapped students in public schools today,

1960s.

to

(p. 427).
increase

interest

willing

then many students

enrolled in special education.

individuals

are

and

as a category in the middle

"The learning disabilities category is growing at a
of

approximately

population a year.

3%

of

the

special

education

At that rate of progress, all currently

42

classified

students in high prevalence categories would be

classified

learning

disabled

by around

the

year

2001"

(Algozzine & Korinek, 1985 , p. 393). Such reclassification
practices

questions

disabilities
"category

an established belief

that

learning

is a "category of children" as opposed

of services".

On the other hand,

to

a

Lilly (1983)

suggests, the expansion "is a result of special education's
role

in

supplanting

regular

education,

not

existing regular educational support services"
The

Sixth

Annual

Implementation

of

"...variations
within

the

increases

Public

continue

different
in

the

Report

the

served

in most other categories.

decreased in

has

served

conditions.

learning

overshadow

the

indicated

in the number of children

number of

population

on

94-142

handicapping

to

(p. 9).

Congress

Law

served

disabled

to

adding

disabled
number

Large
children

of

children

Since 1976 the learning

grown by

119

percent"

(Annual

Report, 1984, Executive Summary).
In

interpreting

disabilities

schools,

growth
some

of

learning
analysts,

researchers and other professionals have simply

reiterated

interpretations of analogous growth spurts in special

education
always

and

been

suggest the learning disabled
in

unrecognized.
of

the

quick

policy

past

in

the

LD

the

However,

emerged

movement,

as

student

as
a

population

but

has

has
gone

Lilly (1983) suggests, "the field

both a political
means

student

of

providing

and

an

special

educational
education

43

programs

for predominantly middle and upper

students,
regular

programs

which

classroom

were

less

middle

isolated

and contained fewer poor

children than the EMR special classes,

class

from

and

the

minority

whereas it is clear

from

research

been

composed of predominantly poor minority children many

of

cited earlier that the EMR

population

the same studies demonstrated that LD

disproportionately
addition,

the

low

programs

numbers of minority

concept

of

'learning

served

student.

In

disabilities'

was

clearly more palatable to many parents than the concept
'mental

retardation1

difficulties in school"

in

explaining

has

their

of

children's

(p. 7).

The National Association of State Directors of Special
Education
states

(NASDSE,

about

learning

1983)

reasons

disabled

surveyed directors

for the increase in

children.

The

five

in

the

several
count

most

of

frequent

responses recorded are:
1.

improvement

in

procedures

for

identifying

and

assessing children with learning disabilities,
2.

liberal

eligibility

criteria

for

learning

disabilities,
3.

cutbacks

in

education

other

programs and

lack

of

alternatives for children who

general

experience

problems in the regular class,
4.

social

acceptance/preference for the

disabled classification, and
5.

court order.

learning

44

The reclassification,
of

increasing numbers of students as learning disabled may

be due,
the

and perhaps misclassification,

in part,

to special education's persistent use of

categorical

services.

framework to

However,

provide

categorical

labeling

assumptions that cannot be supported:
definitions

of

disability

is

categories,

to
(c)

categories are

homogeneous

(b)

sufficient
another,

the

knowing
select

special

with

education

makes

for example,
functional
no

diagnostic

overlaps

instructional
labeling

(a) the

and

label

program

interacts

children

identified

in

and

served

categorical model
Continuing
services
"The

need

of

special

by

over

and (d)
will

use

be

of

the

(Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1982).
to

within

assess

students as

a categorical framework

categories are ever changing,

specific

education

appropriately

is

positively

with teacher programs and changes in skill levels,
all

each

between

a child's disability

one

several

well
is

as

provide

inefficient.

for the definitions of

conditions like mental retardation

and

learning

disabilities constantly change as a function of both social
pressure

and

the

special education"
The

amount of money that can

persists

however

Stainback

&

within

dual system to determine who

system.
currently

A

spend

on

(Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1984, p. 427).

categorization

a

be

Stainback (1984) suggest,

"it

because,
is

as

necessary

belongs

in

and

effort

are

expended trying to determine who is regular

and

great

deal of time,

money,

which

45

who

is

special

exceptionality
to

be

done

what

“type*

or

each special student fits.
in spite of the fact that

professional

opinion

classification
students,

and

is

and

of

This continues

a

research

category

combination
indicates

often done unreliably,

it

of
that

stereotypes

and is of little instructional value"

(Stainback

& Stainback, 1984, p. 104).
In

an investigation into the criteria for identifying

learning

disabled students Yesseldyke &

found more than 40 sets of criteria.
considered

seventeen

classified
students,

groups

different

Algozzine

(1984)

They report: "We have

sets

of

criteria

of school-identified learning

low achievers, and normal students.

and

disabled

Overall, we

have found that all school-identified LD students, all lowachieving
students
set

students,

and

more than 80 percent

could be called LD on the basis of at

of criteria.

criteria"

of

normal

least

one

We have found that no student meets all

(Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1984. p.160).
Expansion and Cost Efficiency Issues

"The
an

special education delivery system is growing

unacceptable rate and will likely not be

public
1983,

policy

for much longer"

p.28).

services

be

eligible.
consistently

Federal
provided
Yet

&

to all students

across

who

criteria
populations,

are
have
and

as

Algozzine,

and state legislation demand

eligibility

applied

(Yesseldyke

tolerated

at

that

declared
not

be

students

46

labeled
from

other low achievers in

since
all

learning disabled are not readily

the

schools.

Nevertheless,

special education system must be responsive

identified students,

grown

the

distinguishable

precipitously

special education services

without,

in

many

cases,

to
have

proper

coordination or long range planning.
The

educational

handicapped

cycle

students

teachers.

for the

begins

majority

with

of

general

mildly

education

Based on a belief that the child is not

making

as much progress as his or her peers, the general education
classroom

teacher

assessment

refers the student for

services.

evaluation

and

These services are provided by

the

special education system.
student

is

"handicapped"
(Algozzine,

more

Once referred for evaluation, a

probable

than

not

determined

and declared eligible for special
Christenson,

&

Yesseldyke,

1982;

to

be

education
Pugach

&

Lilly, 1984; Lilly, 1983).
The

referred

student is seen by a

multidisciplinary

team and receives a categorical label certifying that he or
she is handicapped. However, "special education diagnostic,
assessment and classification procedures are time consuming
and the period between referral an initiation of service is
typically six weeks to three months.
the

Obviously, if one of

goals of the special education services is to

support

for

the

classroom

teacher

and

help

provide
arrange

conditions for success in the classroom, the lengthy period
between referral and service can only work contrary to this

47

goal"
of

(Pugach & Lilly,

state

1984,

p. 4).

Lilly (1983) reports

regulations "allowing up to 60 school days

from

referral to the staffing for special education placement, a
reasonable
However,
real

time

given

the

during

which

assistance.

Often,

by

problem

the

the

teacher

time

is

required.

receiving

a student

is

for services the teacher has already

of
no

declared

solved

the

through other means or despaired of ever receiving

help" (Lilly, 1983, p. 12).
educators

work

sixty school days can be three to four months

time,

eligible

diagnostic

are

absorbed

Thus it seems,

with

compliance

that while the
to

policy

and

regulations, the goal of their service is thwarted by those
very policies.
The
programs

issue of increasing costs to provide
for

special

education

students

educational

questions

the

efficiency of the current instructional delivery system. An
editorial

in the New York Times,

reports on the issue

cost.
The New York City school
system's
special
education program was designed to help mentally,
physically or emotionally handicapped children
who c a n ’t cope in regular classrooms.
Yet the
program seems misused,
at enormous expense as it
enrolls more and more children who are not
seriously impaired.
...over the years special
education
has become a dumping ground
for
students able to function well in regular classes
if only they had the remedial help and individual
attention once available.
The number of students
in special education has tripled since 1974 ...to
twelve percent of the school population but it
consumes
twenty-three percent of the school
system's $4 billion budget (April 30, 1985).

of

48

Complicated
populations

economic

relationships

Special

education

is

a

competes with other social services.
education

also

competes

financial resources.

amount

special
available

Regular

when

of students are identified and require

services.

providing

arise

each

school

service

with general

education services
for

regular

and

and

Additionally, special
education

for

" When the amount of money spent

educators

adversaries,

social

new

is

increased,

education

is

special educators

on
the

decreased.

may

become

competing for more of a small amount of

money appropriated for education"

(Yesseldyke &

Algozzine,

1984, p. 394).
Further
education

competition exists internally in the
system.

available

to

decisions

must

fact

"within

provide services

the overall pool
to

be made about who is to be

programs.

If

a

to educate handicapped students,

personnel

decide

be

available

for

the

educating

This
various

of money

and if

spend a greater proportion

money on education of deaf students,

monies

served.

fixed amount

available

to

of

handicapped students,

creates competition for resources among

categorical

special

is

school
of

that

then less money

will

other

kinds

of students"

(Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1984, p. 409).
The

resources needed to finance ideals

in

education

are limited, and major questions arise regarding the limits
of

responsibility for funding.

provide

all

"Schools are required

services that students need,

including

to
such

49

related

services

counseling,
personnel
agencies

as

speech

and

language

therapy,

physical therapy, or medical services.
must work out interagency agreements with

on

who

will

pay

Algozzine,

for

therelated

1984,

p.

&

competition

with other social agencies has in many

resulted in adversarial relationships,
the

interaction

summarized

or

lack

local

services"

(Yesseldyke

in

School

410).

However,
cases,

and ideals are lost

ofinteraction.

the complexity and the losses

Craig

associated

with

the current funding process when she wrote:
Prior to the passage of P.L. 94-142, schools did
not hesitate
to recommend such resources as
psychological
counseling
or
physical
or
occupational
therapy for students in need of
these services.
Since
the passage of this
omnibus act,
however,
school personnel
have
become
reticent about discussing the need for
such resources with parents
because of their
responsibility
for assuring that services are
provided;
in many schools informal policies have
been established that discourage teachers
from
initiating discussions with parents about the
possible need for noninstructional resources that
cannot be provided directly by the the school.
Thus
the intent of the law, which is to enhance
and expand
the availability and provision
of
necessary
services
for
the handicapped...has
actually created disincentives
for school to
identify these students needs
(Craig,
1981,
p.
1 2 ).
When

the

cost of assessing and evaluating a

student

equals or exceeds the cost of educating the student for one
year (Davis & Smith, 1984) in a program which is presumably
designed to meet specific needs of students with a specific
categorical
program

label

but

which looks

for other children with other

suspiciously
categorical

like

a

labels

50

and/or

the educational program from which the student

referred,

then

the

efficiency

of

the

system

was

must

be

seriously questioned.
Rationale for a Merger
Advocates
general

for

education

first,

the

the

merger of special

base their arguments on

instructional

needs of the

warrant the operation of a dual system;
system

unnecessarily

creates

education
two

make

"The

groups

do

not

and second, a dual

inefficiency.

They

argue

special and

designation of arbitrary cutoffs does not

students any more different between the

regular

premises:

students

there are not two distinct types of students —
regular.

and

than

within these

groups"

special

and

(Stainback

&

Stainback, 1984. p. 103).
While

individualization

programming
increasing

is

important

recognition

for

in
all

basic

educational

students,

there

in both special education

is

(Lloyd,

1984) and regular education (Goodlad, 1983) that individual
differences
students
Lloyd

among students do not necessarily

imply

that

should be given different educational treatments.
posits

interaction’

that

based

research,

on

the

'aptitude-treatment

there is considerable doubt on the

practice of individualizing or assigning students according
to the remedial,

compensatory, or preferred learning style

training models (Lloyd, 1984). "while instructional methods
needs

to

be

tailored

to individual

characteristics and

51

needs, few,
applicable
students"
A
is

if any, can be clearly dichotomized into those
only

for special students or only for

regular

(Stainback & Stainback, 1984, p. 103).

second premise on which the rationale for a

based

focuses

systems.

The

on the inefficiency

dual

system

creates

of
an

merger

operating

two

unnecessary

and

expensive need to classify students (Stainback & Stainback,
1984).

Classifying

characteristics
educational

is

students

according to one or

minimally useful in planning

program

and

is

an

inefficient

determining program participants.
practices
of

classification

Biklen,
Young,

a

few
total

model

for

However, classification

continue in spite of the fact that a combination

professional

students

a

and

is
is

& Bogdan,

opinion

and

research

indicate

often done unreliably,
of little
1977;

it

instructional

Gables,

that

stereotypes

value

Hendrickson,

(Blatt,
Shores, &

1983; Potter, Yesseldyke, Began, & Algozzine, 1983;

Stainback & Stainback, 1984).
Additionally,
fostered

the

operation

of a

dual

system

unnecessary competition and duplication.

has

Lortie

(1978) comments:
The historical separation of special and regular
educators
has taken its toll in the relations
between
them;
shared viewpoints and mutual
understanding,
it
appears,
are not the rule.
Educators
outside
special education are often
perceived as either
indifferent
to,
or even
prejudiced
against,
the needs of
children
considered handicapped.
Special educators,
on
the other hand,
sometimes project the attitudes
of an embattled group with its "them versus us"
mentality (Lortie, 1978, p. 236).

52

Duplication is often found in research and
projects,

college

and

university

evaluation

training

programs,

purchase of instructional material and equipment, hiring of
personnel,
funding

and

operations of accounting,

mechanisms.

Furthermore,

monitoring

the

dual

and

system

unnecessarily reduces, or unnecessarily duplicates, a range
of curricular options available to students.
Summary; Current Issues
"Dichotomizing
and regular),
separate

students into two basic types (special

and maintaining

professional

a dual system of education,

organizations,

separate

personnel

preparation programs, and separate funding patterns do very
little
and

to foster the values inherent in the

mainstreaming

integration movement of the past decade"

Stainback, 1984, p. 109).
two

(Stainback

The move towards a merger of the

systems does not in any way discredit the efforts

successes of special education.
education

&

On the contrary,

and

special

has been very successful in fulfilling its

goal

of inclusion of handicapped citizens into the mainstream of
life

and

handicapped students in a free

and

educational setting.

However,

separating

student population into

does,
A

dual

forms

America's

appropriate

the continuing practice of
two

groups

it seems, work contrary to the integration movement.
system,

by its very existence can

sanction

of discrimination and reduce opportunity

opportunity

for

both

general

and

special

for

some
equal

education

53

students.
to

"With careful planning,

it should be possible

meet the unique needs of all student within one unified

system

of

differences,

education— a
but

rather

system
a

accommodates for differences"
p. 109).

that

system that

does

not

recognizes

deny
and

(Stainback & Stainback, 1984,

CHAPTER XXX
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
In Chapter III an analysis of existing data
identification

and

mainstreaming practices of 528

districts

in

describes

the procedures followed to develop

mean

Michigan is presented.

identification

diagnostic

rate

categories:

emotionally impaired,
(EMI).

for three
learning

first

section

a

statewide

special

education

disabilities,

(LD),

The development of three identification ranges

second

statewide
rating

The

school

(El), and educable mentally impaired,

high, middle and low —
The

regarding

is discussed.

section

describes the

development

of

mean Instructional Time in the Mainstream
for

the

three

special

education

diagnostic

The

formulation

Instructional

Time

in

Instructional

Time in the Mainstream (L-ITM) is discussed.

In

the

final

section,

Mainstream

the

two

(I T M )

categories.

the

of

a

rates.

(H-ITM)

mainstreaming

identification ranges are aggregated.

and

rates

The chapter

High
Low

and
closes

with a descriptive portrayal of the mainstreaming practices
of

489 public school districts identifying LD,

students within various identification ranges.

54

El and EMI

55

Identification Measures
State Mean Identification Rates and Ranges for
Three Diagnostic Categories
Beginning with Michigan's 529 public school districts,
the 1984-1985 student enrollment for each district, ages 617,

was

examined to determine a State identification rate

for

three types of mildly handicapped

disabilities

(LD),

Detroit

learning

emotionally impaired (El), and educable

mentally impaired (EMI).
the

students;

Because of its uncomparable

size

Public School system was eliminated from

examination.

the

An identification rate for each of the three

categories

were

computed for each of

the

districts.

Two sources provided by the Michigan Department

of Education were used in the examination:
4568

and

Bulletin

1014:

Michigan

remaining

528

Source Form, SE

K-12

Public

School

Districts Ranked by Selected Financial Data
Each
Department

year

Michigan's

compiles

education

student

category,

(b)

the

individual

count

age

as reported

group,

and

(c)

Education

Service

district's

special

by

(a)

primary

referenced

against the state aid membership count obtained
annually

identification

rate

published

These

educational

(Source

the

SE:4568).

diagnostic

placement

from

Form

Special

BULLETIN

data

1014.

for each of the three categories

were

An
for

528 school districts in Michigan was computed.
Variation
individual

in

districts

the

identification

efforts

of

the

across the state is indicated by the

56

range
the

of

the identification rates established for each of

categories.

identify

0%

Michigan school districts,

as a

- 22% of the student population as

group,
learning

disabled, 0% - 12% of the student population as emotionally
impaired,

and

0%

- 14%

of

the

student

population

as

school districts also varied as to the number

of

educable mentally impaired.
The
the three
45

diagnostic categories identified.

districts

impaired

students, 29

emotionally
identify
district's

failed

to identify

learning

student

example,

educable

mentally

districts failed to identify

impaired students,
any

any

For

any

and 5 districts failed

disabled

population.

students

within

the

Furthermore,

eight

districts

identified only learning disabled

students,

district

identified only emotionally impaired students

three districts identified only educable mentally
students.

The

to

one
and

impaired

highest district identification rate

when

combining

the three diagnostic categories was 49% (22% LD,

12.5% El,

14.5% EMI),

rate was .96% (.48% LD,
Data
an

from

Intermediate

could

.24% El,

could

were

eliminated

districts
each

identification

.24% EMI).

39 school districts were reported
School District (ISD) student

not be extrapolated.

rate

for

the lowest district

Therefore,

count

the

study,

in the population.
of

the

three

leaving

and

489

A mean identification

special

and

an identification

not be established for 39 districts
from

through

education

they
school
rate

diagnostic

57

categories

for

the school year 1984-1985 was

established

from this population and are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
STATE MEAN IDENTIFICATION RATES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC
CATEGORIES: LD, E l r EMI: 1984-1985
ID RATE : CATEGORY
.0336
.0092
.0069

Attempting
identification
diagnostic

to

: Learning Disabilities
: Emotionally Impaired
: Educable Mentally Impaired

control

efforts,

category

for

variation

in

district

an identification range for

was established by

mean identification rate by 50%.

each

incrementing

the

The identification ranges

established are presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
STATE IDENTIFICATION RANGES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC
CATEGORIES: LD, El, EMI: 1984-1985
HIGH
>.050
>.014
>.010

MID
.050 - .017
.014 - .005
.010 - .004

LOW
<.017
<.005
<.004

:Category
:LD
:EI
:EMI

Aggregated Identification Rates for Three Diagnostic
Categories by District
Three
Michigan

hundred and eighty-one school districts
(78%)

identified

the

learning

population within the mid-identification range,
districts
range

and

(12%) identifying above
51

the

across

disabilities
leaving 57

mid-identification

districts (10%) identifying below the mid­

58

identification range. Two hundred and fifty districts (51%)
identified

the emotionally impaired population within

mid-identification

range,

identifying

the

districts
range.
the

above

Two

95

districts

mid-identification range

(29%) identifying below

the

(19%)
and

identified

educable mentally impaired population within the

identifying
districts

range,

above

the

leaving

65

144

mid-identification

hundred and forty districts (49%)

identification

3.3

leaving

the

mid­

districts

mid-identification range

(38%) below the mid-identification

(13%)
and

range.

