INFORMATION TO USERS While the m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the m aterial submitted. For example: • M anuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • M anuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate th a t it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted m aterial may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (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 w ith small overlaps. Each oversize page is also film ed as one ex p o su re a n d is a v a ila b le , for a n additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. M ost p h o to g ra p h s rep ro d u ce acce p tab ly on p o sitiv e microfilm or microfiche bu t 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 illu stratio n s th a t cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order N u m b er 8714371 D e te r m in in g a c tiv itie s a n d o u tc o m e s o f e le m e n ta r y le v e l t e a c h e r /c o n s u lta n t p r o g r a m s in M ic h ig a n Thaxton, Anthony Severy, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1987 C o p y rig h t © 1088 by T h a x to n , A n th o n y Scvery, A ll rlg h ta reserv ed . UMI 300 N. ZccbRd. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all c ase s this material h as been filmed In the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a ch eck mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored Illustrations, paper o r print_______ 3. Photographs with dark back g ro u n d _____ 4. Illustrations are p o o r c o p y _______ 5. P ages with black marks, not original c o p y ______ 6. Print shows through a s there is text on both sides of p a g e _______ 7. Indistinct, broken o r small print on several pages _ 8. Print exceeds margin requirem ents______ 9. Tightly bound c o p y with print lost in s p in e _______ 10. Computer printout pages with Indistinct print_______ 11. P ag e(s)____________ lacking w hen material received, an d not available from school or author. 12. Page(3) 13. Two pages n u m b e re d 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received 16, Other seem to b e missing In numbering only as text follows. . Text follows. University Microfilms International DETERMINING ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES OF ELEMENTARY LEVEL TEACHER/CONSULTANT PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN by Anthony Severy Thaxton 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 Educat ion 1986 COPYRIGHT BY ANTHONY SEVERY THAXTON 1986 ABSTRACT DETERMINING ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES OF ELEMENTARY LEVEL TEACHER/CONSULTANT PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN By Anthony Severy Thaxton Teacher/Consultant {T/C) programs were designed to provide services to children with handicaps and, more importantly, to the adults involved in a childs* education. They were based upon the supposition that many students could be successful in the regular classroom given sup­ portive help to the regular classroom teacher. Numerous authors have noted the need for a determi­ nation of the specific roles of the T/C program model. primary purpose of this study was to The (1) determine the ac­ tivities and outcomes of Elementary Level T/C programs Michigan preferred by key consumers and providers; in (2) to determine the differences in priorities between key con­ sumer and provider subgroups; and (3) to determine the differences between the priorities identified and opinions about the manner in which T/C programs are presently oper­ ated. Activities and outcomes extracted from previous research were compiled and included on random lists for these purposes. A random sampling technique was employed to select the survey population from throughout the State of Michigan in­ cluding Teacher/Consultants, Regular Classroom Teachers, Parents of T/C program students, Elementary Principals and Directors of Special Education. A total of 336 individuals were selected as study participants and an overall return rate of 43 percent was attained. The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of priority. The Mann-Whitney U-Test was used to determine whether subgroups responded as members of the same contin­ uous population. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used to compare priority rankings of actual with preferred activities and outcomes. The results of this procedure yielded rank-ordered lists of the 16 activities and 10 outcomes for each sub­ group and the combined group. For the combined group, high priority activities included providing tutorial/supportive instruction, providing information about a students’ diffi­ culty to others, and instructing students in classroom learning strategies. High priority outcomes included increasing the time a student successfully spends in the regular classroom and improving the students self-esteem. Differences between subgroups were discovered. ally, Gener­ Teacher/Consultants and Directors more highly prefer services to adults while Regular Classroom Teachers, Par­ ents and Principals prefer direct service to students. Differences between actual and preferred activities/out­ comes were also discovered. Major findings suggest that T/C programs should spend less time with remedial and testing activities/outcomes and more time consulting with adult s. In conclusion, a clearly articulated mission statement for the T/C program needs to be developed. Breadth of responsibility issues remain to be addressed. Lastly, viable program evaluation and improvement models are sorely needed by the field. To my wife, Becky, and daug hte r Jennifer, without whom life would have little meaning. iii , ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to Dr. Annemarie Palincsari my committee chairperson, her many hours of invaluable assistance, encouragement throughout this project. for support, and A debt of grat­ itude is also owed to Dr. Donald Burke and Dr. Susan Peters for their help in the design of the study. input was extremely important. Their I appreciate sincerely their willingness to serve on my guidance committee. A special thanks is given to Dr. Larry Lezotte whose coursework and search for effectiveness has had a very positive impact on this writer. Several other individuals have provided important assistance throughout this study. Heartfelt appreciation is extended to Sue Dekker for typing that seemed unending and to Melinda Samsel for her constant encouragement along the way. A note of thanks is also given to Sima Kalaian and Rafa Kasin for their assistance with the statistical analysis. Finally, I wish to extend special gratitude to my iv wife, Becky Thaxton, who encouraged me to initiate and complete the doctoral program despite the many hours it kept us apart. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................... ix Chapter I. THE PRO BLEM .................. . .................... 1 Problem St atem ent .................................. 5 Review of Related Literature .................. 8 The Least Restrictive Environment* ......... 9 Legal History and It's R o l e ....................10 The Role of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Development of Supportive Programs . . . . . 25 The Teacher/Consultant Model ................ 31 Evaluation of Teacher/Consultant Programs. * 46 Purpose of the Study ...................... 60 Value of the S t u d y ............... 62 Definition of T e r m s ...........................* * 63 Organization of the D i s s e r t a t i o n ........... . 65 II. Methodology. ........... 66 Set tin g.............................................67 S u b j e c t s .......................................... 70 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Description of the Questionnaire ........... 79 Trial Administrations of the Questionnaire . 82 Distribution and Collection of the Questionnaire. ............................. 84 Treatment of the D a t a ............................. 86 III. R ESULTS........................... 89 Demographic Information of Study . . . . . . . 90 Teacher/Consultants............................. 90 Regular Classroom Teachers .................. 95 Parents. ............. * • 98 P r i n c i p a l s ........................ 101 Directors. .................................. 104 Activities of Teacher/Consultant Programs ..................................... 107 Findings for Research Question 1 ............ 108 Findings for Research Question 2 ............ 110 Findings for Research Question 3 ......... *112 vi Findings for Research Question 4 Findings for Research Question 5 Findings for Research Question 6 Findings for Research Question 7 Findings for Research Question 8 ............ 121 ............ 131 ............ 149 ............ 168 . .172 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs. Findings Findings Findings Findings Findings Findings Findings Findings IV. for for for for for for for for Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Research Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question . , ,184 9 ............ 185 1 0 ............ 187 11 ............ 189 12 ............ 197 1 3 ............ 207 1 4 ............ 225 15 ............ 243 1 6 ............ 246 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . .257 Summary...........................................257 Purpose of the Study . ............. . . . . 2 5 7 Research Questions . . . . ................. 258 Methodology. . . . . ............. . . . . . 258 Limitations...................................... 261 Findings .......................... 262 Study P a r t i c i p a n t s ........................... 262 T/C Program Activities . . . . . ........... 268 T/c Program Outcomes ...................... .275 Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . Conclusions.............................. Implications . . . . . . . . ............... 280 280 280 Recommendations.................................. 288 Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Personnel Preparation............... 292 Future Research. . . . . . . . ............. 294 APPENDICES............... A. B. Letter to Local District Directors of Special Education........................ . 296 . 296 Letter to Intermediate District Directors of Special Education ...................... vii 297 C. Teacher/Consultant List F o r m ............... 298 D. Letter to Teacher/Consultants............... 299 E. Parent List F o r m .............................300 F. Regular Classroom Teacher List Form.. . . 301 G. Parent Permission Notice . ............... 302 H. Questionnaire Cover Letter ................ 303 I. Questionnaire................................. 304 J. Demographic/Input Information Sheets K. Endorsement Letter . . . 307 ................. 314 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ t t v m i . 315 LIST OF TABLES Table * Page 1.1 Efficacy Studies where academic gains of EMR students attending regular classes were superior to those in special classes................ 19 1.2 Efficacy studies in which there were no significant differences between academic gains made in self-contained classes and those made in regular c l a s s e s ....................... 20 2.1 Public School Student (K-12) Population by State Planning R e g i o n ........................ . . 69 2.2 Selection of Survey Population........................ 75 2.3 Total Survey Population Information 2.4 Questionnaire Return Rates by Region for Subgroups and the Combined Groups . . . . . . 85 3.1 Demographic Information: Teacher/Consultants. 91 3.2 Demographic Information: Regular Classroom T e a chers ................................................ 96 3.3 Demograhic Information: Parents 3.4 Demograhic Information: Principals.................. 102 3.5 Demograhic Information: Directors 3.6 Combined Group Rank-Order of Actual Activities. 3.7 Combined Group Rank-Order of Preferred Activities. . . . . ............................... 3.8 Teacher/Consultants Rank-Order of Actual A c t i v i t i e s * .......................................... 114 3.9 Regular Classroom Teachers Rank-Order of Actual Activities .................................. 116 Parents Rank-Order of Actual Activities .......... 117 3.10 .............. ... . . ............ 3.11 Principals Rank-Order of Actual 3.12 Directors Rank-Order of Actual Activities. ix . . Activities 78 99 105 . 109 HI . . . 119 ... 120 3.13 3.14 Teacher/Consultants Rank-Order of Preferred Activities ............... 123 Regular Classroom Teachers Rank-Order of Preferred A c t i v i t i e s .................. 125 3.15 Parents Rank-Order of Preferred Activities . . . .127 3.16 Principals Rank-Order of Preferred Activities. . .128 3.17 Directors Rank-Order of Preferred Activities . . .130 3.18 Teacher/Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities . .133 3.19 Teacher/Consultant and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities.................... 134 3.20 Teacher/Consultant and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities . .136 3.21 Teacher/Consultant and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities . .138 3.22 Regular Classroom Teacher and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Actual A c t i v i t i e s ................ 140 3.23 Regular Classroom Teacher and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities . .141 3.24 Regular Classroom Teacher and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities . .143 3.25 Parent and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Actual A c t i v i t i e s ............. .................. 145 3.26 Parent and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual A c t i v i t i e s ........................ .146 3.27 Principal and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual A c t i v i t i e s ................................ 148 3.28 Teacher/Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities .................. 151 3.29 Teacher/Consultant and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred A c t i v i t i e s ................ 153 3.30 Teacher/Consultant and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred A c t i v i t i e s ................ 154 x 3.31 Teacher/Consultant, and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred A c t i v i t i e s ................ 156 3.32 Regular Classroom Teacher and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities .........................................158 3.33 Regular Classroom Teacher and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities .......................................159 3.34 Regular Classroom Teacher and Director Dif­ ferences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities . .161 3.35 Parent and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities.............................. 163 3.36 Parent and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities ........................... . .165 3.37 Principal and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities...................... ,167 3.38 Combined Group Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities ..................... 170 3.39 Teacher/Consultant Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activi tie s ................ 174 3.40 Regular Classroom Teacher Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities . . . ,176 3.41 Parent Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities. ............... 178 3.42 Principal Differences Between Actual and Pre ­ ferred Ranking of A c t i v i t i e s ....................... 181 3.43 Director Differences Between Actual and Pre­ ferred Ranking of A c t i v i t i e s ....................... 