184
Table

compares 489 school districts identification rates for

the three special education diagnostic categories.
Table 3.3
IDENTIFICATION RANGES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES BY
DISTRICT: 1984-1985

# DIST.
% DIST.

# DIST.
% DIST.

# DIST.
% DIST.

HIGH
>.050
57
.117

LEARNING DISABILITIES
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
MID
LOW
.050 -.017
<.017
381
51
.779
.104

HIGH
>.014
95
.194

EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
MID
LOW
.014 -.005
<.005
250
144
.511
.295

HIGH
>.010
65
.133

EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
LOW
MID
.010 -.004
<.004
240
184
.491
.376

TOTALS
489
100

TOTALS
489
100

TOTALS
489
100

The
the

489 districts were further examined to

number of

diagnostic

three

districts that identified all three of

categories within the mid-identification

established
number

determine

for

each

category.

Table 3.4

of Michigan school districts which
diagnostic categories within the

the
range

presents

the

identified

all

mid-identification

range.
Table 3.4
AGGREGATED IDENTIFICATION RATES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC
CATEGORIES: LD, El, EMI.
LD
El
EMI
(1)
NUMB
DIST.
PRCT
DIST.

LD
El*
EMI
(3)

LD
El
EMI*
(2)

LD*
El
EMI
(4 )

LD
El*
EMI*
(5)

LD*
El
EMI*
(6)

LD*
El*
EMI
(7)

LD*
El* TOTAL
EMI*
(8)

112

94

89

20

91

25

19

39

489

.23

.19

.18

.04

.19

.05

.04

.08

100

*

= Identification rate outside of mid-identification
range.
{ ) = Column identification number.

As indicated in column one, 112 districts (23%) across
the

state of Michigan identify all three of the diagnostic

categories

within the mid-identification range established

for each of the categories. The variation in identification
procedures across

the

is shown

remaining

and
that

in

fourth

the

columns

identify

two

Michigan

public

columns.

present the
diagnostic

school

districts

The second,

number
categories

of

third

districts
within

the

60

mid-identification
outside

range leaving one

category

of the mid-identification range as depicted by

asterisk
number

(*).
of

Columns

five

through seven

school districts that identify

present

one

category within the mid-identification range,
diagnostic

categories

identification range.
of

identified

identified

an
the

diagnostic
leaving

outside

two

the

mid­

The last column presents the number

districts showing the most variation in

identification

procedures.

Thirty-nine Michigan school districts identify

all

diagnostic

three

categories

outside

of

the

mid­

identification range.
The
from

variation

the

fiscal

in identification

existing data can be accounted for

arrangements between neighboring

districts

categories

an

categories

in

part

districts.

by
Some

are

and students identified in

transferred from

another for educational services.
reports

observed

provide center programs for emotionally impaired

and mentally impaired students,
these

practices

increased

student

one

district

The receiving
population

to

district

for

while the sending district reports no

these
students

identified in these categories.
Other sources of variation in identification practices
among

school

explained.

districts,
Definitions

however,
of

handicapping

listed in federal and state laws.
are

are

not

so

easily

conditions

are

Furthermore, conditions

defined and criteria for the conditions are listed

laws and the guidelines and regulations

in

accompanying those

61

laws.

However, as Ysseldyke & Algozzine,

"both

federal and state officials often list

fairly

'loose'

criteria,

responsibility
criteria

for

on

local

and

(1984) point out,
nonspecific,

this fact puts

a

school officials who

deciding whether

individual

eligible for special education services"

lot

must

have

students

(p.

of

156).

are
Thus

special education students may be called different names in
different

districts because the criteria or conditions are

interpreted differently among district personnel.
is
from

not

unusual to have a learning disabled

one

school

district only to become

Thus, it

student
an

move

emotionally

impaired student in another school district.
Since
are

classification practices in

essentially

receive

arbitrary,

services

special

attitudes

may differ

among

involved in diagnostic procedures.

about

education
who

district

should

personnel

However, classification

practices strongly influence mainstreaming practices.

For

example,

22%

of

the

more

it is probable that districts which identify
school population as learning disabled

learning

identify

disabled

students

than

mainstream

districts

under 1% of the population as learning

that

disabled.

While the time, effort and resources needed to untangle the
sources
Drocedures

and
may

understanding
in this study,
district

effects of
prove

to

variation
be

in

informative

identification
to

the

broad

of mainstreaming practices under examination
an indepth examination of the variation in

identification

procedures

across

the

state is

62

beyond

the

scope

mainstreaming
practices,
a

districts

most

of

the

(high,

populations

for

since

identification

mainstreaming

identified

within

ranges

Nevertheless,

are influenced by

homogeneously

identification

districts

study.

comparison

grouped

homogeneous

this

practices
any

requires

of

practices

population.
three

middle

The

established

and

low)

comparison.

The

provide
group

of

in the mid-identification range demonstrates the

homogeneous

district

population

for

examining

mainstreaming practices among school districts and, for the
purpose of this study, became the population of interest.
Instructional Time in the M~instream (ITM) Measures
State Mean Instruction Time in the Mainstream (ITM) Rates
for Three Diagnostic Categories
A second rating,
(ITM),

was

districts.

Instructional Time in the Mainstream

established
Information

4568

indicates

each

needed

obtained from Source Form:
Form:

for

of

the

4568.

As noted above,

the primary placement

students

available

for

Michigan

school special education classrooms,

As

defined

determined

of

by
by

the

clock

hours.

special

all

the

education
(b)

homebound,

primary
Thus

source

public

(c) separate facility,

(hospitals,
state,

was

Primary placement

are (a) regular education classroom,

and (d) other environments

school

to develop the index

special education students in Michigan.
alternatives

489

a

etc.).

placement

special

is

education

student spending 2.5 hours per day in the regular education

63

classroom is reported as a student with a primary placement
in the regular classroom.
District
rates

for

Instructional Time in the

Mainstream

(ITM)

each of the three diagnostic

categories

were

established
District

for each of the 489 Michigan school districts.

ITM

rates

were calculated

by

referencing

the

number of students in each of the three categories assigned
to

the general education classroom against the

total
The

number of students in each of the three

district's
categories.

district ITM ratings for each of the three

categories

varied

as

extensively as

did

diagnostic

the

districts

identification ratings.
Ninety-four

districts

(19%) mainstreamed all

identified learning disabled students,

while 20

of

the

districts

(4%) mainstreamed no identified learning disabled students.
One

hundred and three districts (21%) mainstreamed all

of

the

identified

34

district

(7%)

emotionally
mainstreaming

impaired students.

impaired
no

students,

identified

97

emotionally

Sixty-five districts (13%) mainstreamed

all of the identified educable mentally impaired
while

with

districts

(20%)

mainstreamed

no

students,
identified

educable mentally impaired students.
By

averaging

the district ITM rates for each of

three diagnostic categories across 489 school districts,

the
a

statewide,

mean ITM rate for each of the three

diagnostic

categories

was established and are presented in Table 3.5.

64

Table 3.5
STATE MEAN INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM (ITM)
RATES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES:L D , El, EMI.
ITM
72
59
33

CATEGORY
: Learning Disabled
: Emotionally Impaired
: Educable Mentally Impaired

Aggregated Instructional Time in the Mainstream for
Three Diagnostic Categories
Using the statewide
Instructional

mean ITM rate as a basis, a High-

Time in the Mainstream (H-ITM) range

and

a

Low-Instructional Time in the Mainstream (L-ITM) range were
developed. The H-ITM range for each of the three categories
includes the mean ITM through a 100% rate.
includes

rates

The L-ITM range

from 0% to the mean ITM rate.

compares the number of districts which mainstream

Table

3.6

students

in the three diagnostic categories at an established

H-ITM

and L-ITM rate.
Table 3.6
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM (ITM) RATES FOR THREE
DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES BY DISTRICT: 1984-1985
LEARNING DISABILITIES
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM

* DIST
% DIST

HIGH-ITM
(72% - 100%)

L0W-ITM
(0% - 71%)

298
.61

191
.39

TOTALS
489
100

65

Table 3.6, continued
EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM
HIGH-ITM
(59% - 100%)
# DIST.
% DIST.

LOW-ITM
(0% - 58%)

276
.56

TOTALS

213
.44

489
100

EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM
HIGH-ITM
(33% - 100%)
# DIST.
% DIST.

489

determine
three

284
.58

205
.42

The

school

the

established

for

489
100

districts were further

number of districts that

diagnostic

TOTALS

LOW-ITM
(0% - 32%)

categories

within

each category.

examined

mainstreamed
a

H-ITM

Table 3.7

presents

to
all

range
the

number of Michigan school districts that mainstream each of
the three diagnostic categories at a H-ITM rate.
Table 3.7
AGGREGATED INSTRUCTIONAL TIME IN THE MAINSTREAM FOR THREE
DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES: LD, El, EMI.
LD
El
EMI
(1)
NUMB
DIST
PRCT
DIST

LD
El
EMI(2)

LD
EIEMI
(3)

LDEl
EMI
(4)

LD
EIEMI(5)

LDEI
EMI(6)

LDEIEMI
(7)

LDEI- TOTAL
EMI(8)

131

. 84

30

39

50

34

16

115

489

.27

.17

.06

.07

.10

.07

.03

.23

100

Low-Instructional Time in the Mainstream (L-ITM) Rate

66

The

mainstreaming rates across Michigan public school

districts
rates
of

vary

as extensively as

observed above.

school

districts

consistently.
mainstream

that

mainstream

mainstream

of

present

two

one

depicted

at

a H-XTM

the

diagnostic

category

by

rate
(27%)

the diagnostic categories

The variation in the mainstreaming

columns

leaving

identification

Column one (1) presents the number

is shown in the remaining columns.
fourth

the

One hundred and thirty-one districts

all three

H-ITM rate.

do

categories

mainstreamed

a hyphen (-).

of

Columns

third and

districts
at

at a
five

a

practices

The second,

number

at

that

a H-ITM
L-ITM

rate

rate

through

as

seven

present the numbers of school districts that mainstream one
diagnostic category at a H-ITM rate, leaving two diagnostic
categories

mainstreamed ata L-ITM rate.

The last column

presents the number of school districts showing
mainstreaming
districts

rates.

One

hundred

and

the

lowest

fifteen

school

(23%) mainstream all three diagnostic categories

at a L-ITM rate.
The

variation

in

mainstreaming

practices

existing

across the state of Michigan as demonstrated above was
central focus of this research study.

the

67

Comparison of Michigan's School Districts Identification
Ranges and Instructional Time in the Mainstream Rate
ITM Rates within Identification Ranges
Mainstreaming

rates

for three diagnostic

for 489 school districts grouped into three
ranges were examined.
of

mainstreaming

categories

identification

Variation existed over the patterns

services for the three

categories.

Of

particular interest for this study are the school districts
that

have identified mildly handicapped population

within

the mid-identification range.
Two

hundred and ninety-eight school

mainstream

the

population
(39%)

identified

at a H-ITM rate,

learning

districts
disabled

leaving 191 school

(61%)
student

districts

mainstreaming learning disabled students at a

rate.

Of

the

489 districts,

381 (78%)

districts

L-ITM
fall

within the mid-identification range.
Two hundred and seventy-six Michigan school
(56%)

mainstream

student

population

districts
students

(44%)

identified

fall

hundred

mainstreaming

mainstream

within

and
the

five

leaving

impaired
213

emotionally

school
impaired

Of the 489 districts, 250 (51%)
the

mid-identification

M'chigan

identified

school

educable

student population at a H-ITM rate,
(58%)

emotionally

at a H-ITM rate,

at a L-ITM rate.

districts
Two

the

districts

range.

districts

(42%)

mentally

impaired

leaving 284

districts

mainstreaming educable mentally impaired students at

a L-ITM rate.

Of the 489 districts, 240 (49%) fall within

the mid-identification range.

68

Table

3.8

presents

ITM

rates

within

three

identification ranges for 489 Michigan school districts.
Table 3.8
ITM RATES WITHIN THREE IDENTIFICATION RANGES FOR THREE
DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES: 1984-1985
LEARNING DISABILITIES
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
HIGH
>.050

MID
.050 -.017

LOW
<.017

TOTAL

DISTRICT ITM
H-ITM
PERCENT
L-ITM
PERCENT

38
.08
19
.04

231
.47
150
.31

29
.06
22
.04

298
.61
191
.39

DIST. TOTALS

57

381

51

489

LOW
<.005

TOTAL

EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
HIGH
>.014
DISTRICT ITM
H-ITM
PERCENT
L-ITM
PERCENT
DIST. TOTALS

MID
014 -.005

57
.12
38
.08

154
.31
96
.20

65
.13
79
.16

276
.56
213
.44

95

250

144

489

LOW
<.003

TOTAL

EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED
IDENTIFICATION RANGE
HIGH
>.010

MID
.010 -.004

DISTRICT ITM
H-ITM
PERCENT
L-ITM
PERCENT

22
.04
43
.09

104
.21
136
.28

79
.16
105
.21

205
.42
284
.58

DIST. TOTALS

65

240

184

489

69

Aggregated ITM Rates and Aggregated Identification Ranges
Charting
demonstrate

the 489 school districts into

practices follows.

Table 3.9 portrays

groupings that exist when comparing

rates within similar identification ranges.
the

table

Column

demonstrate

one

least

(1)

district

three

categories

identification

range.

in
are

efforts.

demonstrate

identified
eight

ITM

The columns of

identification

Column

the

similar

identification

portrays districts that

amount of variation

all

which

homogeneous identification efforts and similar

mainstreaming
district

groups

practices:

within
(8)

the

a

mid­

portrays

the

districts that demonstrate the most amount of variation
identification

practices:

all

three

in

categories

are

identified outside of the mid-identification range.
The

rows of the table demonstrate

efforts.

Row

the

mainstreaming

one portrays districts which mainstream all

three categories of the mildly handicapped population at
H-ITM

rate.

mainstream

Row

eight

portrays

the

districts

all three categories of the mildly

a

that

handicapped

population at a L-ITM rate.
As
school
efforts.

observed in Table 3.9:
districts

demonstrate

These districts,

Column

one

similar

(Total),

112

identification

23% of the 489 school district

population, identify three categories of mildly handicapped
students

within

(Total)

indicate

a

mid-identification
that

131

range.

districts

Row

one

demonstrate

70

Table 3.9
COMPARISON OF AGGREGATED ITM RATES FOR THREE DIAGNOSTIC
CATEGORIES WITHIN AGGREGATED IDENTIFICATION RANGES
Variation
Low

COMBINED IDENTIFICATION RANGES
LD
El
EMI
(1)

H
i
g
h
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
A
M
I
N
G
R
A
T
E
S
L
o
w

LD
El
EMI*
(2)

LD
El*
EMI
(3)

LD*
El
EMI
(4)

LD
El*
EMI*
(5)

LD*
El
EMI*
(6)

Variation
High

LD*
El*
EMI
(7)

LD*
El* TOTAL
EMI *
(8)

LD
El
EMI

30

27

21

7

24

8

5

9

131
.268

LD
El
EMI-

14

25

13

1

17

4

1

9

84
.172

LD
EIEMI

6

5

7

0

7

0

0

5

30
.061

LDEI
EMI

6

6

6

3

2

1

1

4

29
.059

LD
EIEMI-

13

5

9

1

13

3

2

4

50
.102

LDEI
EMI-

9

8

2

2

6

3

3

1

34
.070

LDEIEMI

4

2

5

1

1

0

2

1

16
.033

30

16

26

5

21

6

5

6

115
.235

19
91
25
.186 .051 .039

39
.080

489
100

LDEIEMI-

TOTAL
PRCNT.

112
229

94
89
20
.192 .182 .041

* = Identification rate is outside mid -identification range
= Mainstreaming rate is L-ITM

71

similar

effort

in

i.ginstreaming students

diagnostic categories.

district population,

mildly

handicapped students at a H-ITM

effort

indicates

the

three

These 131 districts, 27% of the 489

school

(Total)

in

mainstream all three types of
rate.

Row

that 115 districts demonstrate

in mainstreaming the three

diagnostic

eight
similar

categories.

These districts, 24% of the 489 school district population,
mainstream

all three types of mildly handicapped

students

at a L-ITM rate.
The

mapping

identification
research

of

Michigan

school

districts

on

and mainstreaming practices resulted in two

groups for the study.

The 30 districts

in

the

first cell (column one, row one) mainstream at a H-ITM rate
when the identification rate is held constant within a mid­
identification
one,

row

range.

eight)

identification
identification

The 30 districts in cell 57 (column

mainstream

rate

is

range.

held

at a L-ITM
constant

The

two

rate
within

when
the

the
mid­

groups

demonstrated

contrasting mainstreaming practices within a

homogeneously

identified special education population.
30

These two sets of

school districts served as the research groups for

tests of hypotheses in the study.

the

CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a description of the methodology
for
and

the study.
the

The major research question is

presented.

A

description of the general research design is provided

and

the

for

population

selecting
level

eight

the

hypotheses

tested

are

discussed

of interest is defined.
research groups for

The process

testing

the

district

hypotheses and the process for selecting the

population

for

presented.

testing the building level hypotheses

Instrumentation

collection

sample

are discussed.

and

procedures

for

The chapter concludes

are
data

with

a

rationale for the procedures and analysis of the study.
Major Research Question and Hypotheses
The dual purpose of the study was,
and

describe

the

first, to identify

mainstreamed population in

the

school districts across the State of Michigan and,

public
second,

to identify system characteristics associated with high and
low

rates of mainstreaming.

addressed
exist

in this study was whether or

between

organization
educators

The major research

in

system

not

characteristics of

question

relationships
an

educational

and rates of mainstreaming (ITM) reported
the

organization.
72

It was

by

postulated that

73

school districts mainstreaming an above average
of

the

districts
the

mildly handicapped population differ
mainstreaming

mildly

handicapped

characteristics.

Also,

a

below

average

population

on

percentage
from

school

percentage
several

it was speculated that

of

system
variation

associated with system characteristics correlated with high
and

low mainstreaming rates would be more localized at the

building

level

rather

educational organizations.

than

the

district

level

in

The major research question of

the study is presented as follows.
Does
a
relationship exist
between
system
characteristics of an educational organization
and the rates of mainstreaming reported by educa­
tors in the organization?
Eight hypotheses speculating on a relationship between
mainstreaming
and

individual

rates and system characteristics at district
school building levels were

explore the research question.

developed

to

The eight major hypotheses

of the study are presented as follows.
DISTRICT LEVEL HYPOTHESES:
HYPOTHESIS 1:
There is no difference between the mean
per pupil expenditure for the basic
instructional
programs
in Michigan school districts with
a
High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and Michigan
school districts with a Low Instructional Time in the
Mainstream rating.
HYPOTHESIS 2:
There
is no difference between the mean
per pupil expenditure for the added needs instructional
programs
in Michigan school districts with
a
High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and Michigan
school districts with a Low Instructional Time in
the
Mainstream rating.