182 3.44 Combined Group Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . . .186 3.45 Combined Group Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes. . 188 3.46 Teacher/Consult.ant Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . 190 3.47 Regular Classroom Teacher Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . . . . . . . ............................. 3.48 Parent Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes 3.49 Principal Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes. xi 192 .............. 194 . . . . . 196 3.50 Director Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . . . . . 3.51 Teacher/Consultant Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s ................. 3.52 .198 . .200 Regular Classroom Teacher Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s ........... 202 3.53 Parent Rank-Order of Preferred O u t comes ............ 203 3.54 Principal Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes . . . .205 3.55 Director Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes. .206 3.56 Teacher/Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . . .209 3.57 Teacher/Consultant and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Actual O u t comes ....................... 211 3.58 Teacher/Consultant and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Actual O u t comes ....................... 212 3.59 Teacher/Consultant and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes. . .................. 214 3.60 Regular Classroom Teacher and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Actual O u t c o m e s .................. 216 3.61 Regular Classroom Teacher and Principal Dif­ ferences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes. . . . .217 3.62 Regular Classroom Teacher and Director Dif­ ferences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes. . . . .219 Parent and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes ............... .221 Parent and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes . . . . . . . . . .223 3.63 3*64 . . . 3.65 Principal and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Actual O u t c o m e s .................................. 224 3.66 Teacher/Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes. .227 3.67 Teacher/Consultant and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s .................. 229 3.68 Teacher/Consultant and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s .................. 230 xii 3.69 Teacher/Consultant and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s .................. 232 3.70 Regular Classroom Teacher and Parent Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred O u t c o m e s ................ 233 3.71 Regular Classrom Teacher and Principal Dif­ ferences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes . . .235 Regular Classroom Teacher and Director Dif­ ferences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes . . ,237 3.72 3.73 Parent and Principal Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred O u t comes ........... ................... 238 3.74 Parent and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes. . . . .......................240 3.75 Principal and Director Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242 3.76 Combined Group Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes. . . . . ........... 245 3.77 Teacher/Consultant Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of O u t comes....................... 247 * 3.78 Regular Classroom Teacher Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes . . . . .250 3.79 Parent Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outco mes .................................. 252 3.80 Principal Differences Between Actual and Pre­ ferred Ranking of O u t c o m e s ...................... 3.81 .253 Director Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Out come s.................................. 255 xiii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM As recently as 1980, Gliedman and Roth described as "Revolutionary" the changes in the delivery of Special Edu­ cation programs and services that had occurred over the previous decade. Litigation (e.g., Hobson v. Hansen) and legislation at the state and national level (P.L. 94-142) began to mandate Special Education for all students with handicapping conditions. Building upon the anti-discrimi­ nation and civil rights movements of the 60*s, these laws and court cases insured the provision of due process in the identification, planning, and placement of students in Special Education programs. At the present time in this country however, we are experiencing bold new movements against these civil rights laws and values. We need only consider the dissolution of affirmative action programs or the recent attempts to dis­ mantle The Education For All Handicapped Children's Act (P.L. 94-142) as examples. The proponents of these actions would say that the pendulum had swung too far in one direc­ tion and is in the process of seeking equilibruim. In any event, 1968) the "primacy of the individual" value (Dunn, 1 2 is being challenged by this growing conservatism. Historically, education for children with handicaps evolved in a fashion similar to that of civil rights for racial minorities. all, Beginning with virtually no services at small segregated classrooms and programs were begun in large population centers. As their numbers grew, segrega­ tion was one salient feature that remained constant. It was only through permissive legislation (and the financial resources it offered) in the 5 0 's and 60's that public schools in some states began to develop classrooms for the mildly handicapped in general education school buildings. Most students with handicaps, however, continued to be denied access to classrooms for "normal" students. Provisions for the integration of children with handi­ capping conditions in regular classrooms was one of the major changes characterized by Gliedman and Roth (1980) as "revolutionary." This occurred with the addition of two new concepts that appeared in the mandatory special education legislation of the 1970's. First of all, the new laws have required that each handicapped student must have an "Indi­ vidualized Educational Program" (I.E.P.). This I.E.P. must reflect the unique needs and abilities of the handi­ capped individual and state specific educational goals. Secondly, each student must, appropriate, to the extent determined be educated with his or her non-handicapped 3 peers in order to receive programs and related services in the "least restrictive environment" cept, (L.R.E.). This con­ commonly referred to as "mainstreaming, " requires that children with handicaps be educated in the same environment as other children wherever and whenever pos si bl e. Research and the professional literature, as it focused on program development and implementation, has also played a dramatic role in the changes that have occurred in Special Education. One topic of research focuses on com­ parisons of the traditional self-contained special class and the regular classroom regarding their respective ef­ fects upon the academic development of children with hand­ icapping conditions. studies", Commonly referred to as "the efficacy they are often cited in support of L.R.E. prac­ tices (e.g., "These studies have documented the disadvan­ tages of the restrictive placement of children in Special Education classes and clearly demonstrated that there were inherent weaknesses with the self-contained Special Education setting" (Cohen, 1982, p. 6). The interpretation and implementation of these new laws and research resulted in dramatic changes in adminis­ trative arrangements or service delivery systems in Special Education as many students with mild to moderate handicaps began to be placed in regular education classrooms for all or part of their school day. cation teacheri The role of the Special Edu­ in many instances, shifted front providing a total educational program to a supportive and collaborative "team" approach with general education teachers and other education personnel. Reynolds and Birch (1977) character­ ized this trend as change from a "two-box theory" (regular or special class) to a "cascade model" or "continuum" of programs and services approach determined by the unique needs of the individual child. Attempting to provide this continuum, numerous Special Education programs or service delivery models evolved. This includes specifically those programs and services for children who need assistance in order to learn in a normal classroom. These program models have been variously iden­ tified in the literature by such labels as diagnostic-pre­ scriptive teachers, teacher/consultants, resource programs, resource rooms, support service specialists, etc. These programs have been designed to provide services, primarily of a supportive nature, directly to the child. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, was an intent to serve or support the key adults involved in a child's edu­ cation (e.g., etc.). regular class teachers, parents, principals, These programs and services were based on the supposition that many students with mild handicaps could be successful in the regular class setting given supportive help to the regular class teacher (i.e., indirect service) as well as the child {i.e., direct service). In 1979 Hudson, Graham and Warner determined that up to forty-seven percent of regular classroom teachers were not supportive of mainstreaming. The primary reason given for their reluctance to have a handicapped child in their class was the belief that they were not prepared to deal with a s tudent’s special needs. reasons given, developed. It was for this, and other that the supportive program was initially Pervasive feelings of non-support for main- streaming and perceived inadequacies of supportive special education programs for the mainstreamed child are apparent (Abramson, 1980). Problem Statement Future support of the L.R.E. streaming in particular, Research, new laws, concept, and main- is clouded to say the least. and supportive program models as implemented to date, have not provided a clear pathway for acceptance by the education community. Some writers have already expressed fears that mainstreaming may be condemned as another educational fad (Hallahan and Kaufman, According to MacMillan, Jones, 1982). and Aloia (1974), the 6 concept of mainstreaming needs ho be distinguished from its implementation. Stated another way, the effectiveness of Special Education programs that provide supportive services to regular classroom teachers is of question. They go on to note that the development and implementation of valid and reliable program evaluation and improvement models is sorely needed. 1984 {Haight, This need has been echoed as recently as 1984). Furthermore, numerous authors have noted the significant need for a determination of the specific roles of supportive program model teachers (Haight, 1984; Scandary, Haight and Molitor, 1979; Miller and Sabatino, 1983; Nelson and Stevens, 1980; Lilly and Givens-Ogle, 1978; Knight, Meyers, Mallory, 1981; Evans^ 1981; D'Alonzo and Wiseman, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Hasazi, 1981; Salend and Salend, 1979; Sargent, 1978; and Nevin, 1984; Gickling, Murphy, and 1981; Idol-Maestas ,1983). In order to develop appropriate program models or con­ duct efficacy studies about supportive Special Education programs a crucial "first step" is required. There must be agreement or concensus among the consumers and providers of these programs about the services provided (program activi­ ties) and the ultimate goals desired (program outcomes). This concensus exists for Special Education programs which supplant the regular classroom (e.g., contained special class). traditional self- For example, the activity of academic instruction and the outcome of student academic 7 achievement, gains are agreed upon universally. program models developed to date, however, of possible activities and outcomes. Supportive suggest a myriad As noted, many of the suggested activities of supportive programs are directed at the adults intensly involved in a child's education includ­ ing parents, regular classroom teachers, tion professionals. and other educa­ The use of student academic achieve­ ment gain as the sole measure of supportive program effectiveness is of questionable value. A formula for defining "program effectiveness" for supportive special education programs has yet to be devel­ oped. Many program activities (services) and outcomes (goals) have been suggested, but there have been no efforts to determine which ones are considered priorities by key consumers and providers. tigate these issues. This study is designed to inves­ There are three principle questions that need to be addressed. First of all, what activities and outcomes of supportive programs are perceived to be priorities for maximum program effectiveness by various consumers and providers (e.g., parents, teachers, principals, regular classroom supportive teachers, and Directors of special education administrators)? Secondly, how do the various consumers and providers differ in their perceptions of these priorities? Finally, what are the differences between the priorities identified and those activities and outcomes of supportive programs as they are presently 8 implemented? Once these questions are addressed# efforts by future researchers may then be directed toward the discovery of valid and reliable measures of these programmatic vari­ ables. Subsequently, future researchers can begin to discover the programmatic inputs necessary (e.g., profes­ sional competenies, program model designs) that may then lead to maximum program effectiveness. Review of Related Literature The research and professional literature related to this study is reviewed in this section. The following topical areas are included: 1) The development of the least restrictive environment (L.R.E.) and mainstreaming concepts including the role of research and legal history; 2) The development of special education supportive program models with an emphasis on the resource program model; 3) An anal­ ysis of supportive program models emphasizing the consul­ tant role; 4) Evaluation of the Teacher/Consultant model. 9 The Least Restrictive Environment: Definitions of the Least Restrictive Environment (L.R.E.) abound. Perhaps one of the most clear and suc­ cinct definitions is provided by Idol-Maestas (1983). She states that "L.R.E. roughly means selecting the most normal education setting in which a special education student can profit from learning opportunities that afford the maximum amount of progress in the least amount of time" The L.R.E. (p. 8). for a particular student therefore, depends upon his or her unique needs and abilities and may range from full-time placement in the regular classroom to full­ time placement in a special program segregated completely from regular school buildings. Mainstreaming is a term often used interchangably with L.R.E. streaming) however, The term main­ is usually used to describe the inte­ gration of handicapped students with their non-handicapped peers in regular school settings. That is, the placement of students with handicaps in the "mainstream" of the edu­ cational process. Perhaps one of the most widely accepted definitions of mainstreaming is as follows! the temporal, instructional, and social integra­ tion of eligible exceptional children with normal peers on an ongoing, individually determined, educational planning and programming process and requires clarification of responsibility among regular and special education administrative, instructional, and supportive personnel (Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, and Kukic, 1975, p. 4). 10 Identifying the history of the L.R.E. concept, how­ ever, and tracing its path from segregated programs to the implementation of mainstreaming practices, undertaking. is a difficult The lack of clarity about its beginnings makes it difficult to clearly comprehend mainstreaming and L.R.E. as a distinct way to organize the educational pro­ gram for children with handicaps (Birch, 1976). The fac­ tors that have given rise to mainstreaming were identified by Birch in 1974. Several of these are of particular interest to this research including the negative effects of segregating the handicapped from the non-handicapped and the research conducted on the effectiveness of conventional special education programs. These will be expanded upon in the following sections. Legal History and its Role Certainly the greatest impetus for the establishment of the L.R.E. concept, mainstreaming practices, and the development of the supportive special education program model has been the changes in the common and statutory laws of our nation. Two landmark court decisions in special education were based on the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. The Board of Edu­ cation (1954). This decision stated that segregation of blacks and whites in separate but equal facilities was 11 unconstitutional. This gave parents of handicapped chil­ dren a strong legal base for litigation. Citing the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amend­ ment, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) challenged Pennsylvania's state law that excluded certain retarded children from attendance in the public schools (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, guaranteed, 1 9 7 1 ). The PARC ruling among other items, a free public education to all children with retardation and placement within the least restrictive alternative (environment). A second court case which significantly impacted the delivery of special education services to students with handicaps was Wills vs. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972). The important features of this agreement included the provision that all handicapped students, just the mentally retarded, not must be educated by the public schools and that lack of financial resources was not a reason to deny education for these students. Therefore, in addition to a free public education for children with handcaps, “widespread application of due process of law and the concept of the least restrictive environment came into use" (Zettel and Weintraub, 1978, p. 12). An additional court case provided a major influence in the widespread mainstreaming movement and the civil rights of the handicapped. The class action suit of Diana vs. 12 California State Board of Education (1970) focused on the improper use of intelligence tests for the placement of Mexican-American students in classes for children with re­ tardation. It was argued by the plaintiffs that this practice constituted discrimination when the intelligence tests had been standardized on primarily whitei middle socio-economic class children. A disproportionate number of ethnic and cultural group enrollments in these classes was offered as evidence. The outcome of this case included a California Code stipulation ensuring that any ethnic, socio-economic, and cultural group not be placed in E.M.R. (Educable Mentally Retarded) classes if they could be ap­ propriately served in regular classes. Two consequences occurred as a result of the Diana decision. First, ques­ tionable uses of psychological tests, as pointed out by this case, caused the development of due process procedures in the evaluation and identification (classification) proc­ ess. Second, many E.M.R. students were assigned to regular classes as school districts became sensitive to the impli­ cations of litigation and tended to avoid any placement that might invite scrutiny or appeal (Meyers, MacMillan, and Yoshida, 1979). These court cases, and the PARC case in particular, firmly established the rights of parents to participate in major decisions affecting the education of their children. Additionally courts, in these and other cases, have firmly 13 "expressed the preference for placing handicapped children in regular classes for their education, with changes to special classes and special schools requiring extraordinary justification.." "The need for support systems to work with regular teachers to meet these new imperatives is obvious" (Reynolds and Birch, 1977, p. 55). A statement, advanced by leaders of the Council for Exceptional Children, a similar interpretation and proceeds as follows: Effectively complying with due process require­ ments contributes to the designing of educa­ tional programs to meet the individual needs of each child. Determination of both the child's needs and the appropriate program is the purpose of due process. The process, however, is also designed to insure that handicapped children receive their education in the least restrictive setting. Such a concept assumes that there are a variety of alternative settings in which the child can be placed. These settings range from the usual or regular classroom with non-handicapped peers to more restrictive settings such as special classes on a full or part time basis, special school, or residential institutions which are the most restrictive. The concept is frequently referred to as mainstreaming. From a legal view, the concept means that any removal of an individual from a normal situation into one which is restrictive as a matter of public policy, is a limitation of that individual's liberty. Thus, placement in a spe­ cial class as opposed to a regular class de­ prives the individual of some liberty, and is restrictive... In light of the judicial mandates and those which are based in statutes, adherence to due process in placement decision means that for each child regarding of the severity of his handicap, the schools must propose a placement in the most normal setting possible. Further, within the due process context, the schools must be prepared to accept the responsibility for demonstrating the appropriateness of their rec- shares 14 ommendahion not only as the test setting for the education service but also as the least restric­ tive. This same obligation occurs each time a change is proposed in the c h i l d ’s education program. Further, it has been recommended that a hearing officer's decision to approve a pro­ posed education plan "shall indicate why less restrictive placement alternative could not adequately and appropriately serve the child's educational needs." (Abeson, Bolick, and Hass, 1975, p. 29). The addition of statutory laws (e.g., P.L. 1977; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 94-142, 1973) with their provisions for the least restrictive environment, reflected many of the issues in the education of children with handicapping conditions previously addressed in court suits, civil rights actions, and professional writings. Mainstreaming has therefore evolved, as one point along the least restrictive environment continuum, as a valid educa­ tional alternative for many children with handicapping conditions. The Role of Research Some of the earliest conceptual support for mainstreaming is found in the writings of Nicholas Hobbs (1963) in describing his "RE-ED Ap pr o ac h. " Essentially, approach involves: this (a) viewing the child is a part of an ecological sub-system, (b) analyzing the discordances in 15 that sub-system that lead to labeling the child as "differ­ ent" or "problematic"# and (c) utilizing the best applied knowledge currently available in the fields of education and human behavior to reduce the discordances to such an extent that the child can be maintained within the eco­ logical subsystem (Cantrell and Cantrell, 1976). This description points out that L . R . E . , and mainstreaming in particular, must stem from an attitude or viewpoint about the basic role of education in society. This attitude involves the acceptance of the idea that the primary goal of education is to train children to be contributing mem­ bers of society and that it is a fair assumption that a child cannot learn to contribute to, nor properly function in, a society (ecological sub-system) by removing him or her from it. learning, Two factors, stemming from research on tend to add additional support to this notion. The first factor involves the role modeling plays in learning. Bandura, Significant research on modeling in the 60*s by and others, served to point out its importance as a powerful learning technique in the classroom. This in­ cludes the role of modeling in academic learning as well as social behavior. The importance of good role models for children and the concomitant negative effects of placing behaviorally disordered children together in a separate classroom, began to be recognized more and more by educators. 16 The second factor involves the role that teacher expecta­ tions have on the achievement levels and behavior of chil­ dren labeled by such terms as Learning Disabled, Mentally Retarded, and Emotionally Disturbed. A well publicized study by Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) purported to show significant harmful effects of labeling exceptional chil­ dren. This study received so much attention during the late 60*s and early 70 *s that the terms "Rosenthal effect" and "self-fulfilling prophecy" are still found in the literature today. This study has since been found to con­ tain many methodological flaws L968b; Snow, 1969; Thorndike, (Barber and Silver, 1968) and attempts to repli­ cate the results have not been successful Anttonen, 1971). 1968a, (Fleming and There is research evidence^ however, that demonstrates that teachers view labeled children with re­ duced expectancies and negative bias (Foster, Schmidt^ Sabatino, Rucker, 1976; Foster and Salvia, 1977). and 1977; and Gillung and "Teachers are more likely to expect deviant behavior from labeled individuals and are more likely to rate normal individuals as possessing abnormal traits if they are provided the misinformation that the individuals are deviant" (Hallahan and Kaufman, 1982, p. 422). While the above factors certainly played a role in the historical development of mainstreaming and the L.R.E. cept a far greater influence is attributed to a body of con­ 17 research commonly referred to as the "Efficacy S tudies." These studies purported to provide conclusive empirical support for the practice of mainstreaming and the wholesale dismantling of the self-contained special education class­ room program. While many of these studies were conducted during the 50' s and 5 0 's (the earliest cited reference was written in 1932) perhaps the greatest impetus for questionning the validity of special classes came from an article by Lloyd Dunn (1958) entitled "Special Education for the Mildly Retarded— Is Much of It Justif iable'?" (Hallahan and Kaufman, 1982). In reviewing the studies conducted to that date, Dunn concluded that there was no evidence to justify the existence of special classes for this population. His words became the rallying cry for early mainstream efforts when he suggested that...: ...we do away with many existing disability labels and the present practice of grouping children h o m o ­ genously by these labels into special classes. Instead, we should try keeping slow learning chil­ dren more in the mainstream of education, with spe­ cial educators serving as diagnostic, clinical, remedial, resource room, itinerant and/or team teachers, consultants, and developers of instruc­ tional materials and prescriptions for effective teaching (Dunn, 1968, p. 11-12). Studies researching the effectiveness of various special education program models continue to date. Those referred to collectively as the "Efficacy Studies", however, were primarily conducted prior to 1968. The 18 special education literature of the past 17 years con­ tains many reviews and critiques of these studies {Keogh and Levitt, 1976: MacMillan and Becker, and Robinson, 1977; Robinson 1976; Reynolds and Birch, 1977; and Hallahan and Kaufman, 1982). Perhaps one of the most comprehensive and well organized reviews is the one conducted by Idol-Maestas (1983) as she states her case for the increased need for consultation services to regular educators. In her review she provides a summa­ tion of 10 studies conducted between 1932 and 1965 comparing the academic gains and social competence of students labeled educable mentally retarded (EMR) who attended special classes with equally low scoring stu­ dents in regular classrooms. These ten studies were chosen because of their inclusion in the majority of seven literature reviews conducted between 1963 and 1979 (Cegelka and Typer 1970; Corman and Gottlieb, 1978; Guskin and Spiker, 1968; Kaufman and Alberto, 1976; Kirk, 1964; Quay, 1963; Semmel, Gottlieb, and Robinson, 1979). Tables 1.1 and 1.2 contain Maestas* summation of the primary findings of these studies. Table 1.1 contains those studies in which academic gains of EMR students attending regular classes were superior to those of similar students in special or self-contained classes. Table 1,2 contains the studies in which there are no significant differences between academic gains made in Table 1.1 - Efficacy Studies in which Academic Gains Were Superior in Regular Classes Wien Canpared to Self-Contained Classes Investigators Variables Controlled Bennett (Baltimore, 1932) Chronological age Mental age Intelligence Pertseh (New York, 1936) Chronological age Mental age Intelligence Sex/Race Chronological age Intelligence Sex School district Elenbogan (Chicago, 1957) Cassidy & Stanton (Ohio, 1959) Chronological age Intelligence Mullen & Itkin (Chicago, 1961) Chronological age Intelligence/Sex Reading achievement School attendance Foreign languages Adjustment appraisal Presence or absence of brain injury Socioeconomic status Conclusions ■Regular class students superior to special students on four types of reading, arithnetic comp, and reasoning, arithmetic total, and spelling. ■Regular class students superior on reading canp., math comp, and reasoning i and personality adjust­ ment. ■Regular class students superior in paragraph meaning, word mean­ ing, and math computation and reasoning. ■Special students superior in social adjustment. •Regular class students superior in educational achievement. ■Special class students superior in some aspects of personality and social adjustment. ■Regular class students superior in math gains for first year, reading gains after two years, and ratings of overall classroom work for second year. Variables Not Controlled -Initial group differences for educational achievement and physical characteristics. -Selection factor -Students with more serious problems were referred to special classes. -Selection factor -Different curriculum in special class than in regular class. -Special class teachers were more interested in social academics. -Regular students had higher scores on Chicago Test of General Information and Comprehension. -Subjects were matched at beginning of study, not entrance to special education. -Students placed on waiting lists had more serious prob­ lems. Table 1.2 - Efficacy Studies in which There Were No Significant Differences Between Academic Gains Made in Self-Contained Classes and Regular Classes Investigators Matched Variables Conclusions Blatt (Pennsylvania, 1958) Chronological age Mental age Intelligence -No group differences in educational achievement, personality, or physi­ cal status. -Special class improved more in reading from one year to the next. Ainsworth (Georgia, 1959) Wrightstone, Foriano, Lepkowski, Sontag, & Edelstein (New York, L959) Thurstone (North Carolina, 1959) Chronological age Intelligence/Sex Ratings of social maturity and emotional sta­ bility Teachers' ratings of educability Test (level and form) -All groups made educational achievement progress during oneyear period. -No significant group differences for achievement, social adjustment, or behavior. -No major group differences for academic achievement. -Of AO separate comparisons for academic achievement, one favored special class and six, regular class. -Low level EMR had more difficulty in social adjustment and speech. -On Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) regular class students scored higher except on arithmetic computation. -For low IQ group, gains were higher in special class (except arithnetic computation). -No group differences for gain scores Variables Not Controlled ■Groups selected from differ­ ent school systems: one with special classes and one with­ out. ■Special class had more un­ corrected or permanent physical defects. ■Selection factor Kirk (1964) criticized the study for its short duration of one year. Selection factor Groups were not discrete. ■Tto-thirds of population was lost through attrition during first year. ■Selection factor ■Low EMR were more likely to be referred to special class. ■IQ differences between groups were significant. (Table 1.2 cont.) Goldstein, Moss, & Jordan (Illinois, 1965) except for extreme deviates. -Social adjustment was superior in special class. -Regular class students scored higher in reading (no differences by fourth year), word discrimination (by the fourth year), and arithmetic (only the first year). -No group differences for social knowledge, but less social inter­ action in special classes. -More mothers thought special class students were doing well. -Special class students were superior on verbal tests of orginality, fluency, and flexibility of thought; tried to answer more questions. 