74

HYPOTHESIS 3:
There is no difference between the mean
teacher/pupil ratio in Michigan school districts with a
High Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and
Michigan school districts with a Low Instructional Time
in the Mainstream rating.
HYPOTHESIS 4:
There is no difference in the mean size
of Michigan school districts with a High Instructional
Time in the Mainstream rating and Michigan school
districts
with
a Low Instructional
Time in
the
Mainstream rating.
BUILDING LEVEL HYPOTHESES:
HYPOTHESIS 5:
There is no difference in the types of
general
education classes accessed by mainstreamed
students in schools within districts with a
High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and schools
within districts with a Low Instructional Time in the
Mainstream rating.
HYPOTHESIS 6:
There is no difference in the number of
'alternative
programs' available in
the
general
education programming in schools within districts with
High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and
schools within districts with a Low Instructional Time
in the Mainstream rating.
HYPOTHESIS 7:
There is no difference in the type of
'alternative
programs' in the
general
education
programming available in schools within districts with a
High Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and
schools within districts with a Low Instructional Time
in the Mainstream rating.
HYPOTHESIS 8: There is no difference in the number of
special education referrals received in schools within
districts with a High Instructional Time
in
the
Mainstream rating and schools within districts with
Low Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating.
Design of the Study
Two
analysis

methods of research were employed for the

study:

of

survey

existing data and

design (Babbie,
tested
K-12

using
School

1973).

a

cross-sectional

The district level hypotheses were

data obtained

from

Bulletin 1014: Michigan

Districts Ranked by Selected

Financial

Data

75

(1983).

The

bulletin

Education

for

the

is

State

regarding district size,

published
of

by

Michigan

the

Board

and provided data

teacher/pupil ratio and per pupil

expenditures

for the basic instructional programs and

added

instructional programs.

needs

hypotheses,

the

using

gathered

data

sectional
and

building

survey.

The second

level hypotheses,

from

questionnaires

school

information
the

set

were
in

the
of

tested

a

cross-

Questionnaires were sent to principals

special education teachers in all the

middle

of

buildings

in

19

elementary

school

districts.

and
The

was analyzed using the Statistical Package for

Social

Sciences,

(SPSS:

Nie,

Hull,

Jenkins,

Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975).
Procedures for Selecting the Sample Population
The population of interest for the study was the local
public

school

Preliminary

district

examination

in
of

the

state

of

existing data

Michigan.

regarding

the

number of LD, El, and EMI students mainstreamed in Michigan
school districts was conducted.

It was established that 39

school districts operated their special education
through
School

a

cooperative arrangement within an

District

(ISD)

organization.

The

programs

Intermediate
mainstreaming

practices of these 39 districts could not be determined and
the districts were eliminated from the study.
analysis
was

of data from the remaining 489

undertaken

to determine district

school

Preliminary
districts

identification

and

76

mainstreaming measures.

Development of these measures are

discussed in Chapter III.
Sample

Population for Testing District Level

From

the

Hypotheses

data analysis regarding identification

and

mainstreaming practices of Michigan school districts it was
determined

that

112 school districts identify

diagnostic

categories within a

mid-identification

(LD 5.0%-l.7% / El 1.4%-.5% / EMI 1.0%-.4%).
112

districts,

students
rate:

in

only

30 mainstreamed mildly

72%-100%

Contrastingly,

30

/

El

school

59%-100%
district

/

three
range:

Within these
handicapped

the three diagnostic categories

(LD

all

at

EMI

a

H-ITM

33%-100%).

mainstreamed

mildly

handicapped students in the three diagnostic categories
a L-ITM rate:
two

groups

similar

(LD 0%-71% / El 0%-58% / EMI
of

30 school

districts,

identification

efforts,

0%-32%).

at
The

each

demonstrating

but

contrasting

mainstreaming efforts, were used as the research groups for
testing the district level hypotheses.
Sample Population for Testing Building Level Hypotheses
Prior to selecting a sample of districts to survey for
testing the building level hypotheses,

attention was given

to two considerations: first, location of special education
programs in the district,
was

speculated

that

and,

second, district size.

the location

of

special

classrooms

across the district would effect

practices.

For example,

if

the

majority

It

education

mainstreaming
of the special

77

education classrooms in a district were concentrated in one
or two school buildings then a handicapped student's access
to

the

general

However,

if

education programming might

the

special

education

be

limited.

classrooms

district were more evenly distributed among the

in

the

district's

buildings then a handicapped student might have more access
to the general education programming.
of

18

directors

research

groups

randomly

selected

of

special

Therefore,

education

from

of 3 0 H-ITM and 3 0 L-ITM

a total
the

two

districts

were

and surveyed by phone to determine

the

location of special classrooms in their districts.
The

directors

activities

were

told that

preliminary

research

regarding mainstreaming practices in the

state

of Michigan had been conducted over the past six months and
further information was needed.
of

each

district

elementary
and

education
location

and middle

The surveyor read the name
school

building

asked the director to describe

programming that existed in the
of

in

any

the

special

building.

the special education classrooms in

The

eighteen

districts was established.
The

18

districts contacted varied in the

number

elementary and middle school buildings existing with
boundaries.
two

to

three

districts

their

The number of elementary buildings ranged from

buildings

schools

of

to

15 buildings.

The

number

of

middle

located in the surveyed districts ranged from
buildings.
located

Twenty-two percent of the

one

surveyed

special education classrooms in 50%-75%

78

of

the

elementary

Thirty-nine
education

percent

school

of

classrooms

buildings.
special

school

The

buildings

in

the 18 districts
in

75%-80%

classrooms

of

in all

buildings in the district.

district.

located special
the

remaining seven districts

education

the

of

elementary

(38%)
the

located

elementary

It was determined from

the telephone survey that special education classrooms were
not

concentrated in a single building in school

districts

and

this issue should not be a concern when selecting

sample population of school districts to test the

the

building

level hypotheses.
A

second consideration before selecting the districts

for testing the building level hypotheses was the
size.

Results

indicated

the

of

mainstreaming

the district level hypotheses

size of the school district is

mainstreaming

district

rates

(ITM)

with

large

testing

related

to

districts

handicapped students at a L-ITM rate.

Thus

the sample of districts selected to test the building level
hypotheses required a greater number of L-ITM districts
order

in

for the sample to more representative of the general

population.
A listing of Michigan school districts grouped into 13
levels of membership size was obtained from Bulletin
a

document

Education.

published
Table

districts in the 13
Schools

District

4.1

by

the

presents

levels.
was

Michigan
the

State
number

One district,

eliminated

1014,

Board
of

of

school

Detroit Public

due to the unparalleled

79

size of the district.
number

of

H-ITM

Additionally/ the table presents the

and

L-ITM

districts

in

each

of

the

membership levels.
Table 4.1
NUMBER OP MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND NUMBER OF H-ITM AND
L-ITM DISTRICTS IN THIRTEEN LEVELS OF MEMBERSHIP SIZE
MEMBERSHIP
SIZE
0
501
1/001
1,501
2,001
2,501
3,001
3,501
4,001
4,501
5,001
10,001
20,001

NUMBER OF
SCH. DIST

500
- 1,000
- 1,500
- 2,000
- 2,500
- 3,000
- 3,500
- 4,000
- 4,500
- 5,000
- 10,000
- 20,000
- 50,000

TOTAL

NUMBER OF
H-ITM DIST

NUMBER OF
L-ITM DIST

43
90
87
69
56
40
27
17
19
11
50
13
6

2
4
8
1
8
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0

0
1
4
6
3
4
2
1
0
1
5
2
1

528

30

30

The 13 levels were collapsed into four membership size
levels

with approximately the same number of districts

each level.
districts at

in

The percentage of the total number of Michigan
each level was used as a guide to select

the

number of H-ITM and L-ITM districts from each level for the
sample

population

used

in testing

the

building

level

hypotheses.

For example,

29.5% of the 528

school districts

fell

Level

Thus 29.5%

the

into

2.

of

H-ITM/L-ITM

districts/ also in Level 2, were selected at random as part
of

the

sample

population

to test

the

building

level

80

hypotheses.

Table

school

districts

Again,

the

4.2

of H-ITM/L-ITM districts

level is provided.
the

selected.

Since

to

mainstream

district

of

Michigan

in each of the established four

number

designates

presents the number

levels.

within

each

The number enclosed within parentheses

number

of of

H-ITM

or

L-ITM

it was determined large
at a L-ITM

from Level 3

and

rate,

one

districts

districts
additional

tend
L-ITM

two L-ITM districts from Level

4 were selected to develop a more representative sample.
Table 4.2
NUMBER OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND NUMBER OF H-ITM AND
L-ITM DISTRICTS IN FOUR LEVELS OF MEMBERSHIP SIZE
DISTRICT
SIZE

NUMBER
OF DIST

PERCENT
OF DIST

NUMB. OF
H-ITM

NUMB.OF
L-ITM

01,000

133

.252

6 (1)

1

(1)

1,0012,000

156

.295

9 (3)

10

(3)

2,0013,501

123

.233

12 (3)

9

(3)

3,50150,000

116

.220

3 (2)

10

(3)

TOTAL

528

100

30 (9)

The

19

school

districts

selected

30 (10)

represented

elementary school buildings and 21 middle school
for a total of 77 buildings.

56

buildings

81

Instrumentation
An instrumentation packet requesting information
administrators
school

and

buildings

examination

in

elementary
differ,

special education teachers in
was

developed

Appendix

and

middle

two

A.

is

Since

school

slightly

and

aged

the

available

77
for

programming
students

different

from

for

obviously

questionnaires

for

elementary and middle school administrators were developed.
The section requesting information regarding the types

and

numbers of alternative programs available in elementary and
middle

school varied on the administrators' questionnaires.

The remaining questions on the two questionnaires, however,
were

identical.

identical
the

Also,

except

question:

the teacher

questionnaires

for the listing of the grades

"Circle

the

grades

were

following

represented

in

your

classroom."
The
tested.

administrator's
The

questionnaire

teacher questionnaire,

was

not

however,

field

was

field

tested using elementary and middle school special education
teachers

attending a weekend,

teacher-subjects
small

were

graduate seminar.

representative of

districts across the State.

complete

the

questionnaire

minutes.

The

original

attitude

questions,

eliminated

from

large

The length of time

averaged

questionnaire
however,

both

The 31

these

approximately
contained

and
to
15

several

questions

the questionnaire as the study took

were
form

82

and

the type of information requested of the

the

final

Other

questionnaire

minor

was

factual

modifications

questionnaire

were

made

in

information

the

to

teachers

format

improve

in

only.

of

the

clarity

and

comprehension.
Procedures for Data Collection
The process used to collect data to test the
level

hypotheses

provided
process

by

was

an

examination

the Michigan Department

used

of
of

to collect data to test the

district

existing

data

Education.

The

building

level

hypotheses consisted of mailing packets to 77 principals of
elementary

and middle school buildings in the 19

selected

H-ITM/L-ITM districts.
The teacher questionnaires were included in the packet
sent

to

the

principal.

The

principal

was

asked

to

distribute a teacher questionnaire to any special education
teacher

consultant

and/or

special

education

teacher in the building who worked with LD,
students.
been

classroom

El, and/or EMI

Since 10 of the districts in the population had

contacted

in the phone survey,

the exact number

teacher questionnaires needed for the buildings was
Where

the

number

of special education

teachers

of

known.
in

the

building was unknown, the size of the building was examined
and

enough questionnaires were sent to cover the number of

special education teachers needed
enrollment.

The

number

for 10% of the

school’s

of teacher questionnaires sent to

83

the

schools

distributed

averaged

three

included

per

packet.

the information listed

The

packets

below:

(see

Appendix A ) .
1.

a personalized cover letter to the
principal
describing the broad purpose of the study and
directions
for distribution of the
teacher
questionnaires;

2.

one questionnaire for the principal
entitled:
Administrator1s Report:
School Y"ar 1984-1985;

3.

post paid, pre-addressed envelop for return data
from the principal; and

4.

addressed envelopes containing a questionnaire
for the special education teachers entitled:
Special Education Teacher Report:
School Year
1984-1985 and, a post paid, pre-addressed envelop
for return data from the teacher.
Analysis and Rationale
The

dual

different

purpose

types

of

the

study

of statistical analysis for the

questions and tests of hypotheses.
and

required

use

of

research

The research questions

hypotheses were primarily directed toward

discovering

and evaluating differences between effects, rather than the
effects themselves.
of

Thus, the analysis compared two groups

school districts with the group means as the basis

comparison.

The

for

data were analyzed using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences.
The
used

selection

process

of

the

research

groups

to test the district level hypotheses controlled

variation
districts.
research

in

identification practices

The
groups

among

528

for

school

process resulted in the development of two
which demonstrated

similar practices

in

84

identifying

handicapped students but contrasting practices

in mainstreaming those students:

one group mainstreamed at

a H-ITM rate while the other group mainstreamed at a

L-ITM

rate.
The first four hypotheses,

district level hypotheses,

speculated that no significant differences existed
high

and

level

of four system characteristics .

the

low

capability

testing

whether

mainstreaming districts on the amount

of computing the

A T-test

probability

levels

the

initially an F-test

sample variances was performed using an alpha level

.05.

for

sample

Since it was unknown whether

two populations had the same variance,

or

provided

or not the difference between the

means was significant.

of

between

of

The T-test analysis was then performed to determined

the

significance

means.

of the differences

An alpha level of

between

the

sample

.05 was also used for the T-test

of sample means.
The

F-test and T-test were also employed when testing

three of the four building level hypotheses.
6,

Hypotheses 5,

and 8 speculated on differences existing between school

buildings
alpha

in

mainstreaming

districts.

level of .05 was set for both the F-test and

analysis.
between

high and low

Hypothesis
the type

of

7,

speculating on the

alternative

programming

An

T-test

differences
available

in schools in H-ITM and L-ITM districts, was tested using a
chi-square test of statistical significance and the
exact

test

of

statistical

significance.

Fisher

The tests are

85

similar in purpose and each determines whether a systematic
relationship exists between two variables.
test

is employed when the sample populations are large

number

while

sample

numbers are low.

the Fisher exact test is employed

since

the

in

when

the

The chi-square test was used

test the elementary school population

findings.

due to fewer

middle schools in districts in the general

to

However,

number of principal-respondents for the

school groups was considerably less,
of

The chi-square

middle
numbers

population,

the Fisher exact test was used for the test of relationship
for the middle school population.
Summary
Questions
an

of whether or not system characteristics of

educational organization are related

practices

of

the

organization is

to

mainstreaming

exploratory

Throughout the research of literature,

research.

no reports of

this

type of questioning or research studies were located.

The

questioning is,
systems

however,

that are

understanding

to

of importance to the educational

interested

in

adding

the mandated provision

quality

and

of

mainstreamed

the

mainstreamed

programming.
The

study was

population

when

identification
allowed

for

characteristics

designed to define
the

practices
an

variables
are

associated

controlled.

exploration

into

with

The

design

whether

system

of the educational organization might

add

86

to

or

subtract

from mainstreaming

practices

in

school

districts.
This

chapter

has

presented

the

hypotheses used to begin the exploration.
o£

interest

research
the

questions
The

was defined and the processes to

and

population
select

groups and the sample population used in

the

testing

district and building level hypotheses were presented.

Finally,
hypotheses

the

statistical

analysis employed to

was discussed.

The findings of the

and hypotheses testing follow in Chapter V.

test

the

questions

CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Chapter

V

begins with a report of

cross-sectional survey.

response

presentation of the results of the study.

part

presents the descriptive statistics used
educational

population.

descriptive profile of

In the second part,

testing are reported.
level

hypotheses,

related issues,
tests

the

a

The first
to

develop

mainstreamed

results of the hypotheses

The results of the tests of district

along

with

tests of

are presented first.

significance

The results of

of building level hypotheses follow.

part,

the

The report is followed by a three

part

the

to

In the

of
the

final

summarizing listing of the findings of the tests

of hypotheses is presented.
Cross Sectional Survey Response
The

population of interest was defined as the

school

districts

Sixty

districts

demonstrating similar identification rates but

contrasting

mainstreaming
level

rates

hypotheses.

population

in

were

Michigan.

public

selected to test

From

this

population,

of 19 districts was selected and

testing the building level hypotheses.

87

the

district
a

sample

surveyed

for

88

The response rates of principals and special education
teachers

in elementary and middle school buildings in

the

19 districts surveyed are presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE RATES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PRINCIPALS
AND SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN THE CROSS SECTIONAL
SURVEY OF NINETEEN MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Population
Surveyed
H-ITM/L-ITM Total
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
9
10

Response
Rate
H-ITM/L-ITM Total

19

Percent
Response
H-ITM/L-ITM

10

19

100

100

BUILDINGS
Elem.
Middle

22
10

34
11

56
21

18
7

23
8

41
15

.82
.70

.68
.73

22
10

34
11

56
21

14
5

22
7

36
12

.64
.50

.65
.64

NB
NB

26
14

41
16

67
30

.82*
.70*

.59*
.73*

PRINCIPALS
Elem.
Middle
TEACHERS
Elem.
Middle

NB
NB

NB: The exact number of special education teachers in each
building
surveyed
was
unknown.
Therefore,
the
enrollment of each building was examined and the number
of questionnaires sent matched the number of special
education teachers needed for 10 percent of the
building's enrollment ( 15 students per teacher).
* Percent based
on the number of school buildings
represented by one or more teacher responses.

As can be seen in Table 5.1,

information was received

from all of the districts surveyed.
the

the

received.

56

elementary

school

Responses from 41

buildings

surveyed

of
were

The response rate of the elementary buildings in

89

H-ITM districts (82%) was slightly higher than the response
rate

of

(68%).
1

the elementary buildings in the

L-ITM

districts

Of the 21 middle schools surveyed, information from

buildings was received with a similar response rate for

middle

school

buildings in H-ITM (70%)

and

L-ITM

(73%)

districts.
The
and

four response rates of principals

in

elementary

middle schools in both H-ITM and L-ITM districts

relatively

were

similar with the response rate of middle school

principals in H-ITM districts (50%) being slightly lower by
comparison.

The

teacher

groups

schools

were

questionnaires
elementary

response rates of the special
were established by determining
represented

in

returned.

Eighty-two

schools

in

H-ITM

the

pool

many

teacher
of

surveyed

represented by one or more teacher responses,
the

how

of

percent

districts

education

the
were

while 59% of

elementary schools in L-ITM districts were represented

by teacher(s) responses.

The percentage of middle schools

in H-ITM (70%) and in L-ITM (73%) districts represented

by

one or more teacher response were relatively similar.
Five
middle
responses

of
school

the

elementary buildings and three

buildings

exclusively.

were

represented

Correspondingly,

by
three

of

the

teacher
of

the

elementary buildings and one of the middle school buildings
were represented by principal responses exclusively.

90

Descriptive Statistics for the Educational Descriptive
Profile of the Mainstreamed Population
General Education Classes Accessed
One

of

developing

the

mainstreamed
class
the

the student

characteristics

educational

descriptive

profile

of

population was the type of general

accessed by the population.
attendance

education

examined

classes,

the

education

In order to

rate of mainstreamed students

in

determine
in

general

special education teachers in

the

19

districts surveyed were asked to indicate the number of LD,
El, and EMI students in their classes who were mainstreamed
into

general education classes.

seven

different

eighth

option

education

general education classes along
entitled 'Other'.

The number

with

of

listed

as mainstreamed

into

general

an

special

students in the three diagnostic categories

teachers
classes

The questionnaire listed

the

education

was referenced against the total number of special

education

students

classroom.

A representative percentage of the total number

of

students

in

in

each

each

category

category

reported

accessing

general

education classes was established.

general

education

the

in

different

In Table 5.2,

classes with attendance rates

for

elementary mildly handicapped students are presented.
statistics
descriptive.

presented
The

in

the table should

significant

be

viewed

differences noted

table will be discussed in the following section
on the results of the tests of hypotheses.

the

in

the
The
as
the

reporting

91

In Table 5.2, the two lowest attendance rates reported
for

all

three

types of

elementary,

mildly

handicapped

students are attendance rates for reading and language arts
classes.