22 self-contained classes and those made in regular classes. She goes on to note that "there were no studies in which the majority of academic gains were made by students attending special classes." In her review* Idol-Maestas analyzes the primary criticisms of these studies that are found in the litera­ ture. The most obvious and often cited criticism relates to the issue of subject selection and equivalent groups. She notes that eight of the studies (Ainsworth, Bennett, 1932; Blatt, Elenbogan, 1959; 1958; Cassidy and Stanton, 1957; Mullen and Itkin, Wrightstone, Forlano, Lepkowski, 1959; 1961; Pertsch, 1936; Sontag, and Edelstein, 1959} contain a procedure whereby students already placed in self-contained classroom are matched with students in regular classes. The variables used to match students included chronological age, mental age, race, and socioeconomic status. I.Q. scores, sex, Additional matched vari­ ables specific to certain studies can be found in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. The primary problem cited by Idol-Maestas is the high probability of initial group differences. ples, As exam­ she notes that in the Bennett study (1932) the aca­ demic achievement and physical characteristics were supe­ rior in the regular class students. found in other studies, Similar problems, include the selection of regular 23 class students by principals (Pertsch, 1936), only the selection of regular class students from districts with no special classes (Blatt, 1958), and the matching pro­ cedure completed at the onset of the study, not upon entrance to special education (Mullen and Itkin, According to Idol-Maestas (1983), 1961). "This procedure could nullify effects of special class instruction prior to the study" (p. 29). Another group selection problem is iden­ tified in the Mullen and Itkin study (1961) where an at­ trition rate of more than 50 percent nullifies any inferences that could possibly be made. Idol-Maestas also notes that there were serious attempts by some studies to deal with subject selection problems. Stanton As an example she points out that Cassidy and (1959) randomly selected special class students by stratifying five geographic locations in the state of Ohio, However, she goes on to note, in order to obtain a sufficient sample of regular class students they selected those students from the ten largest cities from each of the five regions. Another example is the Goldstein, Moss and Jordon (1965) study which she describes as the most problem-free design regarding the subject selection fac­ tor. First grade students were randomly assigned to spe­ cial and regular classes. However, significant initial differences in test scores (lower) were found for the 24 special class students as a group. No significant dif­ ferences between academic gains made in special or reg­ ular classes were found in this study (Idol-Maestas, 1983). Other problems associated with these studies include the effects of different curricula and variables associa­ ted with different teachers (Idol-Maestas, 1983). Exam­ ples here include the use of a curriculum guide in the special class, differences in training and supervision of teachers, and major curriculum differences a l ., 1965). (Goldstein et Related problems include smaller class sizes for the special classes (Elenbogan, 1957), and the empha­ sis on social adjustment in the special class (Cassidy and Stanton, 1959). To summarize, Idol-Maestas states: "These special class characteristics raise the question of why efficacy studies should compare academic gains of students exposed to regular class curricula to special class studies who receive different curricula and different teacher expectations" (p. 30). Examination of these studies, pretation by Dunn et al., (1968), contrary to the inter­ strongly suggests that little can be said about the definite positive effects of either the regular or special class alternatives for the EMR child. Although many of these studies have been criticized for their design weaknesses, the results have 25 shown that various classroom and instructional variables must be considered. If these studies are analyzed from the viewpoint that lower ability students are likely to be placed in special classes and higher ability students more likely to remain in regular classes* then their respective aca­ demic gains are informative. Beginning evidence for the need of a "continuum" approach to meeting students needs was pointed out by the Ainsworth (1959) study also re­ viewed by Idol-Maestas were involved including (1982). Three groups of students (1) special class students; the regular class students; (2) and (3) students in regular class receiving help from an itinerant teacher. The re­ sults of this study strongly suggest that there are no significant differences in academic gains across ap­ proaches. The basic principle of beginning with the approach that involves the least possible amount of change* however, is clearly supported. Development of Supportive Programs A review of recent literature concerning supportive programs for special education reveals numerous models and efficacy studies. Most, however, focus on resource 26 programs. This section integrates several reviews, pri­ marily regarding resource programs and highlights the major trends in program development and evaluation. The idea of a supportive program service to handi­ capped students is not a recent phenomenon. programs, according to Wiederholt, Hammill, "Resource" and Brown (1983), were operated for the visually handicapped as early as 1913 by Dr. Robert Irwin. They also note that similar programs for the "hard-of-hearing", as reported by Frampton and Rowell (1940), were developed soon after. The major developmental period for supportive pro­ grams, however, occurred during the 60's and 7 0 ’s. While all strive to educate the mainstreamed handicapped child, each may differ slightly in its theoretical orientation and function within the school setting. For the purposes of this study a distinction is made between two general types of supportive programs. to as "resource programs", The first type, referred generally include those that function as stationary units within the regular school setting. rooms, Often referred to in the literature as resource these supportive programs emphasize direct service to students in the way of remedial or compensatory in­ struction. The second type of program, "teacher/consultant" (t /c ) programs, referred to as include those that 27 function on an itinerant basis and emphasize indirect service to students. This is accomplished through vari­ ous consulting or supportive services to the regular class teacher, the parent, and/or other education p er sonnel. The basic theoretical orientations of these two pr o ­ grams can be explained by an understanding of two dis­ tinct mainstreaming models. These are Lilly's (1971) "Zero-Reject" model and Van Etten and Adamson's "Fail-Save" model. (1973) Lilly's model proposes that once a student enters the regular class program he or she should never be removed to a special class. The role of the special educator is to train the regular class teacher to deal with the student's unique needs. This orientation to the role of the special educator can be broadly associated with the T/c program model. The "Fail-Save" model, on the other hand, considers the possibility that some direct service to the student may be necessary. This model has been referred to as a "filtering system" (Hallahan and Kaufman, 1982) as stu­ dents may be placed in special programs for greater peri­ ods of time depending on their needs. The long-term goal of this model is to return the child to the regular class as much as possible. This orientation is generally asso­ ciated with the general resource program model. The 28 remainder of this section will focus specifically on the development and efficacy of this model as it has become one of the most widely implemented. Perhaps the most widely accepted definition of the resource program is the one offered by Wiederholt et al. (19G3). It is as follows: Basically, a resource program is any school op­ eration which a person (usually the resource teacher) has the responsibility of providing supportive educationally related services to students and/or to their teachers. The re­ source teacher may provide the student with direct services in the form of analytic, reme­ dial, developmental, or compensatory teaching and/or behavioral management. Such services may be conducted either in the regular class­ room or in a room designated for that purpose, such as the resource room or center. The serv­ ices offered to the regular or special teachers may include, but are not limited to, helping them either to adjust or to select curricula to meet the unique needs of some children and to manage the classroom behavior of disruptive students. In addition, the resource teacher also discusses with parents the problems evidenced by their students (p. 3). One of the earliest efforts to assemble and dissemi­ nate descriptions of various resource program models was a monograph prepared by Evelyn Deno in 1973, entitled “Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children." This monograph contains descriptions and evaluations of four different resource program development efforts occurring nation-wide at that time. Recent efforts to 29 describe and categorize differing types of resource pro­ gram models generally focus on the type of students served rather than major differences in program proce­ dures (Weiderholt, et al., 1983; Hallahan and Kaufman, 1982; Sindelar and Deno, 1978; and Reynolds and Birch, 1977). These programs include: 1) The Categorical Resource Program 2) The Cross-Categorical Resource Program 3) The Non-Categorical Resource Program The categorical program assumes that each handicap cate­ gory (e.g., Learning Disabled, Emotionally Impaired, etc.) presents unique educational needs and requires a teacher trained specifically in the problems and instruc­ tional approaches felt necessary for these students. The cross-categorical approach also involves a program re­ served for students classified as handicapped. program, however, In this the teacher may see students from two or more different categories at. the same time. The pri­ mary assumption of this type of resource program is that students have similar instructional needs regardless of label. The non-categorical program, as its name suggests, may serve both labeled and non-labeled students. De­ scribed as a bridge between regular and special education 30 (Wiederholt, eh al., 1983) this hype of program is noh as prevalent: as hhe ohher models due ho regulatory funding arrangements. It is interesting to note, however, that this model has been found to be the one most preferred by both regular and special education teachers (Gickling, al., et 1979). The efficacy of the general resource program has been firmly established within recent years. clusion, while a gross statement, This con­ is substantially sup­ ported by a review of the numerous studies conducted during the last 15 years. Major reviews of these studies share this enthusiasm with few caveats al., 1983; Sindelar and Deno, 1977). (Wiederholt, et 1978; Reynolds and Birch, According to Wiederholt, et al, (1983) "the collective results of this research indicate that handi­ capped students who receive resource services do as well as handicapped students who remain in special, classes" (p. 15). segregated Given the current acceptance of the idea that students should be taught in the least restric­ tive environment, it would seem that general resource programs are preferable to special classes, especially since the students appear to profit from instruction in both settings. Attention now must be focused specific­ ally upon the Teacher/Consultant program model* 31 The Teacher/Consultant Model As noted in the previous section the Teacher/Consul­ tant (T/c) program model, for purposes of this study, is a term used to denote those supportive special education programs designed to primarily provide indirect services to handicapped children through supportive help to regu­ lar class teachers, parents, sonnel. Furthermore, and/or other education per­ this program operates primarily on an itinerant basis (two or more buildings). This section contains descriptions of various T/C program models found in the literature including overviews of their proposed activities and programatic goals. The professional literature contains numerous de­ scriptions of supportive programs emphasizing the consul­ tant role. The general concept of a consultive service to regular classroom teachers can be found in the writings and studies of many authors in the late 6 0 fs and early 70's (Deno, Meyers, 1973). 