The two highest attendance rates reported for the

elementary

students

are attendance rates for gym and

art

classes.
Table 5.2
PERCENTAGE OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO
SEVEN GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN
H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
GEN.ED.
CLASSES

LEARNING
EMOTIONALLY
EDUCABLE MENTALLY
DISABLED
IMPAIRED
IMPAIRED
H-ITM/L -ITM/Diff H-ITM/L -ITM/Diff H-ITM/L -ITM/Diff

Reading

.33

.14

.19*

.50

.12

.38*

.13

.004 .13

Math

.60

.50

.10

.60

.21

.39*

.26

.06

L .Arts

.49

.24

.25*

.67

.13

.54*

.27

.004 .27

S. Studs.

.66

.60

.06

.70

.28

.42*

.49

.15

.34

Science

.68

.61

.07

.77

.29

.48*

.59

.15

.44*

Art

.74

.80

.06

.78

.52

.26

.65

.41

.24

Gym

.79

.86

.07

.90

.66

.23

.85

.59

.26

Other

.51

.22

.29

.67

.46

.21

.66

.50

.16

.20

* significant at alpha level .05

Table
accessed

5.3

presents

the

general

by mainstreamed students in the

education
middle

classes
schools.

The

attendance rates of the middle school students

the

same pattern as the elementary attendance rates.

two lowest attendance rates reported for the middle

follow
The
school

92

mildly

handicapped

population were attendance

rates

for

reading and language arts classes.
Table 5.3
PERCENTAGE OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO
SEVEN GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSES IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN H-ITM
AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
GEN. ED.
CLASSES

LEARNING
EMOTIONALLY
EDUCABLE MENTALLY
DISABLED
IMPAIRED
IMPAIRED
H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff

Reading

.18

.17

.01

.28

.06

.22

.00

.16

.16

Math

.56

.4 3_-•13

.46

.29

.17

.25

.28

.03

L. Arts

.13

.24

.11

.37

.21

.16

.00

.20

.20

S. Studs

.69

.38

.31

.80

.32

.48*

.33

.01

.27

Science

.82

.44

.38

.66

.38

.28

.60

.00

.60*

Art

.83

.49

.34

.71

.46

.24

.75

.57

.18

Gym

1.00

.80

.20

.89

.64

.25

.91

.68

.23

.25

.47

.22

.23

.59

.36

.34

.35

.00

Other

* significant at alpha level .05

Length of Time in the Mainstream
A second student characteristic examined in developing
the

educational descriptive profile was the amount of time

mainstreamed

students

programming.

Special

spend

in

the

education

indicate the length of time LD,

general

teachers
El,

were

students

were
in

listed.
each

of

The
the

number of
three

asked

to

and EMI students were

mainstreamed into general education programming.
periods

education

special

Six time
education

categories the teachers

listed

as

referenced
category

mainstreamed
against
reported

for a

certain

time

period

the total number of students
in

the

classroom.

in

was
each

A representative

percentage of the total number of students in each category
accessing

general education programs for differing amounts

of time was established.
elementary

mildly

In Table 5.4, the amount of time

handicapped

students

access

general

education programming is presented.
Table 5.4
PERCENT OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED
DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN H-ITM
L-ITM DISTRICTS
TIME
PERIOD

FOR
AND

LEARNING
EMOTIONALLY EDUCABLE MENTALLY
DISABLED
IMPAIRED
IMPAIRED
H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff
o
o
•

.14

.14

.02

.18

.16

.00

.23

.23*

.05

.10

.05

.02

.52

.50*

.11

.43

.32*

2 Hour

.11

.23

.12

.16

.12

.04

.29

.15

.14

3 Hours

.43

.32

.11

.46

.05

.41*

.33

.12

.21

4 Hours

.16

.17

.01

.09

.11

.02

.05

.00

.05

4 Hrs. +

.20

.12

.08

.26

.07

.19

.15

.00

.15

No Mnstrm.
Less 1 Hr.

* significant at alpha level .05

As

can be seen in Table 5.4,

the median time for all

elementary mildly handicapped student in H-ITM districts is
three hours per day.

While the median amount of time

for

the elementary learning disabled student in L-ITM and H-ITM
districts

is

similar,

the

median

amount

of

time

for

94

emotionally
students

impaired

and

educable

mentally

impaired

in L-ITM districts is approximately two

or

more

hours less then their counterparts in the H-ITM districts.
The percentage of middle school students accessing the
general

education programming for different

time

periods

appears in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5
PERCENTAGE OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED FOR
DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM
DISTRICTS
TIME
PERIOD

LEARNING
EMOTIONALLY
EDUCABLE MENTALLY
DISABLED
IMPAIRED
IMPAIRED
H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff H-ITM/L-ITM/Diff
o
.

.20

.14

.14

.24

.10

.11

.26

.15

,03

.13

.10

.51

.17

.34

3 Hours

.21

.23

.02

.24

.26

.02

.06

.46

.40

4 Hours

.40

.30

.10

.37

.19

.18

.31

.05

.26

4 Hrs.More .24

.23

.01

<Ti
CM

.24

.05

.00

.08

.08

2 Hours

*
o
o

o
o
•

.06

.08

Comparing Tables 5.4 and 5.5,
time

the median mainstreamed

for the middle school mildly handicapped students

the

three

the

median

diagnostic categories generally increases

population.
learning

time
While

disabled

established for
the

median

o

o
o
•

.007 .073

Less 1 Hr.

•

.02

•

.00

.00

o
o

.02

No Mnstrm.

the
time

and emotionally

elementary
for

middle

impaired

in
over

school
school

students

is

approximately four hours, the median amount of time for the
educable mentally impaired student is between two and three

95

hours.

With the exception of educable

students

in

mainstreamed
middle

the
time

schools

H-ITM
for

districts,

mildly

mentally
the

handicapped

impaired

amount

of

students

in

appears to increase by one hour

over

the

amount of mainstreamed time for mildly handicapped students
in elementary schools.
Results of Hypotheses Testing
District Level Hypotheses
Findings

for

Test of Hypothesis

1:

Since

the

general

funding philosophy supporting special education programs is
"the

dollar follows the child," it was hypothesized

would

be

a

education

difference
instruction

districts

and,

expenditure

in the
in

high

correspondingly,

and
a

low

special

mainstreaming

difference

the

for general education instruction in high

and

To test the hypotheses,

of activities dealing directly with the teaching

sudents

in the classroom,

or classroom

situations,

special and general education were examined.
hypotheses
the

for

in

low mainstreaming districts.
costs

expenditure

there

programs

per-pupil
in

special

expenditure

for

education and in

the

of
for

Two separate

were developed to test the differences

mean

the

between

instructional

general

education

programing.
The first district level hypothesis tested against the
two

groups

of 30 districts,

identification

practices

but

each

demonstrating

contrasting

similar

mainstreaming

96

practices,

focused

on

the

level of

monetary

available for instruction in general education
in H-ITM and L-ITM school districts.

resources
programming

Hypothesis 1, stated

in the null form, is restated here.
H.l

There is no difference between the mean per pupil
expenditure for the basic instructional programs in
Michigan school districts with a High Instructional
Time in the Mainstream rating and Michigan school
districts with a Low Instructional Time
in the
Mainstream rating.

The findings of the test of H.l are presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MEAN

H-ITM

30

5370.7

3993.7

L-ITM

30

6335.7

3744.2

for

The

results

the

basic

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

.97

.338

indicate the mean per pupil

expenditure

instructional programs in districts with a

H-ITM rating does not vary significantly from the mean
pupil

expenditure

in

districts

with

a

L-ITM

per

rating.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is not rejected.
Findings

for

Test of Hypothesis 2 %

The second

district

level hypothesis tested speculates on a difference

between

the

special

level

education
districts.

of

monetary resources

available

for

instructional programs in H-ITM and L-ITM school
Hypothesis 2 is restated here.

97

H.2

There is no difference between the mean per pupil
expenditure
for the added needs instructional
programs
in Michigan school districts with a High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and
Michigan school districts with a Low Instructional
Time in the Mainstream rating.

The findings of the test of H.2 are presented in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE FOR ADDED
NEEDS INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE

MEAN

H-ITM

30

429.6

469.5

L-ITM

30

592.4

669.2

for

The

results

the

added needs instructional

school

districts

T
VALUE

STANDARD
DEVIATION

2 TAIL
PROS.

.280

1.09

indicate the mean per pupil
programs

expenditure
in

Michigan

with a H-ITM rating and Michigan

districts with a L-ITM rating does not vary

school

significantly.

Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not rejected.
Findings for
general

was speculated that

education systems with large classes would be less

receptive
smaller

Test of Hypothesis

to

mainstreamed students,

while

classes might be more receptive

speculates

that district teacher/pupil ratios in the H-ITM

districts

are

ratios

level

mainstreaming

The

not

district

with

students.

teacher/pupil

third

to

systems

significantly
in

the

Hypothesis 3 is restated here.

hypothesis

different

L-ITM

school

than

tested

the

districts.

98

H.3

There
is no
difference
between
the
mean
teacher/pupil ratio in Michigan school districts
with a High Instructional Time in the Mainstream
rating and Michigan school districts with a Low
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating.

The findings for the test of H.3 are presented in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8
TEST OP SAMPLE MEANS OF THE TEACHER/PUPIL RATIO
AND L-ITM SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MEAN

H-ITM

30

23.03

3.40

L-ITM

30

22.67

2.71

The
and

IN

H-ITM

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB

.46

.64

results indicate the teacher/pupil ratio in H-ITM

L-ITM

districts

does

not

vary

significantly.

Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is not rejected.
Additional

analyses

were conducted to test the

mean

teacher/pupil ratios for the surveyed elementary and middle
school buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM districts.
were

determined

questionnaires.

from

the principals'

The ratios

responses

on

The findings for the test of means for the

teacher/pupil

ratio

surveyed

presented in Table 5.9 and the findings

are

the

in the

elementary

school

buildings
for

the test of means for the teacher/pupil ratio in the middle
school buildings are presented in Table 5.10.
The
difference

results
between

indicate

there

is

not

a

significant

the teacher/pupil ratios in either the

99

elementary or middle school buildings surveyed in H-ITM and
L-ITM districts.
Table 5.9
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE TEACHER/PUPIL RATIO
IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

24.36

1.22

L-ITM

21

24.67

3.73

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

.35

.727

Table 5.10 provides a comparison for the middle school
teacher/pupil ratios in the surveyed buildings.
Table 5.10
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE TEACHER/PUPIL RATIO IN MIDDLE
SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

H-ITM

5

22.2

3.70

L-ITM

5

17.8

7.12

The
ratios

T-test analyses of sample means of

indicate

findings

analysis

of

the ratios do not

2 TAIL
PROB.

.255

1.23

teacher/pupil

in both the elementary and middle school

surveyed
These

T
VALUE

STANDARD
DEVIATION

vary

buildings

significantly.

are similar to the findings of the
sample

teacher/pupil ratios.

means

for

the

district

T-test
level

100

A

third teacher/pupil ratio was explored.

special education teacher/pupil ratios (caseload

The

mean

vs.

FTE)

in the surveyed elementary and middle school buildings were
also

examined.

The

ratios were determined from

responses on the questionnaires.

teacher

The findings for the test

of mean special education teacher/pupil ratio in elementary
schools is presented in Table 5.11.
findings

for

teacher/pupil

For

the test of means of the
ratio

comparison,
special

in middle schools is shown

the

education
in

Table

5.12.
Table 5.11
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER/PUPIL
RATIO IN ELEMENTARY BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

15

15.07

3.39

L-ITM

20

12.50

3.50

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.17

.037 *

* significant at alpha level .05

Table 5.12
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER/PUPIL
RATIO IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

H-ITM

6

13.50

L-ITM

7

15.29

STANDARD
DEVIATION

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.74
3.09

1.09

.298

101

As

can

be

seen in Tables 5.11

and

5.12,

education teacher/pupil ratios in the elementary
in

H-ITM

special
buildings

districts vary significantly from the ratios

elementary

buildings

significant

in

difference

L-ITM

districts.

between

the

in

However,

special

a

education

teacher/pupil ratios in H-ITM and L-ITM districts does

not

exist for the middle school population.
One additional analysis, centering around the issue of
whether class size influences mainstreaming practices,
explored.
have

It was speculated that teacher associations may

contract

students

middle

language

that

influences

the

mainstreamed into general education

Therefore,

was

number

programming.

building principals at both the elementary

school

level were asked,

contract

that

contract

in

weighting

special education students placed in

education

classroom or otherwise allows for a reduction of

teacher/pupil ratio in classrooms where

occurs?"
of

teacher's

"Is there any

and

language

the

the

of

a

for

general

mainstreaming

The results of a chi-square test of the responses

elementary

followed

allows

principals

are

reported

in

Table

by the results of a Fisher's exact test

5.13,

analysis

of responses from middle school principals in Table 5.14.
Analyses

regarding

the

presence

or

absence

of

a

'weighting

formula' for mainstreaming handicapped students

in

elementary or middle school

that

either
no

relationship

exists

between

buildings
contract

suggest
language

102

regarding

weighting mainstreamed students and high or

low

mainstreaming rates.
Table 5.13
CHI-SQUARE
ANALYSIS
OF CONTRACT
LANGUAGE
REGARDING
WEIGHTING MAINSTREAMED STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY BUILDINGS IN
H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
Contract
Language

No Contract
Language

H-ITM

3

11

L-ITM

8

14

Chi-Square

.899

Table 5.14
FISHER'S EXACT TEST ANALYSIS OF CONTRACT LANGUAGE REGARDING
WEIGHTING MAINSTREAMED STUDENTS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDINGS
IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
Fisher1s
Exact

No Contract
Language

Contract
Language
H-ITM

1

4

L-ITM

1

4

.777

The
placing

consideration that principals might intervene
mainstreamed

programming
was

also

principals

students

in

general

independent of contract language
explored.
were

asked,

organize

classrooms

regular

education

streaming occurs?"

All

elementary
"Are

and

you able

in any way to reduce
students

in

education
requirements

middle

to

school

intervene
the

classrooms

in

number
where

or
of

main-

In Table 5.15, a chi-square analysis of

the responses of elementary principals is presented.

103

Table 5.15
CHI-SQUARE
ANALYSIS
OF PRINCIPAL
INTERVENTION
WHEN
MAINSTREAMING MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY
BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
Intervention

No Intervention

H-ITM

8

6

L-ITM

9

13

Chi-square
.904

The
between
class

results

suggest

intervention

that

no

relationship

exists

of the principal to alter or

size when mainstreaming mildly handicapped

change
students

and high or low rates of mainstreaming.
In

Table

5.16,

the

responses

from

middle

school

principals regarding intervention when mainstreaming mildly
handicapped

students are analyzed using the Fisher's exact

test.
Table 5.16
FISHER'S EXACT TEST ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL INTERVENTION WHEN
MAINSTREAMING MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
Intervention

No Intervention

H-ITM

3

2

L-ITM

3

2

Fisher Exact
.738

Similar
of
when

elementary

to the findings of the analysis of
principals regarding

mainstreaming

findings

of

the

mildly

analysis

intervention

handicapped
of

responses
actions

students,

the

responses of middle school

104

principals

indicate

principal

no

relationship

intervention

and

high

exists

or

between

low

rates

of

and

the

mainstreaming for the middle school population.
The

results

of

the test of

Hypothesis

3

analysis of issues at the building level that may influence
teacher/pupil
teacher/pupil

ratios

indicate that the general

ratio is

not

related

to

high

mainstreaming

rates.

there

significant difference between

was

a

It should be noted,

education

teacher/pupil

buildings

in

elementary

special

significantly
however

did

L-ITM

low

however,

that

the

education

exist for

in

teacher/pupil

the

special

elementary

districts. While

lower inL-ITM districts,
not

and

ratios (caseload)

H-ITM and

education

ratio

this

middle

the
was

difference

school

building

papulation.
Findings
level

of the Test of Hypothesis 4:

hypothesis

between

the

size

examined
of

H-ITM

The final district

speculates
and

L-ITM

on

a

difference

districts.

The

hypothesis is restated here.
H.4

There is no difference in the mean size of Michigan
school districts with a High Instructional Time in
the Mainstream rating and Michigan school districts
with a Low Instructional Time in the Mainstream
rating.
The

findings

Table 5.17.
H-ITM
school

and

for

the test of H.4 are

presented

in

These findings indicate that the mean size of
L-ITM districts vary significantly

districts

mainstreaming

mildly

with

large

handicapped

105

students

at

a L-ITM

rate.

Therefore,

Hypothesis

4

is

rejected.
Table 5.17
TEST OP SAMPLE MEANS OF DISTRICT SIZE IN H-ITM AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

30

1906.80

1141.9

L-ITM

30

4676.68

5390.5

L-ITM

2 TAIL
PROB.

T
VALUE

.01*

2.75

* significant at alpha level .05

The
to

size of the buildings surveyed was also

determine

building level.

if

a

difference in

size

the

The findings are presented in Table 5.18.

NUMBER OF
CASES
MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

22

378.73

156.559

L-ITM

34

391.12

117.8268

The

at

existed

Table 5.18
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF SIZE OF ELEMENTARY
SURVEYED IN H-ITM AND L-ITM SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

examined

findings

indicate

there

is

BUILDINGS

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

.34

.737

no

significant

difference in the size of the surveyed elementary buildings
within H-ITM and L-ITM districts.
size

Table 5.19 examines

of the surveyed middle school buildings in the

and L-ITM districts.

the
H-ITM

106

Table 5.19
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF SIZE OF MIDDLE SCHOOL
SURVEYED IN H-ITM AND L-ITM SCHOOL DISTRICTS
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE
H-ITM

9

L-ITM

10

Similar
elementary

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MEAN
517.788

208.38

528.10

267.11

BUILDINGS

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

.09

.927

to the findings for the size of the
buildings,

the

size

of the

surveyed

surveyed

middle

school buildings in the H-ITM and L-ITM districts also does
not

vary

Hypothesis

significantly.
4

The findings for

the

test

of

and the test of differences for the size

of

the buildings surveyed indicate that, while the size of the
district
districts,

varies
the

significantly

between

H-ITM

and

L-ITM

size of the surveyed elementary and middle

school buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM districts does not vary
significantly.
Building Level Hypotheses
Findings for the Test of Hypothesis 5_:
level

The first building

hypothesis tested speculates on the type of

general

education class accessed by mainstreamed students in
and

L-ITM

school districts.

The hypothesis

is

H-ITM

restated

here.
H.5

There is no difference in the types of general
education classes accessed by mainstreamed students
in
schools
within
districts
with
a
High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and

107

schools within districts with a Low
Time in the Mainstream rating.
To test the hypothesis,
the

surveyed

asked

to

list

special education teachers in

elementary and middle school buildings

indicate

emotionally
students

Instructional

the

impaired

number

and

of

educable

learning

of seven

provided

in

£+ other)

A percentage

of

categories

who

mildly

mainstreamed

into different general education classes
descriptive

statistics are

A
were

students

The

each

classes

handicapped

determined.

in

impaired

classes.

general education

the questionnaire.

disabled,

mentally

mainstreamed into general education

were

were
was

provided

in

Table 5.2 through Table 5.5.
A
(+

total of 48 sets of mean attendance rates for seven

other) general education classes for the three types of

mildly handicapped students was derived from the elementary
and

middle

analysis

of

difference

school
all

teacher

questionnaires.

sets revealed there was

for 16 sets of the 24 sets for

population.

The

8

sets

found

to

be

A

T-test

no

significant

the

elementary

significant

are

presented below.
Hypothesis
Population;
students

5 and the Elementary Learning Disabilities

The mean attendance rate for learning disabled

mainstreamed

into

reading

and

language

classes is significantly different in elementary

arts

buildings

in H-ITM and L-ITM. Significantly fewer students from L-ITM
districts are mainstreamed into these classes.
5.20)

(See

Table

108

Table 5.2 0
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF LEARNING DISABLED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO READING CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY
BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

15

*.33

.290

L-ITM

17

.14

.174

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.25

.032 *

* significant at alpha level .05

The results for the test of sample means of attendance
rates

for

language arts classes are

presented

in

Table

5.21.
Table 5.21
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF LEARNING DISABLED
STUDENTS
MAINSTREAMED INTO LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSES
IN
ELEMENTARY BUILDINGS IN H -ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

15

.485

.334

L-ITM

17

.244

.233

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.39

.024 *

* significant at alpha level .05

The
the

learning disabled student was

other

five

mainstreamed

into

elementary classes similarly in H-ITM and

L-ITM districts.
Hypothesis
Population;

5 and the Elementary Emotionally

Impaired

The emotionally impaired population varied the

109

most

on

the

differences between

attendance

rates

elementary buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM

districts.

were

impaired

significantly

mainstreamed

fewer

emotionally

social studies,

attendance
Table

There
students

in L-ITM elementary buildings for five of the

seven general education classes:
arts,

in

rates

5.22

for

through

reading,

math,

language

and science.The tests of the mean
the

five classes are

presented in

Table 5.26.

Table 5.2 2
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED IN READING CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

.501

.310

L-ITM

15

.122

.129

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

4.36

.001 *

* significant at alpha level .05

Table 5.2 3
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO MATH CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

.599

.331

L-ITM

15

.212

.285

* significant at alpha level .05

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

3.38

.002 *

110

Table 5.24
TEST OP SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSES IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

.699

.345

L-ITM

15

.130

.260

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

4.78

.0001 *

*significant at the alpha level .05

Table 5.2 5
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSES
IN
BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

.700

.424

L-ITM

15

.283

.379

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.79

.009 *

* significant at alpha level .05

Table 5.2 6
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO SCIENCE CLASSES IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

.771

.379

L-ITM

15

.288

.353

significant at alpha level .05

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

3.56

.001 *

Ill

Emotionally

impaired students were mainstreamed

the remaining two general education classes,
similarly

in

elementary

buildings

in

art and

H-ITM

and

into
gym,
L-ITM

districts.
Hypothesis
Impaired

5

and the

Population:

population

varied

Elementary
The

the

Educable

educable

least

in

Mentally

mentally impaired

differences

between

attendance rates in elementary buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM
districts.
mentally

impaired

elementary
education

There

significantly

students

buildings
classes —

were

for

fewer educable

mainstreamed

only one of the

science.

into
seven

L-ITM
general

The test for the means for

the one class is presented in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27
TEST OP SAMPLE MEANS OP THE PERCENT OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO SCIENCE CLASSES IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

10

.59

.436

L-ITM

11

.15

.315

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.56

.019 *

* significant at alpha level .05

Educable mentally impaired students were
into

mainstreamed

the remaining six general education classes similarly

in elementary buildings in both H-ITM and L-ITM districts.

112

Hypothesis
number
for

J5

and the Middle

School

Population;

of significant findings regarding attendance

The

rates

the middle school population was fewer than number

significant

findings at the elementary level.

Twenty-two

of the 24 sets of means were not significant.
found

to

be

emotionally
buildings

significant
impaired

in

ficantly

L-ITM

are

districts

The two sets

discussed

students

in
were

the

of

below.
middle

school

mainstreamed

less into social science classes.

The

The

signi­
findings

are presented in Table 5.28.
Table 5.28
TEST OP SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OP EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO SOCIAL SCIENCE CLASSES IN MIDDLE
SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

6

.80

.287

L-ITM

7

.318

.338

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.74

.01 *

* significant at the alpha level .05

Attendance
not

significantly

students

in

districts.
the

rates for the remaining six

middle
This

different
school

for
levels

classes

emotionally
in

H-ITM

were

impaired
and

finding is considerably different

L-ITM
from

findings of the mainstreaming rates for the elementary

emotionally impaired population.
The
the

final set of means that varied significantly

middle

school

population was the set

of

for

attendance

113

rates

of the EMI students in science classes.

Results of

the test of means is presented in Table 5.29.
Table 5.29
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE PERCENT OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED STUDENTS MAINSTREAMED INTO SCIENCE CLASSES IN
MIDDLE SCHOOL IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION
.464

H-ITM

4

.60

L-ITM

5

0

0

T
VALUE

2 TAIL
PROB.

2.95

.022 *

* significant at alpha level .05

The

attendance

rates for the remaining

six

were not significantly different for the educable
impaired population.
rates

The

tests of means for the difference

type

of

general

mentally

This finding is consistent with

attendance
above

classes

for the elementary building

education

classes

the

population.
between

accessed

by

handicapped students in H-ITM and L-ITM districts

the

mildly
indicate

that Hypothesis 5 is rejected.
Findings

for Test of Hypothesis 6:

The

second

building

level hypothesis tested speculates on the difference of the
number

of

education
districts.
the

alternative programs available in
programming

in

buildings in

H-ITM

the
and

general
L-ITM

The hypothesis was tested from data gathered on

principals' questionnaires.

The alternative programs

were defined as remedial reading programming, remedial math

114

programming,

Headstart

instructional

aides,

seventh

option,

programs,
and

H.6

rooms,

programs,

volunteers.

was

listed

A

on

the

Hypothesis 6 is restated here.

There
is
no
difference in the
number
of
"alternative programs'
available in the general
education programming in schools within districts
with a High Instructional Time in the Mainstream
rating and schools within districts with a Low
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating.
The

in

instructional

transition

elementary questionnaire.

bilingual

findings for the test of Hypothesis 6,

Table

number

5.30,

indicate there is no

presented

difference

in

the

of alternative programs available in the elementary

buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM districts.

The test of means

regarding the number of alternative programs for the middle
school

population

was also examined and the

presented

in Table

indicate

the

available

in elementary

mean

5.31.

Table

number of
and

5.30

and

'alternative

are

Table

5.31

programs'

middle schools

L-ITM districts does not vary significantly.

results

in H-ITM and
These results

indicate that Hypothesis 6 should not be rejected.
Table 5.30
TEST
OF
SAMPLE MEANS OF
THE NUMBER OF 'ALTERNATIVE
PROGRAMS' IN ELEMENTARY BUILDINGS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.
ITM
RATE

NUMBER OF
CASES

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

14

3.36

1.22

L-ITM

22

3.77

1.57

T
VALUE

.84

2 TAIL
PROB.

.406

115

Table 5.31
TEST
OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE NUMBER OF 'ALTERNATIVE
PROGRAMS’ IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITHIN H-ITM AND L-ITM SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE
H-ITM

5

2.6

1.52

L-ITM

5

4.0

.71

Findings
level
type

for

of

'alternative

third

building

programs’ available

in

the

H-ITM

and

The hypothesis is restated here.

There is no difference in the type of 'alternative
programs’ in the general education programming
available in schools within districts with a High
Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating and
schools within districts with a Low Instructional
Time in the Mainstream rating.
types of alternative programs were listed on

elementary
alternative

principal's
program

questionnaire

were

principal's questionnaire.
additional

option

listed

on

and five
the

types

middle

the
of

school

Both questionnaires provided an

entitled ‘Other.1

The principals

to indicate whether the alternative programs

were available in the school.
for

The

.098

hypothesis tested speculates on a difference in

Six

asked

2 TAIL
PROB.

1.87

Test of Hypothesis 7:

L-ITM districts.
H.7

T
VALUE

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MEAN

were
listed

The results of the findings

the test of Hypothesis 7 are presented in

Table

5.3 2

for the elementary population and Table 5.3 3 for the middle
school population.

116

Table 5.3 2
CHI-SQUARE TEST OP TYPE OF 'ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS’ AVAILABLE
IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
H-ITM DISTRICTS
AVAIL­
NOT
ABLE
AVAIL.

ALTER­
NATIVE
PROGRAMS

L-ITM DISTRICTS
NOT
AVAIL­
AVAIL
ABLE

CHISQUARE

REMEDIAL
READING

13

1

16

6

.2911

REMEDIAL
MATH

2

12

11

11

.0689

HEAD
START

0

14

4

18

.2508

BILING.
PROGRAM

3

11

3

19

.8785

INSTRUC.
AIDES

11

3

21

1

.3042

VOLUNT.
AIDES

11

3

14

8

.5638

5

11

9

11

.7071

T RANS.
ROOMS

The
the

results

types

of

elementary

a

relationship

availability
school

of

level,
elementary

existed.

programs 1

available

in

between

the

rates.

5.3 3 presents the findings of the analysis

middle school population.

for

the

'alternative

between

buildings and high or low mainstreaming

Table
the

indicate no relationship exists

for

The results of the testing
mainstreaming

'alternative programming’ at

rates
the

and
middle

similar to the findings of the analysis for
population,

indicate

no

relationship

Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is not rejected.

117

Table 5.3 3
FISHER'S EXACT TEST OF THE TYPE OF 'ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS'
AVAILABLE IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM DISTRICTS
ALTER­
NATIVE
PROGRAMS

H-ITM DISTRICTS
AVAIL­
NOT
ABLE
AVAIL.

L-ITM DISTRICTS
NOT
AVAIL­
ABLE
AVAIL.

FISHER
EXACT

REMEDIAL
READING

3

2

4

REMEDIAL
MATH

2

3

5

0

.50

BILING.
PROGRAM

1

4

2

3

.50

INSTRUCT.
AIDES

3

2

4

1

.50

VOLUNT.
AIDES

2

3

4

1

.50

Findings
level

for the Test of Hypothesis 8:

1

.50

The last building

hypothesis speculates on the difference between

the

number of referrals received in schools in districts with a
H-ITM

rating

and

districts with

a

L-ITM

rating.

The

hypothesis is restated here.
H.8

There is no difference in the number of special
education referrals received in schools within
districts with a High Instruction Time in the
Mainstream rating and schools within districts with
a Low Instructional Time in the Mainstream rating.
The

5.34r

findings for the test of H.8,

indicate

referrals

there

presented in Table

is no difference in the

number

received in the elementary schools in H-ITM

L-ITM districts.

of
and

The test of sample means of the number of

referrals received in the middle school population is shown
in Table 5.35.

118

Table 5.34
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
REFERRALS RECEIVED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN H-ITM AND L-ITM
DISTRICTS
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE

T
VALUE

STANDARD
DEVIATION

MEAN

H-ITM

13

19.70

18.12

L-ITM

18

10.94

9.9

2 TAIL
PROB.

1.58

.133

Table 5.3 5
TEST OF SAMPLE MEANS OF THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
REFERRALS RECEIVED IN MIDDLE SCHOOL IN H-ITM AND L-ITM
DISTRICTS.
NUMBER OF
CASES

ITM
RATE

MEAN

STANDARD
DEVIATION

H-ITM

5

9.8

8.52

L-ITM

4

9.5

7.55

The

results

of

the

elementary

received

in

the

significantly.

buildings,

2 TAIL
PROB.

.95

.05

the test of means of the

middle school referrals indicate,
for

T
VALUE

similar to the
the number

middle school buildings

of
does

number

of

analysis
referrals
not

vary

Therefore Hypothesis 8 is not rejected.
Review of Findings

Eight hypotheses designed to explore a major
question
istics
reported

speculating on a relationship between
of

an educational system and
by

educators

in the system

research
character­

mainstreaming

rates

were tested.

Four

119

district

level hypotheses were tested using existing data

on

research

two

districts
practices
sixty

which

districts
handicapped
remaining

of

thirty

demonstrated

Michigan

similar

but contrasting mainstreaming

districts

population

groups

within

identified
a

their

mainstreamed

their

population

at

identification
practices.

mildly

mid-identification

school

handicapped

range.

Thirty

identified
a H-ITM

All

mildly

rate

while

thirty districts mainstreamed their

the

identified

mildly handicapped population at a L-ITM rate.
Additionally,
tested

four

building level

hypotheses

were

using data collected from a cross-sectional survey

of all elementary and middle school buildings in 19 school
districts selected from the

research

districts

H-ITM districts and 10

districts.

represented nine
Several

issues

groups.

relating

to

The

the

19
L-ITM
eight

hypotheses

representing system characteristics were

examined.

Findings from the tests of district,

also

building

and related issues hypotheses are listed for review.
1.

Hypothesis
1 and Hypothesis 2, both speculating
on no difference regarding financial resources
available for instructional programming in both
special and general education in H-ITM and L-ITM
districts, were not rejected.

2.

Hypotheses
3, speculating on no
difference
between the districts' general education teacher/
pupil
ratios
in H-ITM and L-ITM districts, was
not rejected.
Additional analysis
testing for a significant
difference in the general education teacher/pupil
ratios
in
the surveyed elementary and middle

120

school buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM districts
also indicated that no difference in ratios
existed.
An
examination
of
the
special
education
teacher/pupil ratios (caseload) did indicate a
significant difference in ratios
in surveyed
elementary buildings.
L-ITM districts reported
significantly lower special education teacher/
pupil ratios than reported in H-ITM districts.
However,
a
difference between the
special
education teacher/pupil ratio in surveyed middle
school buildings in H-ITM and L-ITM districts did
not exist.
3.

Hypothesis 4, speculating on no difference in the
size of H-ITM and L-ITM districts,
was rejected.
Differences between the mean district size (state
aid membership)
were established with larger
districts mainstreaming at a L-ITM rate.
There are no differences between H-ITM and L-ITM
districts regarding contract language which would
incorporate a weighting formula for mainstreaming
special education students in general education
classes
(i.e.
1 special education student = 2
general education students).
There
is no difference in buildings in
H-ITM
and L-ITM districts
surveyed with regards to
principal interventions in an attempt to control
the number of mainstreamed students in general
education classrooms.

4.

Hypothesis 5, speculating no difference regarding
the
general education classes
accessed
by
mainstreamed students existed in H-ITM and L-ITM
districts,
was rejected.
Differences
exists
between districts and between categories.

5.

Hypothesis
6 and Hypothesis 7,
speculating on
whether
(1)
the number or
(2) the type of
"alternative programs' in the general education
programming
differed
in
H-ITM
and
L-ITM
districts, were not rejected.

6.

Hypothesis 8, speculating on no difference in the
number
of referrals
received elementary and
middle school buildings
in H-ITM and
L-ITM
districts, was not rejected.

121

The
not

major research question speculated on whether

there

educational

are relationships
systems,

between

characteristics

specifically

Michigan

educational

systems,

handicapped

students as reported by the educators

district.
in

the

results
system

of

public

and rates of mainstreaming of mildly
in

the

Eight specific system characteristics, reflected
eight hypotheses set forth,

were

examined.

indicate that there may be a relationship
characteristics and mainstreaming rates.

has not

or

been determined that the specific

examined

The

between
While it

characteristics

effect changes in mainstreaming rates it has been

determined that specific system characteristics do vary
H-ITM and L-ITM districts.

in

Continued examination of system

characteristics and mainstreaming rates in school districts
may

prove

influences
provisions.

to
for

be

informative

equitable

and

for

developing

responsible

positive

mainstreaming

CHAPTER VI
Summary, Discussion and Recommendations
Chapter

Six

is presented in three

discussion and recommendations.

findings

Discussion,
section

of

.is

the

summary,

The summary offers

comments regarding the problem,
the

parts:

methodology,

dissertation.

The

divided into two sections.

brief

analysis and
second

part,

In the

first

entitled The Uncontrolled Identification Variable,

implications

from

the

preliminary

examination

of

identification practices across the 528 school districts in
Michigan

are

discussed.

While

an

examination

of

identification practices was not the primary purpose of the
study,

the

examination

expectations
practices
include

proved to be

informative

in demonstrating the influence identification

have

in providing

educational

programming

the

second

Identification

section

Variable,

entitled

a

The

discussion

Controlled
focusing

information

gathered

Descriptive

Profile of Michigan's Mainstreamed

presented*

of
on

the
a

to

mainstreaming provisions for handicapped students.

In

is

beyond

The

eight

correlation

to develop the proposed

section

continues with a

hypotheses
between

set

forth

selected
122

which

on

Educational
Population
discussion
speculate

educational

system

123

characteristics

and Instructional Time in

the

Mainstream

(ITM) ratings.

In the third and final part of Chapter VI,

recommendations

addressed to several audiences within

the

educational system are offered for consideration.
Summary
The Problem
America's

dedication

all citizens,
composition

young or old,
of

another.

to protect the civil rights

has significantly changed the

public school classrooms at

Implementation

of

The

one

Education

time
for

handicapped

education

in

Understanding
general

student population

both special and general

who

receive

education

the responsibilities special

or
All

Handicapped Children Act in the past decade has produced
mildly

of

a

their

classes.

education

and

education share in educating these students is one

of the most persistent and perplexing issues facing

public

school education today.
The

persistent

separateness

of

the

two

systems,

spawned by separate schools,

separate classrooms, separate

teacher

and

training

student

counts,

administrative

separate research projects and

different funding sources,
different

programs,

evaluation

different language

models,

and

separate
journals,

constructs,

different

support

organizations has resulted in a pernicious "we versus they"
attitude

detracting

responsibilities.

from

Probing

a

mutual

understanding

of

questions of who is responsible

124

for

the

difficult

Inquiries,
on

to

teach

student

are

surfacing.

developing into a censorship debate,

whether

special

boundaries

and,

identification

education

due

to

practices,

has

overstepped

classification
is

speculate
legal

errors

assuming responsibility

provide services for nonhandicapped but difficult to
students,
and,

to

teach

or general education has limited it's boundaries

by

ignoring

the educational needs of

and/or minority students,
to

in

provide

difficult
judging

remedial

is relinquishing

services

to teach students.
the

provisions

the

responsibility

nonhandicapped

The practice of one

appropriateness

emphasizes

for

disadvantaged

of

the

other

gap that exists

but
system

system's

between

what

should otherwise be a unified system for educating American
children.
Among
gap

in

the many problems associated with

closing

America's dichotomous educational system is (a)

the
a

lack of educational descriptors characterizing and defining
the

generic

group

of

mainstreamed population —
systems;
system

students

referred

to

as

the

the student link between the two

and (b) that there has been no effort to identify
characteristics from either the general or

education

systems

that

may

influence

the

special

rates

of

mainstreaming at either the district or individual building
levels
systems.

—

a

potential

evaluation link

between

the

two

125

The Questions
Three

questions leading to a clearer understanding of

the

mainstreamed population were addressed in

(a)

What

leaving

the composition of

the

student

study:

population

special education classrooms and entering

education
classes

is

the

classes?

(b)

What type of

general

general
education

are accessed by the mainstreamed population?

(c)

What amount of time does the mainstreamed population

spend

in special education and general education classes?
A

fourth

question,

a

major

research

question

generating eight hypotheses for testing, was also examined.
The

research

question

relationship
educational
by

exists

whether

or

in

are

evaluation

not

between system characteristics of

organization and mainstreaming rates

educators

questions

speculates on

the

organization?

crucial

personnel

before
are

Answers

program

able

to

an

reported
to

these

development

design

a

and

educational

programming which curbs the suspected duplicity of services
generated
evaluation

by

the "crossing over movement" and develop
process

sensitive

to

the

needs

of

an
the

mainstreamed students and their nonhandicapped peers.
The Methodology
During

the

spring

of 1985,

data

provided

by the

State Department of Education regarding identification
mainstreaming practices of Michigan's 528 school
were

analyzed.