1970; Lilly, 1971; McKenzie, 1972; and The reader will also recall an earlier quote by Dunn (1968) in which he supported a move toward this role by all special educators. Some of the initial impetus for consultation also came from the field of School Psychology. These efforts were based on the sup­ position that a better alternative to removing “differ­ ent" children from the regular classroom was to help the 32 regular class teacher learn to deal with these differ­ ences and therefore make fewer referrals in the future {Meyers, 1973). A major push for consulting activities was provided by Deno (1970) when she presented an overall approach to special education identified as "a cascade of services." This overall model of special education received wide support and is often referred to as the definition of a "continuum" of services required under F.L. 94-142. At the top of her cascade Deno denotes that level I students include those who are able to get along with regular class accommodations with or without medical or coun­ seling support services, t /c program services would be included here along with perhaps those of Psychologists, Social Workers, Speech Therapists, etc. Level II of this model is described as services to those students at­ tending regular class plus requiring "supplementary in­ structional services." T/c program services may also fit at this level, providing some minimal direct service to the student. It should also be noted that this may be the level at which, in general terms, lap with the resource program. there is some over­ This again, draws atten­ tion to the differences between these programs regarding the emphasis on either direct or indirect services. The other levels of Deno's (1970) cascade model include: Level III— Part-time special class; Level IV— Full-time 33 special class; Level V — Full-time Special Day School; Level V I — Full-time Residential School. and It is inter­ esting to note that Deno described her model as "noncategorical" in its implementation. She took this posi­ tion to emphasize the concept that the "problem is not in the child but in the mis-match that occurs between chil­ dren's needs and the opportunities we provide to nurture his or her self-realization" (p. xii). It was her intent that special education also be a vehicle for helping regular educators to develop instructional approaches for hard-to-teach nonhandicapped students. This model, and her emphasis on the support of regular classroom teach­ ers, had a significant impact on the development of T/C programs as mandatory laws were written soon after. Perhaps one of the earliest developed T/c program models is entitled "The Diagnostic-Prescriptive Teacher" (D.P.T.). This program was first developed in 1966-67 at the George Washington University, Washington, (Prouty and Prillaman, 1967). D.C. This University was one of the first in the country to move all of its special edu­ cation teacher-training programs from a categorical pat­ tern to a non-categorical or cross-categorical type of preparation. trained, The D.P.T. school based, is described as "a specifically special educator. He or she serves as an educational diagnostician-consultant to reg­ ular class teachers in the development of appropriate 34 instructional and socialization experiences for children who are viewed as posing problems in learning and/or behavior" (Prouty and McGary, 1973 jective of the D.P.T. ,p. 27). A major ob­ is the reduction of negative dif­ ferentiation and exclusion of children from the regular class environment. The D.P.T. model, as described by Prouty and McGarry, is based on a highly structured procedural approach to dealing with classroom problems. This procedure delineates clearly the perceived role and major activities of the D.P.T. as follows: 1. Referral: The classroom teacher submits a written referral— a simple^ one-page form— of the child seen as posing problems. An anec­ dotal description of the problem and a sum­ mary of the referring teacher's efforts to that point to adapt the program to the child, are required. 2. Observations: The D.P.T. observes the re­ ferred child in his regular-class environment one or more times. 3. Referral Conference: The D.P.T. confers with the referring teacher to update referral in­ formation, clarify their respective roles and responsibilities in the case, and arrange suitable times for the referred child to come to the D.P.T.'s room for diagnostic teaching. 4. Diagnostic Teaching: Informal, small-group work is conducted by the D.P.T. with the re­ ferred child to determine successful teaching techniques and materials based on the child's needs and strengths. 5. Educational Prescription: A written educa­ tional report is prepared; it recommends well-defined techniques and materials to the referring teacher and describes in detail their use with the child. 35 6. Prescription Conference: Explanation and open discussion of the Prescription with the re ­ ferring teacher result in modifications that are mutually agreed upon and culminates in a schedule for demonstration by the D.P.T. 7. Demonstration: The D.P.T. takes over the referring teacher's class to demonstrate ele­ ments of the Prescription in the total class environment. 8. Short-Term Follow-Up: The D.P.T. makes peri­ odic visits to the referring teacher's room to offer suggestions, provide encouragement, and give demonstrations as they are needed. 9. Evaluation: The referring teacher completes a single page evaluation form 30 days after receiving the Prescription, indicating prog­ ress to date. 10, Long-Term Follow-Up: The D.P.T. continues periodic checks with the referring teacher. Only when both D.P.T. and referring teacher view the child's progress as satisfactory is the case closed. The primary activities of this T/C program model emphasize various diagnostic services, the development of a "prescription" or intervention plan, and the sharing of these suggestions with the classroom teacher. While the description denotes "open discussion" with the classroom teacher, it is apparent that the intervention plan is developed primarily by the D.P.T. One other interesting aspect of this model involves the emphasis placed on both short-term and long-term follow-up and written evalua­ tions by the classroom teacher. Unlike many later T/C program models the D.P.T. model does involve a special classroom location within the school often referred to as 36 an "Activity Room" to avoid stigmatizing labels. Despite this similarity to a conventional resource program model the D.P.T. does not engage in remediation, counseling, tutoring^ or except as it may occur coincidentally to the Diagnostic-Teaching process. The evaluation procedure o£ the D.P.T. program, reported by Prouty and McGarry (1973) as includes the following questions asked of each school: 1. Is the D.P.T. following completely and without variation the operational model? 2. Are all children now, with rare excep­ tion, functioning successfully in their regular classes? 3. To what degree and in what ways are regular-class teachers making changes in their teaching techniques, environ­ ments, and materials to accommodate individual needs? 4. How is the D.P.T. 5. What is the evaluation of the D.P.T. program by the teachers? by the principal? by the D.P.T.? 6. How successfully are children func­ tioning who have been served by the D.P.T.? Particularly, how well are they integrated socially within the class group and what is the nature of their learning behavior? influencing change? Program effectiveness decisions, based upon this evaluation approach, appear to be highly related to whether or not the D.P.T. procedures were followed and 37 the results o£ several indirect {self-report) measures of student and teacher change. ods, however, Exact data collection meth­ are not described. Despite the indirect measures some elements focused upon are instructive. These include the questions related to student success in the regular class, improvement of regular class teachers knowledge and skills, and the behavioral and academic changes noted in the students served by the program. Another interesting aspect of the D.P.T. program model is the fact that the authors incorporated it as a distinct "graduate level" (M.A.) program. It was their feeling that specialized training, beyond the bachelors level is required of a successful D.P.T. A second early T/C program model also involves a comprehensive graduate training program and, as a dis­ tinctive addition, a state-wide program development plan. This T/C program model is identified as the "Regular Classroom Approach to Special Education" and was devel­ oped cooperatively between the Vermont State Department of Education and the Special Education Department of the University of Vermont (Fox, Egner, McKenzie, and Gorvin, 1973). Paolucci, Perelman, In this program model, first developed in the late 6 0 ’s, consulting teachers assist and train regular-classroom teachers to provide successful learning experiences for children eligible for special education services. This model is based on the 38 development of specific instructional objectives for the referred child and also involves a procedural step-bystep approach. Based on a collaborative effort between the regular and consulting teacher, the process involves: 1) referral by classroom teacher because of a "measured" deficit, 2) measurement of entry level skills, fication of instructional objectives, 3) speci­ 4) development and implementation of appropriate teaching/learning proce­ dures and 5) evaluation of procedures. One of the pri­ mary methods used to create change in the classroom is termed "teacher education through inservice teacher training." This method involves the provision of teacher inservice on three levels. The first level involves in- service through one-on-one consultation regarding a re­ ferred child. The second level is through inservice workshops taught by consulting teachers. The third level involves formal University coursework taught by con­ sulting teachers who hold appointments as associate fac­ ulty at the University of Vermont. authors, According to the this approach was very successful because of state support for the program. While the Vermont program had been in operation for over five years it is interesting to note that no formal program evaluation effort is described in the manuscript. Rather, various testimonials are given as well as a note 39 that over 400 Vermont teachers had taken part in inserv­ ice workshops (level II). ever, as it is the first, The model is noteworthy, h o w ­ and perhaps only T/C program developed cooperatively by a State Department of Educa­ tion and a major State University. Furthermore, this program model was perhaps the first that emphasized formal and informal inservice training to regular class teachers in order to systematically improve attitudes, knowledge, and skills in dealing with the unique needs of handicapped children, A third early T/c program model is the "Stratistician Model" developed by Judy Buffmire (1973). This model was also developed as a graduate training (M.A.) program through the Rocky Mountain Regional Resource Center at the University of Utah. The stated motivating factor behind its development was the perceived need to identify better ways to help teachers deal with handi­ capped children in their regular classroom. The Stratistician's activities include the following: 1. Modeling of behavior. 2. Class screening in specific areas. 3. Observation of a single student or of a whole class. 4. Planning (with teachers, administrators, aids, committees, pupil personnel, tutors, university personnel, graduate students, RMRRC personnel, district supervisors, etc.) 40 in classroom management, program development, use of specific curriculum, etc. 5. Evaluation of programs) curriculum, etc. systems, methods, 6. Diagnosis (formal and informal). 7. Instructional skills (individual inservice). 8. Interaction skills, methods and techniques (role playing, reflective listening) congruent sending, "I” messages, etc.) with children, teachers, administrators, agencies, parents. 9. Evaluation of interventions and recycling with feedback to teachers, children, parents, other school personnel. 10. Data collecting, recoding, systematizing, reporting for RMRRC research programs. 11. Liaison for resource room and regular-room activities. and This early model differs from the two previously de­ scribed in that it is less bound by a specific, step, procedure. At the same time, however, step-by- it empha­ sizes many of the same activities and includes some direct service to students. It does mention inservice, focused primarily at the individual level. Inservice in the Stratistician Model is similar to "Level I" inservice as described in the Vermont model. However, it is not indicated whether "inservice" means formal training or training that may occur informally during collaboration between the consultant and regular classroom teacher. It is also interesting that the manuscript contains no clear reference to the evaluation of the model other than some 41 “excitement" with the approach on the part of the S t a t i ­ sticians. There are also no clear programatic goals men­ tioned other than helping regular classroom teachers do those "things" necessary to allow students to be “successful" in the regular classroom. The three program models described here are repre­ sentative of early t /c program models attempting to support handicapped children in the regular classroom through consultive help to the regular class teacher. T/C program models developed since have retained many of their features including highly trained consultants, emphasis on pupil evaluation, mally and informally) an and attempts to train (for­ the regular class teacher. These early program descriptions are also similar in that scant attention is paid to delineating specific desired pro­ grammatic outcomes and developing sound program evalua­ tion strategies. While much space is used to describe what consultants should do, there is little evidence demonstrating what was done or whether or not it made any difference. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, no attempts were made to determine if the services provided were those the recipients felt were needed. Teacher/Consultant program models of recent years, while based upon features of these early models, have become more refined in several areas. Furthermore, much 42 o£ the leadership in program development continues to come from University graduate training programs. One area of refinement is exemplified by the consultant pro­ gram model developed at the University of Northern Iowa (Little, 1975). This model differentiates the content of consultation (e.g., behavior modification, tegies) from the process (e.g., change agent skills). teaching stra­ interpersonal skills, This model recognizes that the "relationship" between the consultant and consultee is important for overall program effectiveness. Would-be consultants are thus trained in such areas as communica­ tion techniques, group processes, solving. and educational problem The consultation process is viewed as con­ taining five subcomponents including: observation, l) planning^ 2) 3) analysis, 4) strategy, and 5) conference. Within this process the Teacher/Consultant functions primarily as a facilitator rather than assuming problem ownership. In addition, as cyclical. the process described is viewed For example, if during the conference stage new objectives or other substantial changes are appropri­ ate, then the consultation process is returned to the planning stage. long-term, Therefore, consultation is viewed as a ongoing relationship with consultee change as the primary outcome desired. Another area of recent T/C program model refinement 43 is noted in the Resource-Consulting Teacher (R/CT) pro­ gram model at the University of Illinois (Idol-Maestas, 1981; Idol-Maestas, Lloyd, and Lilly, 1981). In this model the direct services component is focused upon to incorporate the concept proposed by Jenkins and Mayhall (1976)* According to this concept direct service to stu dents is offered in the form of tutorial or small group instruction. The unique feature of the approach is that the instruction is data-based and emphasizes the regular class curricula. As Idol-Maestas (1983) states: A n integral part of the RCT's job is to plan and implement systematically the transfer of behav­ iors acquired in the direct service setting to the regular classroom. This transfer component requires close cooperation and collaboration between the RCT and the classroom teacher of the student who is being transferred. Identical teacher expectations and reinforcement programs must be agreed upon so that the variable that changes in the students instructional program is a site change and nothing more (p. 56). Despite this unique direct service concept the University of Illinois model incorporates an emphasis on indirect services as the first alternative chosen for a particular child. The following guidelines are used to describe the activities and expected outcomes of this component (Idol-Maestas, 1983, p. 57): 44 1. Establish a referral system that ensures that teachers can request assistance with­ out formally referring a student for spe­ cial services. This practice eliminates the need to refer some students to special education and encourages teachers to solve problems. 