The

school

districts

served

and

districts
as

the

126

population

of

population

for

the

study.

examined was limited to 6-17 year

handicapped
special

interest

The

student

old,

mildly

students as represented by students

education categories:

Emotionally Impaired (El),

in

three

Learning Disabilities (LD),

and Educable Mentally

Impaired

(E M I ).
Since data from 39 districts could not be extrapolated
due

to

inter-agency

eliminated

from

reporting,

the

these

study.

districts

were

Identification

and

mainstreaming rates were established for each of the

three

categories for the remaining 489 Michigan school districts.
Each

district

was

assigned one of

three

identification

rates corresponding to a low, middle or high identification
range.

Additionally, each district was assigned one of two

mainstreaming
Mainstream

rates

—

High

Instructional

Time

in

the

Rate (H-ITM) or Low Instructional Time

in

the

Mainstream Rate (L-ITM).

From this analysis, two groups of

30

were

school

districts

identification

practices

found

but

to

have

contrasting

similar

mainstreaming

practices.
The

60

school

identification-

districts

practices

in

that

identified

students

categories

at a rate falling within

range.
mildly

However,

30

handicapped

the other

30

school

within

demonstrated

the three
a

similar

all

districts

special

education

mid-identification

school districts mainstreamed
students

at

districts

a

H-ITM

mainstreamed

these

rate,

while

the

mildly

127

handicapped
level

population

hypotheses,

at a L-ITM

rate.

Four

district

speculating on differences in H-ITM and

L-ITM districts regarding monetary resources, teacher/pupil
ratios

and

district size were tested

against

these

two

research groups.
Additionally,

the

population of school districts was

grouped into four strata based on district size (State
Membership).

The

percentage

of

the

total

number

Aid
of

districts falling within each stratum was used to determine
the

number of H-ITM districts and L-ITM districts selected

from

each stratum to test the building

level

hypotheses.

Nine H-ITM districts and 10 L-ITM districts, for a total of
19

districts,

building
on

were

selected

level hypotheses.

differences

regarding

between

and surveyed

to

These hypotheses
H-ITM

and

test

the

speculated

L-ITM

districts

the number and the type of alternative

programs

available in the general education programming, the type of
general

education

classes

accessed

by

mainstreamed

students, and the number of referrals for special education
services

received

buildings.

in

elementary

and

in

middle

District personnel surveyed for the study were

principals and special education teachers in 56
schools

school

and 21 middle schools.

from all of the 19 districts.

Information was

elementary
received

128

The Analysis
Data

pertaining to the four district level hypotheses

were obtained from an examination of existing data provided
by

the Michigan Department of Special Education

Differences

between the two research groups were

using the T-test analysis of group means.
the

four

building level hypotheses were obtained

and ten L-ITM districts.
hypotheses

a

from

nine

a

H-ITM

Three of the four building level

were tested using the T-test analysis of sample

The

using

examined

Data related to

cross-sectional survey of 19 school districts:

means.

Services.

fourth building level hypothesis

chi-square

population

and

a

test

analysis

for

Fisher's exact test

was

the

tested

elementary

analysis

for

the

middle school population.
The Findings
Of

the

eight hypotheses tested,

three of

district level hypotheses were not rejected.
indicate
pupil

L-ITM

The

four

findings

there is no difference between the amount of

expenditure

general

the

education
districts.

for instructional costs of
or

added

needs

Additionally,

per

either

the

programs in H-ITM and

there appears to

be

no

difference in the general education teacher/pupil ratios in
H-ITM
the
and
only

and

L-ITM

special

districts.

education

However,

teacher/pupil

a

difference

ratios

L-ITM districts existed for the elementary
with

elementary

in

in

H-ITM

population

buildings in L-ITM districts having

129

a

significantly

ratio.
that

The

lower

special

education

teacher/pupil

fourth district level hypothesis

speculating

no significant difference exists between the size

H-ITM

and L-ITM districts was

rejected:

large

of

districts

appear to mainstream at a L-ITM rate.
Three

of the four building level hypotheses also were

not rejected.
between

the

programming*

The findings indicate there is no difference
type

and

available

the
in

in

H-ITM and

there

no

difference between

education

referrals

buildings

in

building

H-ITM

L-ITM

in

L-ITM

level hypothesis,

'alternative
middle

districts.
the

elementary

and

of

elementary and

buildings
is

number

Additionally,

number
and

districts.

school

of

special

middle

school

The

fourth

speculating that no difference

exists between H-ITM and L-ITM districts regarding the type
of general education classes accessed by mildly handicapped
students, was rejected.
Discussion
The Uncontrolled Identification Variable
In

examining

Michigan's practices

mildly handicapped (LD,

of

mainstreaming

El and EMI) from special education

programs into general education programs in elementary
middle

school

reviewed.

buildings,

two important factors

must

and
be

First, the number of mildly handicapped students

mainstreamed into general education classes in any district
will

vary

as the identification practices of the district

130

vary.

Second,

a

differing percent of mildly handicapped

students exist in elementary,

middle and high schools.

In

the 1984-1985 school year, approximately 28% of the State's
identified LD student population was in elementary programs
(Grades K-5:
6-8:

Age 5-10), with 25% in middle schools (Grades

Age 11-13),

14-18).

and 40% in high schools (Grade 9-12; Age

Similarly, 25% of the El student population was in

elementary

schools

with 29% and 43% in
Twenty-four

middle

schools

respectively.

percent

student

population was in elementary schools,

and

of

high

the

EMI

with 22% in

middle schools and 41% in high schools.
Typically,

a middle school system includes grades

6,

7,

and 8 while a junior high school system includes grades

7,

8,

the

and 9.

numbers

Because there has been a rapid increase in
of

middle schools created

(Edmonds & Lezotte,

1982),

selected

over

junior high school

purposes

of

special

the

discussion

education

educational
population

recent

years

the middle school grouping was

and

grouping

illustration.

for

Also,

the
since

students generally tend to stay in

system
was

in

longer,
included

the

18

in the

year

high

old

school

the

student
special

education student grouping discussed in order to present

a

more representative secondary special education population.
However,

it

should

be

noted that

the

percent

ratios

presented above would be considerably different if a junior
high school model had been used.

131

An

example of the impact varying identification rates

have on the size of elementary and middle school
and

ultimately

programs,

the number of mildly handicapped

mainstreamed, follows.

students

In 1984, District A, located in the

southern part of the state reported a school population
2,543

with

a teacher/pupil ratio of 24.

identification
was

The

District's

rate for the mildly handicapped

population

11.3% (6.8% LD/ 2.5% El/ 2.0% EMI) for a total of

students.
the

more

287

District B, also located in the southern part of

state

reported

of

and

approximately 7 5 miles

from

District

a student population of 2,575 for a total

students

than

District A.

teacher/pupil

District B

ratio

of

of

A,
32

reported

19.

a

somewhat

lower

However,

District

B identified the mildly handicapped population at

a rate of 2.6% (1.6% LD/ .5% El/ .5% EMI),

a difference of

8.7%

students

for a total of 67 mildly handicapped

- 220

fewer special education students than in District A.
The wide variation in identification rates in District
A

and

District

B has a considerable impact

patterns in the districts.
provides
students:

two

types

(a)

Special education

of services

classroom

on

for

programming

mildly

programming with

staffing

handicapped

the

teacher's

caseload being restricted to approximately 15 students, and
(b)

teacher

caseload

consultant programming with the

being

restricted to approximately

consultant's
26

students.

District A, identifying 11.3% of the population as
handicapped,

requires approximately 19 special

mildly

education

132

classroom

teachers (5 elementary,

6 middle,

and

school) or 11 teacher consultants (3 elementary,
5

high

school)

students.
student

to

provide for 287

However,

8

high

3 middle,

mildly handicapped

District B, identifying 2.6% of

population

the

as mildly handicapped requires only

5

classroom teachers (1.2 elementary,

1.3 middle, and 2 high

school)

or 2.5 teacher consultants

(.70

middle,

and

1

high

school)

handicapped students.
population
requires
or

8

is

elementary,

to provide

for

67

similar in Districts A and

District

special
B

in

teacher/pupil
special

mildly

Thus, while the size of the student
B,

District

approximately 14 more special education

more

.70

education

order

ratio

to

teacher

meet

the

teachers

consultants
special

required by law.

As

A

than

education

a result

education teaching personnel in District A,

the
based

on the reported teacher/pupil ratio for the District, would
represent

17% of the District's total teaching

Contrastingly,
District

B

personnel.

the special education teaching personnel in

would

represent only

three

percent

of

the

District's total teaching personnel.
Since
in

a

District A and B are only two school

pool of Michigan's 528 districts,

the

example

provide only a glimpse into the greater picture.
when

extensive

variation

in

district

districts
may

However,

identification

practices appears to be the rule rather than the exception,
as is observed in
often

than,

Michigan,

expected.

the
The

glimpse may occur

preliminary

analysis

more
of

133

Michigan's
Chapter
rates

district identification rates,

as reported

III indicated that all three of the identification
for the mildly handicapped categories examined

within

a

school

districts.

mid-identification range for only
The

remaining

112

were

Michigan

districts,

Michigan's total district population,

77%

of

demonstrated varying

identification rates for the three categories.
and

in

Two hundred

three districts reported identification rates for

one

of three categories outside of the mid-identification range
with

the

identification

categories
hundred

within

and

pattern:

thirty

five

the

remaining

districts
rates

for

reported
two

rate

within

the

two

range.

of

a

One
reverse

the

three

were outside the mid-identification range

identification

range.

for

mid-identification

identification

categories
one

the

rates

with

mid-identification

The remaining 39 districts reported identification

rates

for

all

three

categories

outside

the

mid­

identification range.
Such
the

a variation in identification practices

consensus

among

several

support

professionals

that

classification practices are, at best, arbitrary and depend
predominantly
treated

and

on social
how

attitudes concerning

they should

be

treated

who should be
(Ysseldyke

Algozzine, 1982, 1984; Lilly, 1983; Gerber, 1984).
specific

&

Despite

federal and state guidelines providing legal

and

educational parameters for identifying students in all

the

special

education categories,

identification rates remain

134

extended

over

a

identification
categories
of

wide

rates

range.

for

Michigan's

all

three

1984-1985

mildly

handicapped

were similar in less than twenty-three

the school districts in the State.

percent

The combined rates

for the three categories ranged between .9 6% to 49%
the

districts.

identify

Apparently,

mildly

arbitrary

Michigan

communities

handicapping conditions in

manner

across

an

do

seemingly

and obviously some districts

choose

to

support high identification rates.
Since

enactment

decision

making

required

for

of

P.L.94-142

process

and

assessment

the

of

a

number

general

therapists,
personnel,

lawyers,

may

special
or

in

and

rates

representatives

children"

and,

Support

identification

special
parents,

advocates

themselves.

whether

and

of

consultants,

administrators,
many cases,

acceptance

of

medical

the

students

variance
of

services"

in

community

debate

education categories are
of

personnel
handicapped

education

insight into the

"categories

the

special education

by the expanded group
add

both

Currently the process

include general education teachers,

teachers,

1975,

potentially

student have expanded considerably.
may

in

as

to

"categories

of

(Stainback

&

Stainback, 1984; Yesseldyke & Algozzine, 1982, 1984; Lilly,
1983;

Algozzine

educational
are

&

Korinek,

1985).

If

in

fact

programs provided mildly handicapped

generic,

individualized,

remedial

services

emendatory

rather

programs

than

the

students
a group of

developed

with

a

135

specific student condition in mind, acceptance of expansive
special education programming in communities may serve as a
barometer of what the community sees lacking in the general
education programming.

However, a continuation of support

for expansive, generic remedial services under the title of
special

education

programming

may

continue

to

mask

a

failing

general education system and prove to be the least

cost efficient method of providing remedial services.
Extensive variation in identification practices across
the

State

rights
When

also bring into focus questions

of

both

general

general and special

education

students,

in

inappropriate

education

educational

education

classrooms in integrated facilities,

are squeezed out

of

and normalization experiences.

infractions

Michigan's

for

monitoring

identification

both

populations

personnel

practices

they

minority

special

crowded

special

facilities

serve as a springboard to mainstreamed

rights

students.

settings,

students

activities

civil

are mislabeled and are

education

which

the

particularly

and/or difficult to teach students,
served

of

educational
Obvious

civil

should

force

to examine
support are

whether
in

the

the

best

The efficiency of the identification process may

best

interest of all students.

be

examined

rates.

with a corresponding examination of

Yesseldyke & Algozzine (1984) report

referral

a three-year

trend during which school districts have referred three
six

percent

of their student population

for

to

assessment.

136

While

referrals may come from all areas of the

obviously

teacher referral is high among the

population.
identify

The

community,
school

aged

ability of general education teachers to

students requiring special education services

reflected

in the high percentage of referred students

eventually

are

Approximately
general

is

served
90%

to

education

in
93%

special

education

of the

personnel

are

who

programs.

students

referred

assessed

by

by

special

education personnel and, of those students assessed, 70% of
the

students

Algozzine,
teachers

eventually
1984).

to

The

accurately

prove

programs

services

ability

for

general

examined further.

valuable for systems interested
directed

at

(Yesseldyke

identify students in

resource that needs to be
may

receive

providing

&

education
need

is

a

This resource
in

developing

alternative

programming

which leads to preventive special education practices.
Continued

high

referral

and

identification

rates

create major difficulties for school systems (Yesseldyke
Algozzine,
must

be

Failure
specified

1985).

For

example,

in New York evaluations

completed within twenty-eight days
to

complete
time

an

evaluation

of

within

the

period gives parents the right

state responsible for paying the

to

that

teachers within the general educational

legally

to

enroll
students

tuition.

cost of the evaluation and the length of time the
wait

referral.

the

their child in a private facility for handicapped
with

&

The

students

receive help seem excessive in light of the
systems

fact
are

137

able to identify a large portion of failing students

prior

to the costly, formal assessment.
Identification costs,
for

special

education

concern nationwide.
city's

student

programming

added to the educational costs

programs,

have

community

New York reports that while 12% of the

population

in 1985,

required

special

education

the cost consumed 23% of the

system's

$4

billion

budget

(New

Bringing

the

example

closer

to

districts

raised

York

Times,

home,

one

1985).

of

the

surveyed for the study reported only the

handicapped population since their self contained
for

school

mildly
programs

the severely handicapped population were reported

financed

through

district's

an intermediate

school

district.

only mildly handicapped students.

reported

a 4.6%

identification rate for the three

categories and reported that five

the

budget was spent to service

students.
against

When
the

examination

the

identification

mainstreaming
of

the F.T.E.

rate

for

the

mildly

percent

these
rate

of

The district

handicapped
school

and
The

situation allowed for a glimpse at the cost

educating

19

of

identified

was

examined

district,

an

indicated five percent of

the

district's budget was spent on 39 students in the district.
It

should

special

be

noted that since some of the

education

cost

personnel evaluating students

particular

district

might

intermediate

school district budget,

therefore, may be underestimated!

be

reflected
the

of
in

the
this

in

the

district

cost,

138

A

preliminary

practice,
to

be

demonstrating

informative

educational

This

variation

identification

beyond

expectations

programming

section

has

for

presented

next

in

handicapped
evidence

in referral and identification practices

of special education and general

has

have

that
across

state and the nation may present crucial problems

future
The

the

the influence identification practices

providing

students.

the

of

though not the primary intent of the study,

proven

in

examination

education

for

alike.

section reports on mainstreaming practices

when

variations in identification practices are controlled.
The Controlled Identification Variable
The

Educational

Descriptive

Profile:

Composition.

The

composition of the mainstreamed population is of concern to
general

educators since they must plan for

the

students.

The composition is also of interest to the special educator
since mainstreaming programming is an important link in the
mandated

continuum

of

services

leading

to

educating

handicapped students in the least restrictive environment.
Gerber

(1984)

statistics,

has

indicated

that

mainstreaming

as reported by educational systems,

may imply

much greater social and education integration than probably
exist.

The

percentage
6-17,

as

State
of

mainstreamed

65% LD,

school year.

Department of Education

These

48% El,

reported

the

mildly impaired students, age
and 15%

statistics

are

EMI for the 1984-1985
established through a

139

comparison

of

categories.

like-students or students within

the

same

However, when the three categories are pooled

together and are viewed as a noncategorical group of mildly
handicapped

students,

mainstreamed,
combining
aged

categories

LD,

the percentages change

considerably.

mildly
as

than

school

individual

the percentages

El and EMI students mainstreamed are

El and 2%

reporting

rather

a base for comparison,

aged LD,

11%

handicapped

using

EMI.

a

Apparently,

the

categorical framework

be
When

the three categories and using a pool of

(6-17)

school

students who are most likely to

of
41%

mainstreaming
for

comparison

Another reason the reporting system may be

misleading

produce inflated mainstreaming rates.

may

be

due

Impaired
student

to the inclusion of the Speech

(SLI)

student

count.

While

education category,
providing
the

special
model,

SLI

is

in

the

Language

mainstreamed

technically

a

special

the educational delivery service model

for SLI students is considerably different

model

education

population

and

providing
categories.

education
while

the

for students in
SLI

than

the

other

special

students most

often

receive

itinerant

teacher

services through an

remaining special education

population

receives special education services predominantly through a
school based classroom model.
Ninety-seven
are

reported as

students

are

percent of the school aged SLI
mainstreamed

assigned

to

all

students.

students

However,

these

general education classes

140

routinely,
through

and

special

education services

a "pull out" program.

students

are

building's

are

These "special

provided
education"

for the most part not participating
special

education

classroom

technically are not mainstreamed students.

in

the

programs

and

When adjusting

for SLI representation in the total mainstreamed population
for the school year 1984-1985,
school aged LD,

El,

the combined percentage

and EMI students in the public school

mainstreamed

population is 95% (72% LD,

Thus,

the special education system has

while

recognized
the

of

19% El,

4% EMI).

13

legally

special education categories (14 when including

speech

and language impaired

categories

make

population

up 95% of the

with

representing

one

72%

category),

school

category,

of the

total

only

aged

learning

three

mainstreamed
disabilities,

mainstreamed

population.

Such

an inclusiveness of the mainstreamed population

even

more support to Gerber's (1984) implication that less

social

and

educational integration is occurring

than

adds

is

being reported.
As

might

mainstreamed
occurring

be expected,

population

the

changes

composition

yearly.

The

of

changes

over the past three years in Michigan indicate a

trend toward an increase in the number of LD students
a

corresponding

(Special

the

decrease

Education

in

Services,

the

with

number of EMI students

1983).

Such a

trend

may

support Algozzine and Korinek's (1985) findings that the LD
category

is growing at a current rate of three percent

of

141

the

special education population per year.

They

project

that if the growth continues at the three percent rate, all
classified

students in high prevalence categories would be

classified

"learning

With

the

current

students

in

educational

disabled" by around the

high percentage

mainstreaming
programs

of

programs

year

learning
today,

may may reach that

2001.

disabled
Michigan's

prediction

even

earlier.
General

Education Classes Accessed by Mainstream Students.

The mainstreamed population accesses general education
programming

through all the

following

courses:

reading,

math, language arts, social studies, science, art, and gym.
The

general education classes least often accessed by

mildly

the

handicapped students in this study were reading and

language

arts classes,

and the general education

classes

most

often accessed by the mildly handicapped are gym

and

art.

Access to different classes varied depending on

the

special

education

whether

or

not

label
the

districts.