2. Meet with the classroom teacher to define and prioritize problematic social behaviors and/or academic subject areas collectively. Some students may have so many problems that teachers are overwhelmed. A good practice is to identify a workable number of problems to focus on. Other problem areas can be added later. Sometimes tar­ geting a few behaviors eliminates other troublesome behaviors. 3. Design and demonstrate a data collection procedure that can be implemented in the classroom by the classroom teacher. If the data collection system is too elaborate, the classroom teacher may become discour­ aged and terminate collection. 4. Obtain behavioral observation data to de­ termine the extent of the referred problem(s) (baseline data). If possible, these data should be collected by the classroom teacher. The consulting teacher should obtain reliability data. Under some cir­ cumstances the data collection roles must be reversed. If this role reversal is necessary at onset, it is important to trade roles as soon as the classroom teach­ er feels comfortable with the measurement p ro cedures. 5. For academic subjects, analyze the stu­ dent's performance skills on curriculum based assessments (C.B.A.'s) that reflect samples of curricular content. This should be done in collaboration with the classroom teacher. Criterial definitions of accept­ able performance must meet classroom teacher expectations. 6. Confer with the classroom teacher to summa­ rize performance data and select appropri­ ate remedial interventions. The interven­ tions must be those that the classroom 45 teacher is willing to try. easy to administer. They must be 7. Demonstrate or practice the selected inter­ vention with the classroom teacher. What the two collaborating teachers have de­ signed on paper may be difficult to admin­ ister. A practice demonstration is a solution to this problem. It also serves as a means for the two collaborators to ensure that they agree upon the procedures. 8. Collect direct and daily measures of pupil performance after the method of remediation has been selected. This should be struc­ tured so the classroom teacher can easily collect the data. The consulting teacher collects reliability data. 9. Examine the performance data regularly to determine whether further modifications are necessary. This is a crucial step. Some­ times novice data collectors become im­ mersed in collection and forget to examine performance trends. It is also important to measure the effects of an intervention for at least five days before dropping or changing it. It may take that long for the intervention to take effect. 10. Share the pupil performance data with stu­ dents and their parents. Accumulated data are useful to illustrate to parents and students the actual progress a student has made. For many students these charted data become powerful reinforcers. In addition to these and other University developed T/C program models, many writers have proposed and de­ scribed activities and outcomes of T/c programs thought essential for maximum program effectiveness. (1977) Newcommer views the T/c as a specialist who provides the regular educator with the additional skills and compe­ tencies required to undertake remedial activities inde­ pendently, oping. and to prevent certain problems from devel­ Others have seen the T/c as someone who has the 46 skills to act as a materials resource, and provide demon­ strations of instructional strategies and techniques (McKenzie, 1972? Bagley and Larsen, Basso, 1976). 1976; Rabinowitz and Along these same lines Lilly (1971) main­ tains that diagnostic and tutorial work should be accom­ plished in the regular classroom itself in order to demon­ strate new ideas or techniques to the classroom teacher. Others continue to advocate for formal inservice training as an essential activity of the T/c program (McGlothlin, 1981). Evaluation of Teacher/Consultant Model This section contains a review of the research con­ ducted and published to date concerning the effectiveness of the T/C Program Model. Also included is an overview of current trends as well as a discussion of future research n ee ds . In a 1978 article entitled "An Evaluation of the Teacher/Consultant Model as an Approach to Mainstreaming", Miller and Sabatino statei "despite behavioral data that support the effectiveness of the general resource room model, and despite litigation and legislation that promote its use, little has been done to develop and evaluate 47 variations such as the Teacher/Consultant model" (p. 86). One might take issue with the statement that little has been done to develop the T/C program model. To the con­ trary, much has been accomplished in the way of model con­ struction and implementation as reported in the previous section. The statement that little has been done to eval­ uate the effectiveness of the T/c program modelj however^ remains unchallenged. This status, unfortunately, has not been rectified in the ensuing years. Broadly speaking, many parallels can be found between the research conducted in both general and special educa­ tion fields. shared. Furthermore, the implications are often In a recent article, Bickle and Bickle (1986) reviewed the recent general education research in light of its implications for Special Education. They identify three general levels of investigation including effective schools research, effective classroom research, tive instruction research. Each level, and effec­ they explain, increasingly becomes more specific in the analysis of the teaching-learning process. Studies concerning the effectiveness of Teacher/Consultant program models can be similarly divided into three general types or levels. The first level involves the 48 traditional approach to efficacy evaluations as exempli­ fied by those earlier studies comparing the self-contained special class with regular classroom placement as reviewed by Idol-Maestas (1983). These studies have used the pro­ gram itself as the primary treatment (independent) varia­ ble and focus on student academic achievement data as the primary outcome or dependent variable. A second type or level of study concerning the effi­ cacy of the T/C program model can be found (albeit very infrequently) where alternative dependent and independent variables have been used. These studies have attempted to focus more specifically on the actual activities and direct outcomes of t /c program models as implemented in the form of specific demonstration projects. The third level of research concerning T/c programs can be described as generic in scope. These studies have generally consisted of attempts to determine what T/C program teachers are d o i ng , and what has been the impact of T/C programs in the schools. Three studies were found that utilized the tradition­ al efficacy study model Miller and Sabatino, Whitcomb, Hasazi, (Cantrell and Cantrell, 1978; Knight, Meyers, and Kevin, 1981). 1976; Paolucci- Each of these three 49 studies involved comparisons of students receiving a sup­ portive program with a control group of students in reg­ ular classroom where neither they nor their teachers received supportive services. (1978) The Miller and Sabatino study differed somewhat as their study also con­ tained a group of students receiving traditional resource room program services (i.e., direct instruction to the s tudent). Each of these three studies reported significantly higher academic achievement gains for students receiving indirect or supportive services to the regular classroom teachers over those students in their respective control groups. In the Miller and Sabatino (1978) study^ signif­ icant differences in academic achievement between resource room and consultant program students were not found while both groups made greater achievement gains than the con­ trol group. All three studies suggest that these results lend significant support for the consulting teacher model as the model fulfills the goals of mainstreaming. MilLer and Sabatino go on to state that, based on their findings, the T/C model is apparently just as effective as the resource room model. It is interesting to note that each of these three 50 studies differed from the traditional efficacy study meth­ od by the inclusion of a dependent variable in addition to academic achievement. These outcome variables, while dif­ ferent in each study, point out the fact that the litera­ ture purports other possible outcomes of the indirect services of the T/C program model. In the Cantrell and Cantrell (1976) study, program effectiveness was evaluated by the frequency of referrals for traditional special edu­ cation services in addition to achievement score changes. The results of their investigation demonstrated that sig­ nificantly more students were referred by control teachers than by experimental teachers during the following year. The reader will recall that this was one of the primary outcomes of consultant services sought in the school psychology literature (Meyers, 1973). The Miller and Sabatino (1978) study investigated changes in teacher and pupil behavior between T/C program and resource room program groups. Using a modified version of the Flanders Classroom Interaction Scale (Flanders, 1966), significant differences were found b e­ tween T/c model and resource room model regular classroom teacher behavior. Regular classroom teachers served by the T/c program model made significantly higher gains for the following three behaviors: accepting feelings; prais­ ing and encouraging students; and accepting or using ideas 51 of students. Significant student behavior differences between the two models were not found. In the Knight {et al., 1981) study the authors focus on the evaluation of the Vermont consulting teacher model. This model, as described in the previous section, on three levels of inservice intervention. focused In addition to significantly greater child achievement gains achieved in the schools receiving consulting teacher services, the authors report significant gains and positive differences in several characteristics of instruction for handicap children. Inservice education, as defined by the authors, included formal inservice offered in the way of college level instruction, formal building-wide inservicej as well as informal inservice provided on a continuous basis via consultation during the student problem-solving process. Differences in the characteristics of instruction between T/C service and non-service schools include for example, the level of responsibility assumed by regular classroom teachers during the referral, assessment, program planning and evaluation process as well as the acceptance of pri­ mary responsibility for the instruction of the student. This study, they contend, supports the premise that cer­ tain changes in the process of educating marginally handi­ capped children can have significant positive impacts upon 52 both the processes of teaching and on learning outcomes. They go on to note that the isolation of specific compo­ nents responsible for these changes, however, remains to be explored. A common criticism made by past efficacy reviews has been that many of the efficacy studies have used the set­ ting or program as the primary treatment variable studied (Bickle and Bickle, studies, 1986). The primary criticism of these therefore, has been the lack of careful controls in the intervention itself. That is, descriptions of intervention controls lack specificity. the Miller and Sabatino (1978) study, For example, in the impression is given that T/C program teachers did not ever work directly with students and that resource room program teachers did not (or very rarely) facilitate best practice skills with regular classroom teachers. Specific methods by which these variables were controlled are not described. Despite limitations, these three studies have made significant contributions in the search for effectiveness evaluation methodology as applied to the T/c program model. Perhaps their most important contribution is the recognition that the T/C program model must be evaluated on a basis other than student academic achievement. 