While

mainstreamed

into

of

students were
emotionally

all

students

education

in

as
H-ITM

impaired

the elementary and

general education classes,
El

the student

well
and

L-ITM

students

were

middle

in

school

there were significantly

were mainstreamed into five of seven

classes

L-ITM

districts.

fewer
general

Again,

educable mentally impaired students were mainstreamed
all

as

of the elementary and middle school general

while
into

education

142

classes, significantly fewer EMI students were mainstreamed
into

science

classes in L-ITM districts.

It

should

be

remembered, however, that students in the EI/EMI categories
are much less representative of the mainstreamed population
than students in the learning disabilities category.
Learning disabled students were mainstreamed into five
of

seven general education classes similarly in H-ITM

L-ITM districts.
accessing
low

as

and

However, while the number of LD students

reading and language arts classes was

generally

compared to the LD attendance rates for the

five classes,

and

the number of LD students accessing

other
reading

language arts classes was significantly lower in L-ITM

districts.
The
accessed

examination

of

the

general

education

by mainstreamed population brings into focus

curriculum of the special education programs.
of

this

once
to

study indicate the 'arts and

have

been replaced with a strong
While

the

The findings

crafts’

curriculum

associated with special education classrooms

study.
the

classes

academic

appears

course

the general education program is

of

providing

mainstreamed student with strong academic classes

the

special education teachers are concentrating on reading and
language art activities for the students remaining in their
classes.

Lilly (1983) has suggested that special education

is functioning in school districts as a reading program and
is

supplanting

general

remedial

programs once

education programs.

provided

.The findings in this

by

the

study,

143

showing

the attendance rates for reading and language arts

classes

for

attendance

students in all three categories
rates for all of

classes

are

examined,

lowest

certainly

collaborates a portion of Lilly's claim: special education,
at least in Michigan, is functioning in school districts as
a reading program.
Significant
learning

disabled

reduced

most

reading

related to reduced

numbers

students mainstreamed for

numbers

mainstreamed
the

findings

of

emotionally

reading

impaired

(1)

and

students

in general suggest that L-ITM districts

difficulty in mainstreaming

of

students

problems and (2) students with behavior

have
with

problems.

While the difficulty of teaching any student with either or
both

of

these

remembered

conditions

is

obvious,

L-ITM districts in providing a less

more

normalized

educational

and
the

and language needs of all students to include

the

educators

who

are

more

successful

mainstreaming

education

classes

education

students.

effective

successful

restrictive

to

environment in

be

meeting

behavior problem students.

programs

should

that H-ITM districts have been more

than

reading

it

It appears there are groups of
able

than

others

experiences in
a

wider

These

provide

various

population

educators

to

and

of

general
special

successful

need to be investigated further for insight
practices.

As

Sansone &

Zigmond

(1986)

into
have

suggested, the need to understand mainstreaming experiences
of

handicapped

students derives from a commitment to

the

144

concept

of

"opportunity"

as

a

critical

variable

in

achievement.
A

better

education

understanding

programming

population,

particularly

of

accessed
the

the

type

of

by

the

mainstreamed

learning

general

disabled

student

population, has important implications for teacher training
programs.
need

The

prospective special education teacher

of a teacher training program that provides a

teaching

of

techniques
method

for

behavior

courses

programs
math,

reading curriculum

in

and

problem

special

stresses

strong

management

students.

education

Traditional

teacher

training

concentrating on the teaching of social

studies,

gym or art might be better exchanged for courses

teaching

has

reading,

of

particularly teaching of reading in the

content areas.
This study has provided evidence of an existing demand
to

provide remedial reading in schools today.

issue

of

policy

who should provide remedial

While

reading

debate for the field of education,

remains

responsible

teaching remedial reading to large groups of students.

However,

since

comprised

predominantly of learning disabled

category

suspected

difficult

to

and

a

results of this

study indicate that special education has been
for

the

serviced

the

mildly

of

handicapped

including

population
students,

nonhandicapped

teach students who are routinely
through

(Yesseldyke & Algozzine,

special
1982,

education
1984),

special

is
a
but

mislabeled
programming
educators

145

need

to closely examine their identification practices

well

as

their role in continuing to provide

language

reading

arts classes separate from the general

as
and

education

curriculum.
Instructional Time in the Mainstream.
handicapped
general

Elementary, mildly

students spend a median time of three hours in

education programming.

It would follow

emotionally

impaired

mainstreamed

in fewer numbers into five of

education classes,
out

of

the

significantly

students

in

L-ITM

that

districts
seven

if
are

general

the amount of time those students spend

special
reduced.

education
The

room

would

data confirm the

also

be

assumption

that emotionally impaired students spend two or more

hours

less in the mainstream than their counterparts in the other
two categories.
The
mildly

amount

handicapped

generally

follows

elementary

level.

approximately
learning

buildings.

students
the

when

the

three

school,

categories

there is a slight

in the total amount of

and emotionally impaired

at

students

the

length of

spend in

the

the

increase,
time

the

students

are

moved from elementary to middle

Contrastingly,
impaired

in

middle

time patterns established

However,

one hour,

disabled

mainstreamed

mentally

of mainstreamed time for

time

school
educable

mainstream

in

middle school is less than the mainstreamed time they spent
in elementary schools.

146

Reasons for the differences among types of handicapped
students regarding time in the mainstream in elementary and
middle

school

settings

can,
the

this

time,

only

answers may lie

be

speculated

upon.

evaluation

and assessment review process required whenever

a

However,

at

handicapped student is moved from one special

program to another,
school program.
school

in

the

education

such as from an elementary to a middle

Also, programming at elementary and middle

levels differs in that elementary students tend

have

one teacher for the instructional day,

school

students

usually have several

different teacher per hour.
student

may

second

while

teachers,

to

middle
often

a

Consequently, a middle school

have more options for

mainstreaming

than

grade student because there may be only one

a

second

grade teacher available in the school who may not work well
with

mainstreamed

students and/or who already has his

or

her negotiated share of mainstreamed students.
Summary;
Descriptive
streamed Population.
In

a

Educational

report to the

Committee

on

Education

U.S.

Profile

House

and Labor

of

in

of

the

Main­

Representatives

1981,

the

acting

comptroller general stated, "...the findings across studies
indicate

that the 'typical* child participating in special

education
male,

in

public schools is young

and mildly handicapped"

information
descriptive

is

(GOA,

(a
1981,

now available to add to

profile.

In

Michigan,

preadolescent),
p.

this
a

ii).

New

educational

typical

child

147

participating
public

in

schools

special

is

a

education

(a) speech

programming

and

language

student or (b) learning disabled student.
language

impaired

student

is

in

routinely

the

impaired

The speech

and

assigned

and

educated in the general education program with an itinerant
speech
"pull

and

out program" delivery service model.

disabled
for

language teacher providing services through

math,

social

Typically,
special

The learning

student remains in a general education

approximately

three to four hours per

studies,

the

science,

learning disabled

education

art

a

classroom

day

and

attending

gym classes.

student

remains

classroom(s) for reading

in

and language

arts instruction.
The
Michigan's

developed

Educational

Descriptive

Profile

mainstreaming population indicates that a

of
much

greater educational integration of all handicapped students
is

reported or implied

than may

actually

exist.

After

adjusting for the representation of the speech and language
impaired

population

population,
categories

three

in

the

school

aged

of the remaining 13

recognized

mainstreamed population.

in

mainstreamed

special

Michigan make up

education

95%

category - learning disabilities - represents

the

mainstreamed

population.

been made that if

continues

to

grow

as

the

However of the those three, only

one

have

of

Additionally,

72%

of

predictions

the learning disabilities

category

it has in

learning

recent

years,

148

disabled

students

will be the only students

mainstreamed

into general education programming.
Developing
population

a

has

profile

also

of

Michigan's

offered an

mainstreamed

opportunity

to

closely

examine the curriculum offered students in both general and
special

education

appears

to be offering reading and language arts

general

education

including

gym,

classrooms.

offers

art,

a

and

While

wide

special

spectrum

education
classes/

of

the academic courses

classes
of

math,

social studies, science.
The
in

length of time a special education student spends

general education programming varies depending

special

education category of the student.

mildly

handicapped

spends

a

median

In general

special education student in
time

of

education programming.

three

Additionally,

mentally

impaired students,

student

spends

in

hours

the

on

in

the

excluding

the
a

Michigan
general
educable

the time a mildly handicapped

general

education

programming

increases as that student moves from an elementary facility
to a middle school facility.
System Characteristics Associated with High and Low
Mainstreaming Rates
Eight hypotheses,
eight

building

level

four district level hypotheses
hypotheses were tested

to

and

examine

whether differences exist between H-ITM and L-ITM districts
on

selected

speculating

system
that

no

characteristics.
difference exists

Two

hypotheses

between H-ITM and

149

L-ITM districts regarding monetary resources available
instructional

costs

of

general

and

special

for

education

programs were tested and not rejected.
A
the

third hypothesis testing for no difference

district

teacher/pupil
not

ratio

rejected.

in

H-ITM

Additional

between

and

L-ITM

districts

was

analyses

conducted

regarding general education teacher/pupil ratios

and special education teacher/pupil ratios at the
level.

While

the

elementary and middle

were

building

school

general

education teacher/pupil ratio in the surveyed buildings did
not

differ

education
H-ITM

in

L-ITM

districts,

the

special

teacher/pupil ratio for elementary buildings

and

findings

H-ITM and

L-ITM districts did
indicate

vary

significantly.

that L-ITM districts had lower

in
The

special

education teacher/pupil ratios than H-ITM districts.
The fourth district level hypothesis,
no

speculating

on

difference between the mean size of the H-ITM and L-ITM

districts, was rejected.

The average H-ITM school district

has 1,906 students, a significantly smaller enrollment than
the average L-ITM school district with 4,677 students.
difference
appreciated

in

the
when

size of H-ITM and L-ITM
considering

the

number

can
of

be

best
mildly

handicapped students interfacing with both the general
special

education

systems.

The

L-ITM districts

The

may

and
be

referring, evaluating and educating approximately 2.5 times
more

mildly

districts.

handicapped students than

the

H-ITM

school

150

Because large districts are logistically able to group
large

numbers

of

departmentalized
more

often

handicapped

special

in

larger

departmentalized

students

together,

education programs

may

districts

result.

as

a

develop
A

program is able to provide students

with

different levels of instruction for similar course content.
However,

when

available,
with

different

of

instruction

are

mainstreaming students in order to provide them

appropriate

Thus,

levels

level

coursework

becomes

unnecessary.

departmentalized programs may unintentionally reduce

opportunities

for

eligible students to

be

mainstreamed.

Also, departmentalized programs may be one source adding to
the

"duplicity of services"

special

education

program

looks

education

class

debate.

in

suspiciously

programming,

the

a

Obviously,

large,

like

a

when

a

departmentalized
class

question of why

in

general

the

special

education student cannot access the general education class
with his/her non-handicapped peers must be asked.
Four building level hypotheses were tested.
hypothesis
L-ITM

rejected.
were
the

speculating on no difference between H-ITM

districts

programming

regarding the type of

accessed

elementary
districts;

general

by mildly handicapped

and

education

students

was

The other three building level hypotheses tested

not rejected:
number

The first

of
or

there appears to be no difference

special education

referrals

received

middle school buildings in H-ITM and

availability

of

the

different

types

in
in

L-ITM
of

151

alternative programs in either elementary or middle
building
differ;

in

H-ITM

and,

or

L-ITM districts did

not

seem

H-ITM and L-ITM districts provided

reading,

remedial

programs,

and

math,bilingual

transitional

programs,

school
to

remedial

headstart

rooms at similar

rates.

It

should be noted that elementary and middle school buildings
in

both

H-ITM and L-ITM districts did provide

number of remedial reading classrooms.

a

similar

This finding

may

be contrary to thoughts that special education services are
supplanting rather than adding to existing services but, at
the same time,

supportive of the notion that services for

special education and general education indicates duplicity
of service.
Summaryi System characteristics and ITM Rates.
The
eight

eight

hypotheses

selected to

system characteristics of educational

suspected

to be

purpose,

of course,

related
in

to

the

interest

represented
organizations

mainstreaming

finding

influence mainstreaming rates,
was

test

rates.

The

characteristics

H-ITM rates in

of this researcher

and

that

particular,

teacher.

The

interest

in finding different rates of

mainstreaming

was

prompted

also by this researcher’s administrative sense of

inefficiency in the special education processes governed by
set policies.
Education

For

These policies, set over a decade ago in the
All Handicapped Children

shown unexpected effects,

Act,

have

today

some of which may be leading

to

152

continued

segregation.

researcher's

concern

The

philosophy that drives

is a belief that

opportunity

this
is

a

function of achievement.
H-ITM school districts tend to be those with a average
population of approximately 2,000 students.
were

127

In 1985, there

districts in Michigan with a student

size between 1,500 and 2,5000.

population

These districts tend not to

provide any more or any less monetary resources for general
or special educational classroom costs than L-ITM districts
in

the

State.

study,

however,

suspected

A review of the data
may

indicate

difference

in

gathered

for

that an examination

monetary

this
of

a

resources available in

H-ITM and L-ITM districts might not be the question to ask.
Questions

regarding

the reasons behind the high

cost

of

special education programming in general and identification
practices in particular may be better questions to ask.
The district general education teacher/pupil ratio did
not
from

distinguish

H-ITM districts from L-ITM

any other districts in the State.

suggested
general

designed

interest

Further

on

the

programming
by
part

contract
of the

according
language

to

also

did

distinguish H-ITM districts from L-ITM districts.
appear,
ratio

however,
in

in

weighting

stipulations

principals

or

analysis

that placement of special education students
education

formula

districts

or
not

It does

that the special education teacher/pupil

elementary

buildings in L-ITM

districts

smaller ratio than exists in H-ITM districts.

This

is

a

153

difference,

however,

education

did

teacher/pupil

not

hold

ratios

at

true
the

for

special

middle

school

building level.
Elementary
L-ITM

and

districts

special

the

school buildings in H-ITM and

did not vary according to the

education

however,

middle

referrals

wording

on

received.
the

In

number

of

retrospect,

questionnaire

seeking

information for this question appears to this researcher to
have

confounded the findings.

indicated

there

may

Analysis of the

responses

have been confusion on the

respondents,

and

the

skeptically.

However,

education

referrals

continued

exploration

findings

viewed

since the overall rate of

special

come

into

under

be

of

be

has

should

part

scrutiny

this issue along

recently,

with

other

identification issues

may be the most informative

for understanding the

cost efficiency of special education.

While

the

number

and type of

alternative

research

programs

offered in the H-ITM and L-ITM districts did not vary,
examination
services

produced

exists in

L-ITM districts.
in

H-ITM

more

general

both

In general,

emotionally

more

Also

disabled students.

duplicity

of

elementary school buildings

impaired

mainstream
students

significantly
into

academic

H-ITM elementary buildings are able

reading

education

a

elementary and middle schools in

districts are able to

coursework.
provide

some evidence that

the

and language arts

program

particularly

classes
for

in

to
the

learning

154

Recommendations
The

recommendations

potential
issues

for

within

application

specifically,

research.

drawn

from this

to a

research

variety

of

policy development,

educational

evaluation

The recommendations are addressed to

both

the special education and

have

and

audiences

general

education

systems.
Policy Development
Public

policy

for handicapped students

underwent

a

major transformation between 1970 and 1980 with the passage
of

P.L.

94-142

unprecedented

school

and

suggest

practices

1975

changes.

anticipated
changes

in

being

a

Continuous

unanticipated
that

focal

the

point

evaluations

effects

of

categorical

of
of

identification
Michigan

districts for mildly handicapped students are

delivery

and

inefficient and

impair

both

promulgated

and integrated programming provided by

arbitrary

the

equitable

both

service

for both handicapped and nonhandicapped students.

Insufficient

or fragmented policy guiding programming

the

handicapped

mildly

may

be

due

to

a

for

recognized

separateness of the general education and special education
systems,

a

general

education

system

and

evaluation

leadership
education
leadership

separateness that may continue to grow as
moves

toward

models

while

system continues to operate
and evaluation models.

the

decentralized
the

special

within

centralized

While the

educational

155

and

behavioral

learners,
mildly
the

characteristics of students

high risk,

hard to teach,

labeled

slow

poor or minority, or

handicapped students become more indistinguishable,

two major educational delivery

special

education,

develop

new

services

become

policies

more

governing

systems,

general

divided.

The

cooperative

and

need

to

educational

and provisions between the systems is

imperative

to insure equal education opportunities for all students.
Professional
responsible
youth.

educators

for

the

However,

identify

or

addresses
Michigan's

task of

either

define

the

and school board members
the

community's

group would be hard

public

needs

of

policy

high

identification

categorical model,

educating

that

are

pressed

to

specifically

risk

students

alone.

practices,

governed

by

a

has effected a change of the number of

special education categories, However, there seems to be no
expected

concomitant

students

in

the different categories —

categories of LD,
evidence

that

significant
board
of

differentiation in

El, and EMI.
indicates

for

particularly

the

There is a growing body of

that

impact on student

programming

local

policy

achievement.

can

Local

members need to become aware of the number and

student

criteria but,

failures

that are outside

special

have
school
type

education

due to a vacuum of appropriate and immediate

services available,

become,

over time,

require special education placement.

failures that do

Policy statements and

leadership efforts from boards of education which recognize

156

and

provide new identification processes

educational

programming

heterogeneous

student

are

imperative.

categorical
"search

the

alternative

pluralistic

and

population in public schools

today

Experimentation

identification

for

categories

for

and

pathology"

in

dismantling

the

model which contributes
mindset may

lead

to

to

a

providing

of services rather than locating categories

of

children.
General
begin

education

to

explore

educational
early
the

organized

A
at

model
the

where

point

for

general

environment

and

education

to

for

within

School

building

incorporating master teacher leadership,

and

allow

and educational intervention

setting.

should

identification

of high risk students that

identification

Meetings,

professionals

experimental

models

mainstream

leaders and

Team

level

and

may be a starting

identify

and

teacher influenced learning

curb

disabilities

and problems.
Special
encouraged
provisions.

education
to

develop

Educating

leaders
policy
special

and
to

professionals
guide

are

mainstreaming

education students

in

a

mainstream setting has been the focus and guiding principle
in

policy

change over the history of

special

education.

Yet, the process of evaluating the extent special education
students are mainstreamed into the general education system
is limited.
evaluation

Local policy should support the development of
models

designed to specifically

identify

the

157

quality

and

district

quantity of mainstreaming provisions

and

capricious

building

and

education

levels.

arbitrary

personnel

are

In

order

identification
encouraged

to

to

at

the

curb

the

model,

special

experiment

with

setting quotas on the number of high risk students provided
for through special education programs.
Evaluation
Merge

General and Special Education Evaluation

separateness
developed

of general and special education systems

over time.

developed

Models:

from

The ramifications of

this

separateness

are

the

not

A

has

patterns
completely

understood.