53 Focusing on those outcomes directly related to the activ­ ities of Teacher/Consultants requires a much shorter "inferential leap" and allow us to obtain a more specific picture of the program activity-outcome relationship. Two studies were found that begin to evaluate the T/C program model on a basis other than the traditional "effi­ cacy study" model. These studies utilize different inde­ pendent and dependent variables and begin to focus more specifically on the desired outcomes of T/c programs. A two year study reported by Wixson (1980) compared direct and indirect services for behavior disordered students. A unique feature of this study is the fact that program ef­ fectiveness was evaluated by measuring the proportion of the total number of direct and indirect service programs that were successful during the academic year. A success­ ful program was one in which a student was returned to full-time participation in the regular class without sup­ portive services from special education. While attempting to demonstrate that a two component resource room program offering direct and indirect services could serve more students than one conventional direct service program, without appreciable loss in program effectiveness, the Wixson study demonstrated that the average number of stu­ dents served with the direct/indirect component was larger 54 than the direct service component alone. dependent variable in this study, The primary in­ therefore, was the na­ ture of the service (i.e.. direct and/or indirect). A second alternative approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the t /c program model is found in a 1981 study by Nelson and Stevens where they describe the imple­ mentation and evaluation of a two year project where a consultation model was introduced in three elementary school buildings. A unique feature of this model is that it focused exclusively on the successful mainstreaming of behaviorally disordered children. The ultimate target for change was pupil behavior and the success or failure of consultation was evaluated against the criterion of desir­ able changes in children's academic or social performance. The criterion for success or failure was therefore devel­ oped on an individual child basis. Judgments for success or failure were based on three factors including: 1) the terminal objectives determined at the onset of consulta­ tion were met; 2) a significant positive change was indi­ cated in the data collected and 3) the regular classroom teacher (consultee) evaluated the results of the intervenvention positively. A consultation case was judged to be successful when all three criteria were met. A partial success consisted of two of the three conditions being met and a failure meant that less than two criteria were met. 55 During the course of one year a total of twenty-five cases were studied with fifteen successes, eight partial suc­ cesses, and two failures. During the second year of the study only fourteen cases were included where formal writ­ ten plans were developed. were eight successes, failure. Of these fourteen cases there four partial successes, and one In their study Nelson and Stevens (1981) also give a specific overview of the time involved in the allo­ cation of consultation services. This included time spent in consultation, observation, meetings, preparation and planning, providing administrative assistance, tary services, and direct services. supplemen­ It is interesting to note that the cases of informal consultation increased significantly during the second year of the study. These were cases where consultation consisted primarily of in­ formal discussions between consultants and regular class­ room teachers regarding students having difficulties in the regular classroom. The authors do not discuss the outcomes for these intervention activities. While not adhering to the traditional model of effi­ cacy studies, the studies by Nelson and Stevens (1981) and Wixson (1980) differ significantly from the three studies discussed under the traditional efficacy evaluation ap­ proach. We begin to see with these studies a narrowing of 56 the focus in the evaluation of T/c program models specif­ ically with regards to their activities as well as direct outcomes. There is a paucity of research focusing on other expected outcomes of T/c program models. In summary, the five studies discussed above purport change in teacher behavior, new referral rates, instruction (e.g., various characteristics of assumption of responsibility), success­ ful full-time integration in the regular classroom, and individually based criteria identified initially during the consultation process* In total, these studies provide evidence that there is a need to focus on variables other than student academic achievement for valid and reliable evaluations of the Teacher/Consultant, program model. It has also been recommended that program effectiveness of T/C programs should be determined by evaluating such factors as: 1) the extent of materials made available, of suggestions made to teachers, of the student (Bagley, 1976). 2) validity and 3) improved behavior It is of further interest that no studies were found comparing and contrasting different T/c program models. A number of studies have been conducted which have focused more specifically upon other aspects of the T/c program. Despite tentative support for the T/c program model, as demonstrated in the previously mentioned studies. 57 it has been found that regular classroom teachers report consultation to be their least preferred special education service (Gickling, that regular ferred. et al., 1979). This study demonstrated (daily) direct services to students was pre­ In apparent contrast, however, it has also been found that regular class teachers generally feel that com­ munication between themselves and the special teacher is not adequate (Gramm, Burdg, Hudson, and Carpenter, 1980}. While focusing on the role of the resource room teacher, it has been discovered that both resource room and regular classroom teachers are most supportive of increased re­ source room teacher participation in communication and consultation activities (Evans, 1980). In their study of the characteristics of superior and average special educa­ tion teachers, Westland, Koorland, and Rose (1981) dis­ covered that one of the most significant differences be­ tween superior and average special education teachers is the fact that superior teachers spend a significantly greater proportion of time engaged in consultation activi­ ties with regular classroom teachers. As exemplified by the effectiveness studies conducted to date, as well as studies regarding teacher attitudes towards consultation services, it is apparent that signif­ icant differences exist regarding the expectancies for both the activities and outcomes of the T/C program model. That is, many activities and outcomes have been suggested and. 58 in some c a se s, evaluated. found, however, Numerous discrepancies are when we look at the role of the Teacher/ C ons ul ta nt . For example, in a 1983 survey of Teacher/Consultants in Michigan, Haight and Molitor discovered that specific job descriptions were not available for up to 55 percent of the consultants surveyed. Seventy-four percent of the Teacher/Consultants surveyed felt that a job description with prioritized responsibilities would be helpful in ful­ filling their duties. (Haight and Molitor, Further results of their survey 1983) suggest that there is a signifi­ cant amount of role confusion among practicing teacher/con­ sultants and that in many cases there is no time allotted for consultation with parents or regular classroom teachers. An article by billy and Givens-Ogle (1981) takes a look at the T/c program model on the basis of its past, present, and its future needs. its While their number one rec­ ommendation is for increased attention to consultation skill development at the pre-service level, Lilly and Givens-Ogle described a significant need for further re­ search into various specific aspects of teacher consulta­ tion. They note that it is not their intention that an­ other round of efficacy studies is needed to determine 59 whether consultation services are more effective than re­ source or special class services. Rather, efficacy studies have served their purpose, "we feel that and that public policy regarding Least Restrictive Environment dictates development of some form of teacher consultation services. It is doubtful that new efficacy studies would yield re­ sults less equivocal than those produced by the studies in the past thirty years" (p. 75). They suggest that a more reasonable line of research on teacher consultation would focus on the extent, nature, of consulting services. ices, and results of various types With regard to consultation serv­ these authors encourage the use of a "best case" approach in which consultation projects are described and effects on teachers and children are documented. In another comprehensive review of the special educa­ tion T/C program literature, Haight (1984) makes several observations and suggestions regarding the needs of the field at the present time. She notes that "Teacher/Consul­ tants face a number of problems indigenous to special edu­ cation consultation including 1) insufficient role defini­ tion of the nature of the service to be delivered; 2) cur­ rent changes in special education resulting in increased needs of mainstreamed teachers, increased attention to non-categorical services, and re-evaluation of traditional assessment tools and techniques; 3) a lack of consideration of multiple consultant responsibilities in determining 60 caseload and service duties; and 4) inadequate approval criteria and lack of professional preparation in the mul­ tiple skills of teacher consultation" (p. 514). She goes on to note that "consonant with sound educational proce­ dure, analysis of a problem should lead to a solution. One approach would be to first establish priorities within the definition and execution of the service delivery continuum for optimum benefit of students and their teachers" 514). (p. It is necessary at this point to determine the role functions of the Teacher/Consultant in special education as well as priorities among those activities and the desired outcomes of Teacher/ Consultant programs. Despite studies of various program activities and possible outcomes there have been no attempts to discover, compare, and contrast the priority activities and outcomes of the Teacher/Consultant program. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to determine the activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/Consul­ tant (T/c) programs in Michigan preferred by the key con­ sumers and providers of T/C programs. Activities and out­ comes extracted from research and the professional litera­ ture were compiled and randomly listed for this purpose. 61 The second purpose of this study was to determine the d i f ­ ferences in priorities between key consumer and provider subgroups. The third purpose of this study was to de ter­ mine the differences between the priorities (preferred) identified and consumer and provider subgroups* opinions about the manner in which T/C programs are presently operated (actual). The following research questions were addressed: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant programs as identified and extracted from research and extracted from research and the professional literature.................. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. What is their actual rank-order of prioras assigned by the combined groups? What is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? What is their actual rank-order of p r io r ­ ity as assigned by each subgroup? What is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? What are the differences in the actual rank-order of priority between subgroups? What are the differences in the preferred rank-order of priority between subgroups? What are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined group? What ate the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the subgroups? Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/ Consultant programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature. . 62 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. What is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? What is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? What is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? What is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? What are the differences in the actual rank-order of priority between sub­ groups ? What are the differences in the p r e ­ ferred rank-order of priority between subg roups? What are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priorities as assigned by the combined group? What are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the subgroups? Value of the Study The findings of this study would appear to be of value to a variety of educational practitioners and parents of children with handicapping conditions. A prioritized list of activities and outcomes of Teacher/Consultant pr o ­ grams may be of interest to teacher-trainers in the devel­ opment of more appropriate coursework or training activ­ ities and experiences. An analysis of actual versus preferred activities and outcomes may have a significant impact on the administration of T/C programs and give direction for change. Significant implications for future program evaluation efforts/ both formative and summativer 63 can also be envisioned. Further, in this regard, program development efforts may be able to more effectively address role/activity issues. Finally, interest to those individuals, the study results may be of including parents, concerned with the effective accommodation of students with handicaps in regular classrooms. Definition of Terms 1. Consumers of Teacher/Consultant program services— Those adult individuals who receive services from the Teacher/Consultant.. For the purposes of this study this includes regular classroom teachers and parents of students with handicapping conditions placed in a Teacher/Consultant program for Special Education services. 2. Least Restrictive Environment (L.R.E.) — The con­ cept of educating handicapped children to the max­ imum extent possible with children who are not hand­ icapped. Removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, A continuum of alternative placements must, be available to meet the needs o£ handicapped children for Special Education and related services. These may range from instruction in regular classes to institutional services. (P.L.94-142, Local Education Agency (L.E.A.) — 1977) A public board of education legally responsible in the State to perform a service function for public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district or other political subdivision of a State. In this study a L.E.A. denotes a local school district. Mainstreaming — the temporal, instructional, and social integration of eligible exceptional children with normal peers on an ongoing, mined, individually deter­ educational planning and programming process and requiring clarification of responsibility among regular and special education administrative, tional, Agord, and supportive personnel and Kucia, instruc­ (Kaufman, Gottlieb, 1975, p ,4). Providers of Teacher/Consultant programs — Those individuals responsible for the provision or super­ vision of Teacher/Consultant programs. For the pur­ poses of this study this group includes the subgroups of Teacher/Consultants, Elementary Principals, Directors of Special Education. and 65 6. Activities of Teacher/Consultant Programs — purpose of this study, For the these items include the duties or services provided by Teacher/Consultants in order to achieve the goals and objectives of a student's individualized educational plan or their unique job role. These activities were abstracted from relevant research studies and articles. 7. Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs — purpose of this study, For the these items include the p r o ­ gram goals or desired changes brought about by Teacher/Consultant programs which the investigator abstracted from relevant research studies and articles. Organization of the Dissertation Chapter two will contain a description of the meth­ odology employed to carry out this study. A presentation and analysis of the data will be included in Chapter three. Chapter four will provide a summary, conclusions, research. as well as implications and recommendations for future C h a p ter II METHODOLOGY This study employed a survey technique to determine the activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/ Consultant (T/C) Programs in Michigan considered to be priorities by the key consumers and providers of these programs. In addition, this study determined the differ­ ences in priorities between key consumer and provider sub­ groups as well as differences between preferred priorities and the actual activities and outcomes of T/c programs as they are currently implemented. Activities and outcomes of T/C programs were identified and extracted from re­ search and the professional literature so that they could be prioritized by the participants. This chapter presents a description of the methodology for this study. It describes the setting and the study participants including how they were identified and selec­ ted. It also describes procedures employed in the study including the development of the survey instrument, 66 its 67 trial administrations, and how the survey was distributed and collected. This chapter concludes with a description of the treatment of the data. Setting The State of Michigan is located in the midwestern United States and has a total population of ap­ proximately 9 million people. Michigan can be roughly divided into three geographical regions. The Southeastern region can be characterized as densely populated, contain­ ing a large urban area (Detroit) surrounded by numerous suburban areas. The Southern (Central and West) region can be characterized as moderately populated, containing several middle-sized urban areas, surrounded by small suburban areas. These, in turn, are surrounded by rural/ agricultural farms and communities. The Northern region can be generally characterized as sparsely populated rural areas. A handful of small cities can be found however and tourism and agriculture are the primary sources of income. For educational purposes the State has a central Department of Education, 57 Intermediate (Regional) School Districts and 528 local Public School districts. 