However, it appears that evaluation processes

have

decidedly

taken

education

continues

different

to

defer

foci.

to

While

efficacy

determining effective programming,

special

studies

it should be remembered

that such studies have focused on individual classrooms
the

unit

measures

of

analysis.

have,

however,

General
taken

for

education

on

a

as

evaluation

wider

evaluation

spectrum and have moved beyond the thinking that individual
classrooms alone account for effective education.
Effective
concerned
effects

school

with
of

an
a

evaluation

environment that

single

classroom.

evaluation should follow this lead.
mainstreaming
district

measures

have

extends
Special

become

beyond

the

education

It is recommended that

rates should be identified for

and included in evaluation reports.

each
It is

school
also

158

recommended that in Michigan,
of

MEAP scores, a strong source

verification of effective schools,

with

should be

mainstreaming rates of schools.

dispel

any

compared

The comparison

lingering community fears

that

mainstreaming

handicapped

students into general education classes

result

reduced

in

education students.
to

close

process

the
by

a

effective

may

programming

for

might
general

Further, the comparison may also begin

separateness

of

the

demonstration that

systems'

special

evaluation

education

and

A

for

general education goals are compatible.
Establish

Database

understanding
mainstreaming

for

and

Evaluation Model;
evaluating

design

identification

practices has been developed in

and

this

study

and

may begin an evaluation process that is understandable

and

acceptable

This

to

both special

general

study has demonstrated that when matched

identification practices,
are

and

more

mildly

handicapped

knowledge
H-ITM

successful

should

in mainstreaming higher

tapped

than

other

continuum

of

similar

numbers

schools.

of
This

by program evaluators.

and L-ITM districts should be examined to

understanding

on

there are schools available that

students
be

educators.

Both

build

an

of providing mainstreaming provisions in the
services

required

to

provide

a

least

restrictive environment for eligible handicapped students.
Since
study

existing

data used in the methodology of

are available for examining district

this

identification

159

and

mainstreaming

time,
for

practices over a three year

examination of these data would provide
trends that may be developing.

should

be

given

identifying
well

as

to

period

information

Particular

districts

that

are

attention
continually

high numbers of special education students

districts

handicapped

that

continue

to

mainstream

students at a L-ITM rate.

It is

data

to

determine district

as

mildly

recommended

that a replication of the portion of this study which
existing

of

identification

mainstreaming practices should be conducted with data

used
and
that

spans a three year period of time.
Such

a

valuable

study would be inexpensive but would

information

to individual districts

provide

seeking

to

extend their evaluation procedures regarding identification
and

mainstreaming

compliance

design.

mainstreaming
provide

practices

Establishing the

trends

useful

beyond

in

that

have

determining

a

monitoring

identification

developed
the

to

and
and

date

may

effectiveness

of

intervention programming developed to change identification
and mainstreaming rates in the future.
Research
Of

all

the

factors

contributing

to

the

continued

separateness of the general and special education
teacher
factor
of

training

programs

may be

the

most

in setting teacher attitudes toward and

separating

systems,

influential
acceptance

educational provisions for handicapped

and

160

nonhandicapped students.
experimenting

with

providing teaching

heterogeneous setting,
have

while some training programs are
experiences

candidates.

certification

a

most teacher certification programs

separate curricula for general and special

teacher

in

programs

Furthermore,

many

and

are

curricula

education
of

these

located

in

separate departments within the universities and colleges.
The

division

educators

there

of the

are

programs

at least two types

handicapped and nonhandicapped.
that

if

you

conceptually
with

the

other type.
that

separate,

only

with

prospective

of

students

Furthermore,

to work with one

you become incapable of

interpreted
own

choose

teaches

it suggests

type

of

working

student,

effectively

Attitudinally the division

special education and general

specialized methodology that

becomes
education

is

effective

specific categories of students whose

learning

problems are clearly distinguishable and identifiable.
a

minimum,

for

general

teachers

in

training centers should merge the
education

training to work

handicapped students.
grow

teachers

and

special

specifically

At

programming
education
with

mildly

Research of these departments should

from the concept of diversity as a norm.

Until

the

student gains or losses from a transfer between systems can
be more clearly determined, the research should be directed
towards

building a delivery system that moves away from

11pull out program11 model.

a

In

this

century

technological
pedagogical

of

breakthroughs
framework

methodology

communication

that

that

provides

retention of information,
The

purpose

media,

unlimited

it is

continues

to

information,

a

and

persists

in dividing

that a

child cannot

read should not be

that a

child cannot

learn.

have

reading

by the society to teach the
Yet the

and

separating

students into two groups, readers and nonreaders.

Separate

for

to only those students who read.

established

system

a

tests

beliefs and knowledge base of society.

educational

limited

support

of schools is not limited to teaching

alone, schools are
ideals,

in

with

However,

interpreted to

educational systems with separate

mean

curricula

developed around the groups of readers and nonreaders

in schools -- special and general education
recognized

rapid

systems.

The

growth of special education in the

past

decade provides evidence that today more and more

students

are

standard

being

decoding
growth

identified

apply
This

the

unprecedented

should force both general and special educators
program development designed to

reading difficulties.

high

cannot

process to the printed page.

reconceptualize

the

that

remediate

Research questions need to focus on

efficiency and efficacy of a continuued acceptance
identification

continued
provide

development
remedial

to

rates

of

nonreaders

of special

reading

programs

along

education
for

with

programs

these

of
a
to

students.

Also, in fairness to all students, research in both special

162

and

general

methodology

education

need

to

focus

on

developing

and educational programs designed to

information through media

other than printed books

transfer
alone.

APPENDIX A

163

164

May 22, 1985
Kathryn Moran
553 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Attached is material which is part of a study designed to examine several
issues related to mainstreaming in the schools of Michigan.
Initially,
four hundred and eighty-nine school districts across the State of Michigan
were examined on several characteristics.
From this population sixty dis­
tricts were then selected and district administrators were contacted for
further information.
From this information a final group of schools and
special education teachers were selected for the final phase of the study.
Your school is one of the schools selected.
We are asking you, as principal, to do two activities.
Activity 1.

Please complete the 1984-1985: Administrator Report
enclosed and return in the envelope provided.

Activity 2.

Please distribute the 1984-1985 Special Education
Teacher Report to special education teacher consultants and/or special education classroom teachers
in your building who are working with Learning
Disabled, Emotionally Impaired, or Educable Mentally
Impaired students.
The Teacher Report is addressed
and ready for distribution.
A stamped, return enve­
lope is also provided for each teacher.

The information you and your teachers provide- is the final, but vital,
link in this study that has been underway for the past six months.
Questions regarding the report can be directed to Dr. Ed Birch, Michigan
Department of Education, or Kathryn Moran, Michigan State University.
Your assistance in this project is gratefully appreciated.

Cordially,

Kathryn Moran
KM/jw

165

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: SCHOOL YEAR 19M-I9S5
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING AVAILABLE
Please Indicate if the following programs or services were available In vour school
building during the past year (1984-1985).

DIRECTIONS:

a.

Remedial reading programming yes

no Number of teachers in the RR program

b.

Remedial math programming

yes

no Number of teachers in the RM program

c.

Headstart program

yes

no

Number of teachers in the Headstart program

d.

Bilingual program

• yes

no

Number of teachers in the bilingual program

e.

Instructional aides (paid)

yes

no

Number of instructional aides in building

f.

Instructional volunteers

yes

no Number of instructional volunteers

g-

Other alternative programming in your building

1. What was the approximate teacher/pupil ratio in your building this past year?

_________

2. Is there any contract language in the teacher's contract that allows for weighting special
education students placed in a regular education classroom or otherwise allows for
a reduction of the teacher/pupil ratio in classrooms where mainstreaming occurs?
YES NO
3* If YES, what are the general provisions?________________________________________________
U. Are you able to intervene or organize classrooms in any way to reduce the numbers

of regular education students in classrooms where mainstreaming occurs?

YES NO

5. If YES, what do you do?______________________________________________________________

6.

Number of special education students
a.

How many special education students attend your school (ail categories)?

b.

How many of the following types of students are from another district?
Learning disabled________ Emotionally impaired_______
Educable mentally impaired______

7.

How many referrals did you receive this past year (received, not processed)?

166

May 22, 1985
Kathryn Moran
353 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Dear Special Education Teacher,
Attached is a 1984-1985: Special Education Teacher Report. This Report
is part of a study designed to examine several issues related to main­
streaming in the schools of Michigan.
Initially, four hundred and
eighty-nine school districts across the State of Michigan were examined
on several characteristics.
From this population, sixty districts were
then selected and the special education directors were contacted for
further information.
From this information a final group of schools and
special education teachers were selected.
Your school is one of the
schools selected.
We are asking you,
as a special education consultant and/or classroom
teacher, to complete the Report attached.
A stamped, return envelope
has been provided.
You will note the Report requests information only
for students in the following categories: Learning Disabled, Emotionally
Impaired, and Educable Mentally Impaired.
Your principal has also received the 1984-1985: Administrator Report.
The combined information from these reports is the final, but vital,
link in this study that has been underway for the past six months.
Questions regarding the report can be directed to Dr. Ed Birch, Michigan
Department of Special Education, or Kathryn Moran, Michigan State Univer­
sity.
Your assistance in this project is gratefully appreciated.

Cordially,

Kathryn Moran
KM/jw

167

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER REPORT: SCHOOL YEAR 19SM9S5

CODE

The following tables are designed to obtain mainstreaming information for learning disabled,
emotionally impaired, and educable mentally impaired students in special education programs.
Number of Students on Caseload by Category
DIRECTIONS: Give the number o f students currently on your caseload for the three different categories
(WPC eligibility label).
ft

Current number of LD students on caseload:________________
Current number of El students on caseload:
_________
Current number of EMI students on caseload:
Number of Students Mainstreamed for Regular Education Classes
DIRECTIONS: Give the number o f students In the three categories o f education classes listed.
Number LD Students
Mainstreamed for:

Number El Students
Mainstreamed for:

Reading
Math
Language arts
Social studies
Science
Art
R* Gym
h. Other

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
R.
h.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Reading
Math
Language arts
Social studies
Science
Art
Gym
Other

Number EMI Students
Mainstreamed for:
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
gh.

Reading
Math
Language arts
Social studies
Science
Art
Gym
Other

Number of Students Mainstreamed for Different Lengths
of Time per Day for Any Regular Education Activity
DIRECTIONS: Next to each period o f time listedf indicate total number of students mainstreamed per
day into the general education program for the length o f time listed .

Number LD Students
Mainstreamed per Day

Number El Students
Mainstreamed per Day

Number EMI Students
Mainstreamed per Day

No mainstreaming
1 hour or less
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
3 to 4 hours
4 hours or more

No mainstreaming
1 hour or less
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
3 to hours
hours or more

No mainstreaming
1 hour or less
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
3 to k hours
k hours or more

Circle the grades represented in your class:

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

REFERENCES
Abeson, A. (1976). The educational rights of exceptional
children: Overview.
In F. J. Weintraub, A. Abeson, J.
Ballard, & M. LaVor (Eds.), Public Policy and the
Education of Exceptional Children, (pp. 5-6). Reston VA:
Council of Exceptional Children.
Algozzine B., & Yesseldyke, J. (1983). Learning
disabilities as a subset of school failure: The over
sophistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, 50,
542-546.
Algozzine, B. & Korinek, L. (1985).
Where is special
education for students with high prevalence handicaps
going? Exceptional Children, 51, 388-394.
American Psychological Association. (1983). Publication
manual of the American Psychological Association
(3rd.ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Balia, D . , Butterfield E., & zigler, E. (1974). Effects of
institutionalization on retarded children: A
longitudinal cross-institutional investigation. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 7 8 , 530-549.
Balia, D ., & Klein, M. (1981). Labels for and taxonomy of
environments for retarded persons. In H. Haywood & J.
Newbrough (Eds.), Living environments for
developmentally retarded persons. Baltimore: University
Park Press.
Blatt, B . , Biklen, D., & Bogdan, P. (1977). An alternative
textbook in special education. Denver: Love Publishing.
Birch, J.W. (1974). Mainstreaming: Educable mentally
retarded children in regular classes. Reston VA: The
Council for Exceptional Children.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1976). The judged, not the
judges:
An insider's view of mental retardation.
American Psychologist, 3 1 , 47-52.

168

169

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 493
S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954).
Burello, L. & Sage, D. (1979). Leadership and change in
special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Burke, D., Prey, w. & Sumpter, L. (1983). Program
Effectiveness Review (PER). Unpublished manuscript.
Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special
versus regular class placement for exceptional children:
A meta-analysis.
The Journal of Special Education
14(3), 295-309.
Davis, A. & Smith, M.L. (1984). The history and politics of
an evaluation: The Colorado learning disabilities study.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, £,(1), 27-37.
Doll, E. E. (1967). Trends and problems in the education of
the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 7 2 , 175-183.
Doll, E. E. (1972). A historical survey of research and
management of mental retardation in the United States.
In E.P. Trapp & P. Himmelstein (Eds.), Readings on the
exceptional child (2nd e d . ), New York: Appelton.
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly
retarded - Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional
Children, 35, 5-22.
Edmonds, R. R., & Lezotte, L. W. (1982).
School
effectiveness and grade organization: The identification
and analysis of instructionally effective middle schools
and junior high schools. Research prospectus for the
U.S. Department of Education: Unpublished manuscript.
Elkin, E. (1976). Historical perspectives. In 1976 National
Forum on Residential Services. Arlington TX: National
Association for Retarded Citizens.
Gable, R., Hendrickson, J., Shores, R., & Young, (1983).
Teacher-handicapped child classroom interactions.
Teacher Education and Special Education, £, 88-95.
Gerber, M. M. (1984). The department of Education's sixth
annual report to congress on P.L.94-142: Is Congress
getting the full story? Exceptional Children, 51,(3),
209-224.

170

Goodlad, J. (1983). Individuality, commonality, and
curricular practice.
In G. Fenstermacher & J. Goodlad
(Eds.), Individual differences and the common curriculum
(pp.300-318). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725
(1975).
Heal, L., Sigelman, C., & Switzky, H. (1978). Research on
community residential alternatives for the mentally
retarded. In N. Ellis (Ed.), International review of
research in mental retardation, J3, 209-249. New York:
Academic Press.
Hobbs, N. (1975). The futures of children. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kaufman, M. J., Gottlieb, J., Agard, J. A., & Kukic, M. B.
(1975). Mainstreaming: Towards and explication of the
construct. Focus on Exception Children, 7, 1-12.
Kanner, L. (1964). A history of the care and study of the
mentally retarded. Springfield IL: Thomas.
Kuhlmann. F. (1940). One hundred years of special care and
traininq. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 45,
18-24.
Lilly, S. £1979). Children with exceptional needs. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lilly, S. M. (1983). Divestiture in special education:
An alternative model for resource and support services.
Unpublished manuscript.
Lloyd, J. (1984). How shall we individualize instruction or should we? Remedial and Special Education, 5, 7-15.
Lortie, D. (1978). Some reflections on renegotiation. In M.
Reynolds (Ed.), Futures of education for exceptional
students (pp. 235-244). Reston VA: The Council for
Exceptional Children.
Martin, E. W. (1973, November). An end to dichotomous
constructs: A reconceptualization of teacher education.
Paper presented at the dedication of Thorndike Hall,
Columbia University, NY.
Martin, E. (1978). Preface, In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Futures
of education for exceptional students (pp. iii-vi).
Reston VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

171

Maryland Association for Retarded Children v. State of
Maryland Equity No.1/182/776 76 C.Ct. Baltimore City,
MD: (May 31, 1974)
Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J. (1984). Measurement and
evaluation in education and psychology (3rd. ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Meyen, E. (1978).
An introductory perspective. In E. Meyen
(Ed.), Exceptional children and youth (pp. 2-84).
Denver: Love Publishing.
Michigan Department of Education. (1981). Procedures and
standards for monitoring special education programs in
the State of Michigan. Lansing, MI: Author.
Michigan State Board of Education. (1985). Michigan
educational assessment program, Handbook. Lansing, MI:
Author.
Mills v. D.C. Board of education, 348 F. Supp. 866
(D.D.C.1972).
NARC Committee on Residential Care. (1963). A survey and
study of state institutions for the mentally retarded in
the United States. New York, NY: Author.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. &
Bent, D. H. (1975). SPSS: Statistical package for the
social sciences (2nd e d . ). New York: McGraw Hill.
Nihira, L., & Nihira, K. (1975). Normalized behavior in
community placement.Mental retardation, 13/2), 9-13.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257
(E.D. PA 1971) and 343 F. Supp. 279, 282, 296 (E.D. PA
1972).
Polloway, E, A. (1984). The integration of mildly retarded
students in the schools: A historical review. RASE,
5(4), 18-28.
Posavac, E. J. & Carey, R. G. (1980). Program Evaluation:
Methods and Case studies. Englewood, CA: Prentice Hall.
Potter, M., Yesseldyke, J., Regan, R . , & Algozzine, B.
(1983). Eligibility & classification decisions in
educational settings: Issuing "passports11 in a state of
confus ion.Contemporary Education Psychology, 8, 146-157.

172

Pugach, M. & Lilly, S. M. (1984, February).
Reconceptualizing support services for classroom
teachers: Implications for teacher education. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference, American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Reynolds, M., & Birch, J. (1982). Teaching exceptional
children in all America1s schools, (2nd. e d . ). Reston
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411
U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973).
Salend, S. J. (1984). Factors contributing to the
development of successful mainstreaming programs.
Exceptional Children, 50 (5), 409-416.
Sansone, J. & Zigmond, N. (1986). Evaluating mainstreaming
through an analysis of students' schedules. Exceptional
Children, 52 (5), 452-458.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the
problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S. B . , & Doris, J. (1969). Psychological problems
in mental deficiency, (4th e d . ). New York: Harper.
Special Education Services. (1983). Trends in special
education, 1973-1983. Lansing, MI: State Board of
Education.
Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
(1984). "To assure the free appropriate public education
for all handicapped children."
Sixth annual report to
Congress on Implementation of P.L.94-142. Washington
DC: Author.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rational for the
merger of special and regular education. Exceptional
Children, 51(2), 102-111.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education. (1983). State/Local Communication Forum for
Promoting £ Exploring Issues Related to P.L.94-142.
(OSERS Publication No. 300-79-0721). Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

173

Switzky, H. N., & Haywood, H. C. (1985). Perspectives on
methodological and research issues concerning severely
mentally retarded persons.
In D. Bricker & J. Filler
(Eds.), Severe mental retardation; From theory to
practice, (pp.264-284). Heston VA: Council of
Exceptional Children.
Telford, C . , & Sawrey, J. (1984). The exceptional
individual (4th.Ed.). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice
Hall.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. 1975
(P.L.
94-142) 20 USC 1401 et. seq. 34 CFR, Part 300. The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 (P.L.93-112) 29
USC 794 et. seq. 34 CFR, Part 104.
Voeltz, L. (1984). Program & curricula innovations to
prepare children for integration. In N. Certo, N.
Haring, & R. York (Eds.). Public school integration of
severely handicapped students, (pp. 155-184). Baltimore:
Paul Brookes Publishing.
Washington Research Project, Children's Defense Fund.
(1974). Children out of school in America. Washington,
DC: Children's Defense Fund.
Weintraub, F. & Abeson, A. (1974).
New education policies
for the handicapped; The quiet revolution. Phi Delta
Kappan, 5 5 , 526-529.
Weintraub, F., Abeson, A., Ballard, J., & Lavor, M. (Eds.).
(1976). Public policy and the education of exceptional
children. Reston VA: The Council for Exceptional
Children.
Weintraub, F., Abeson, A., & Braddock, D. (1971). State law
and education of handicapped children: Issues and
recommendations. Arlington VA: The Council of
Exceptional Children.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principal of normalization in
human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental
Retardation.
Wolfensberger, W. (1976). The origin and nature of our
institutional models. In R. B. Kugel & A. Shearer
(Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for
the mentally retarded (Rev. e d . ). (040-000-003-65-7,
Presidents Committee on Mental Retardation). Washington
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

174

Yeagley, R. (1982). The impact of litigation on free and
appropriate education. CASE; Information Dissemination
Packet. Bloomington IN: Department of School
Administration, Department of Special Education.
Yesseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Critical issues
in special education. Boston: Houghton Miflin.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1984). Introduction to
special education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.