68 Having had a mandatory Special Education Law since 1972 (P.A. 198), Michigan has developed a comprehensive continuum of Special Education programs and services. It has generally been recognized as a leader in the nation in Special Education practices. The Federal Mandatory Spec­ ial Education Law (P.L. 94-142 of 1975) was based, in part, on Michigan's (P.A. 198 of 1971). For administrative purposes, the Special Education Services Area (SESA) of the Michigan Department of Educa­ tion divides the State into five Planning Regions as fol­ lows: Region 1-the Upper Peninsula; Region 2-upper 1/3 of the Lower Peninsula; Region 3-western-lower 2/3 of the Lower Peninsula; Region 4-central-lower 2/3 of the Lower Peninsula; and Region 5-eastern four counties surrounding and including the City of Detroit. These regions are established for various supervisory, planning, information dissemination, and data collection purposes* On two occasions SESA has published a document enti­ tled, “Trends in Special Education" that gives an overview of the numbers and incidence rates of the various diagnos­ tic categories of special education students in Michigan. The most recent edition available was published in October of 1983 and includes the public school student population figures as of the 1982/83 school year. Table 2.1 shows 69 Table 2.1 - Public School Student (K-12) Population by State Planning Region; 1982/83 School Year Region Public School Percentage Enrollment (K-12) of Total 1 60,783 3.5 2 116,241 6.7 3 347,596 19.9 4 459,807 26.3 5 762.168 43.5 1,746,595 100 TOTALS 70 the public school student population (grades kindergarten through twelfth) as well as each Region's percentage of the total population. The selection of participants for this study was based upon these figures in order to obtain a sample representative of Michigan's population distribution. Subjects A random sampling technique was employed to select the survey population for this study from five distinct strata that represent the key consumers and providers of Teacher/ Consultant 1985. (T/C) programs in Michigan as of September 1, For purposes of this study# ferred to as subgroups. these strata are re­ The five subgroups are: 1. Special Education Teacher/Consultants who provide services to Elementary Level stu­ dents# their regular classroom teachers, and their parents. 2. Elementary Level Regular Classroom Teachers having at least one student from their class­ room who is placed in a Special Education Teacher/Consultant program. 3. Parents having at least one Elemenary Level child who receives Special Education from a Teacher/Consultant program. 4. Directors of Special Education who supervise the operation of Teacher/Consultant, programs. 71 5. Elementary Building Principals who have Teacher/Consultant programs operating within their building(s). Following is a description of the methods used to identify and select the study participants: Initially, because a secondary purpose of this study was to determine the extent of intra-district (local pub­ lic school district) agreement about T/C program activi­ ties and outcomes, the participant identification and selection process needed to identify individuals (from each subgroup) on a school district basis. It would have been preferable to first randomly select elementary stu­ dents placed in T/C programs and subsequently their par­ ents, regular classroom teachers, T/Cs, Elementary Principals, and Directors of Special Education. This process, however, was determined not to be feasible due to 1) the complexity of the procedure, 2) unrealistic levels of cooperation and staff time required on the part of school district employees, and 3) the time required to identify the population. Therefore, the procedure called for Directors of Special Education to identify T/Cs in their employ and the elementary buildings which they served. T/Cs, in turn, were requested to identify the regular classroom teachers and parents of students placed 72 in their program. A detailed description of this process follow. A listing of the population of Special Education Administrators in Michigan was obtained from a document published by the Statewide Communication and Dissemina­ tion System (SCADS) entitled "Special Education Adminis­ trators in Michigan, 1984-S5 Edition". All fifty-seven (57) Intermediate (county/region) School Districts (i.S.D.1s ) in Michigan are identified in this document along with the names, titles, and addresses of all ad­ ministrators for Special Education employed by either the I.S.D. or a Local Education Agency (local school district — L.E.A.). It was originally planned that only those individuals with the title of "Director of Special Education" and employed by an L.E.A. would be selected as participants. Two rationale were involved in this decision. 1) the title of "Director" conotes a level of training in admin­ istration as State Special Education rules define re­ quirements for approval as a "Director" and 2) it was felt that L.E.A. Directors of Special Education would be more involved on a day-to-day basis with the administra­ tion and supervision of t /c programs and therefore more familiar with their activities and outcomes. A total of 73 117 individuals are listed as L.E.A. Directors of Special Education. It was discovered, however, that only one individual from Region 1 (upper peninsula), and only two individuals from Region 2 (upper 1/3 of the lower peninsula) would fit this definition. As a greater representation from these Regions was desired it was decided that I.S.D. Di­ rectors of Special Education from Regions 1 and 2 would be included. It was noted that I.S.D.'s within these Regions directly operate most, and in many instances all, of the Special Education programs and services within their boundaries as they tend to be sparsely populated. Therefore, unlike most I.S.D.'s from Regions 3, 4, and 5, I.S.D. Directors of Special Education from Regions 1 and 2 are involved on a day-to-day basis with the adminis­ tration and supervision of t /c programs. eighteen individuals are listed as I.S.D. Special Education from Regions 1 and 2. A total of Directors of A total of 135 individuals was therefore identified as the population for this subgroup. Every individual from this population was subse­ quently contacted in a letter (Appendix A - L.E.A. Di ­ rectors, and Appendix B - I.S.D. Directors) explained the purpose of the study, participation, that requested their and also requested the names, addresses, 74 and buildings served for the Elementary Level Teacher/ Consultants in their employ to be placed on an enclosed form (Appendix C). this request. Table 2.2. A total of 66 Directors responded to Totals for each region are delineated in A total of 305 T/C program teachers, in­ cluding their addresses and buildings served, were identified in this manner as also noted in Table 2.2. A stratified random sampling technique was used to select 197 T/c program teachers as potential study par­ ticipants. The sampling procedure was stratified by region so that a general representation, based upon K-12 student population, ble. could be obtained as close as possi­ Totals selected from each Region can also be seen in Table 2.2. Regular Classroom Teachers and Parents of students placed in T/C programs were identified by a procedure similar to the one used to identify Teacher/Consultants. All 197 Teacher/Consultants selected were contacted by letter (Appendix D) that explained the purpose of the study, requested their participation, and also requested the names and addresses of the Regular Classroom Teachers and Parents of students placed in their program* For this purpose, Teacher and Parent forms were included for their optional use (Appendixes E and F ) . While it is not illegal to divulge the names and addresses of parents of 75 Table 2*2 - Selection of Survey Population DIRs Region________Cont. (%) 1 7 DIR T/Cs T/Cs Resp._________ ID__________ C o n t . (5.2) 5 9 8 2 14 (10.4) 6 17 13 3 15 (11.1) 8 46 38 74 47 4 34 (25.2) _ 5__________ 65 (48.1) TOTALS 135 (100%) 15 32_________ 159___________ 91 66 305 197 T/Cs PARs PARs RCTs RCTs Resp*________ ID________ Sel *__________ ID__________ Sel. 1 1 1 13 2 2 12 4 18 4 10 112 20 92 20 9 122 18 101 18 21__________ 261___________ 42_________ 165___________ 38 43 DIR T/C RCT PAR Cont Resp ID Sel = = = = = = = = 508 85 Directors of Special Education Teacher/Consultants Regular Classroom Teachers Parents Contacted Responding Identified Selected 389 82 76 Special Education students for research purposes Educational Rights and Privacy Acts, (Family 1976), Teacher/Con- sultants were given a parent permission form for their use if they so desired (Appendix G). A total of 43 Teacher/Consultants responded posi­ tively to this request Totals). parents (see Table 2.2 for Regionals This yielded the names and addresses of 508 (or parent pairs) and 389 regular classroom teachers. From these, a random sample of two parents and two regular classroom teachers was selected for each Teacher/Consultant responding. While it was originally planned that only one parent and one regular classroom teacher would be chosen (per T/c), it was determined that two each per t/c program) would be necessary to obtain an adequate sample of these subgroups. As two T/Cs re­ sponded with only partial lists, a total of 85 parents and 82 regular classroom teachers was ultimately selected as study participants from these subgroups. In order to obtain additional participants from the Teacher/ Consultant subgroup, an additional 20 Teacher/ Consultants were randomly selected from those not re­ sponding to the request for names of parents and regular classroom teachers. This yielded a list of 63 Teacher/ 77 Consultants as participants in the study* To identify Elementary Principals a listing of the population members was obtained from a document published by Michigan Education Directories, Inc., entitled "1985 Michigan Education Directory and Buying Guide." It was noted earlier that Directors of Special Education were requested to include the Elementary School Buildings served by each Teacher/Consultant along with the names of their Teacher/Consultants. This directory contains the names of all elementary schools within each local school district in the State of Michigan. In addition, it in­ cludes the names of the building Principal and the build­ i n g s 1 address. T/C programs, From the names of the buildings served by one Principal was selected per T/C to be ­ come a participant in the study. This yielded a list of the names and addresses of 63 Elementary Principals. The final list of Directors of Special Education selected as study participants was based on the Teacher/ Consultant subgroups selected (N=63). This yielded a list of 47 Directors selected as study participants. Overall study participant data for each region and subgroup can be seen in Table 2.3. Table 2,3 - Total Survey Population Information Region T/C T/C RCT PAR PRN DIR = = = = = % RCT 1 PAR % PRN 1 DIR I TOTAL I 1 4 6.3 2 2.5 1 1.2 4 6.2 4 8.5 15 4.5 2 5 7.9 4 5.0 4 4.8 5 8.0 5 10.6 23 6.8 3 13 20.6 20 25.0 20 24.1 13 21.0 8 17.0 74 22.0 4 15 23.8 18 22.5 18 21,7 15 24.0 12 25.5 78 23.2 5 26 41.3 36 45.0 40 48.2 26 40.8 18 38.4 146 43.5 -S 63 100 80 100 83 100 63 100 47 100 336 100 Teacher/Consultant Regular Classroccn Teacher Parent Principal Director of Special Education 79 Procedures The procedures employed in this study are described in the three sections which follow. The first section describes the questionnaire used in the study. The second section describes the trial administrations of the questionnaire. The final section explains the proce­ dures used for the distribution and collection of the questionnaire. Description of the Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study (Appendix H) was first drafted in May, pages. 1985. It consists of four The first page is a cover sheet containing direc­ tions for completing the questionnaire. The second and third pages are the rank-order response sheets. first rank-order response sheet The (second page) consists of sixteen statements describing activities of T/C programs. The second rank-order response sheet (page three) con­ sists of ten statements describing outcomes of T/c p r o ­ grams. The activities and outcomes were identified and extracted from research and the professional literature regarding successful or appropriate T/c program tech­ niques and models. Specifically, this task was accom­ plished in the following manner* First, an initial list 80 o£ T/C program activities and outcomes was constructed by the researcher based upon personal experience# available T/C job descriptions, several and various State of Michigan Special Education Guidelines and Rules. Sec­ ondly, during the review of research and available liter­ ature, the activities and outcomes of T/c programs were focused upon and numerous changes and additions were made to the initial list. Prom this revised list the first draft of the survey questionnaire was constructed. Dur­ ing this process an attempt was made to keep the list of statements as short as possible for rank-ordering and as specific as possible to be meaningful. An attempt was also made to keep the language used as meaningful as pos­ sible so that the statements would be readily understood by all study participants. This initial draft of the questionnaire went through several trial administrations and revisions as explained in the next section. The third response sheet slightly for each subgroup. (fourth page) differed It consisted of various short-answer questions designed to elicit basic demo­ graphic information, degree of familiarity with T/C pro­ grams, attitudes toward mainstreaming, and the possible reasons why respondents prefer activities and outcomes that differed from those that T/c programs presently implement. 81 Since Parten (1966) found that return rates tend to be higher for shorter questionnaires, the researcher attempted to keep statements short and on as few pages as possible. On the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rank-order twice the activity and outcome statements separately from highest to lowest importance, most important statement given a one rank. with the The first ranking requested was to reflect their opinion regarding how T/C programs are actually operating at the present time. The second ranking requested was to reflect their opinion regarding how T/C programs should operate to be most effective. The questionnaire was printed on yellow paper because various marketing studies have shown that survey partici­ pants tend to respond in greater number to this color than to any other color (Parten, 1966). The question- niare was coded for confidentiality and for ease in sta­ tistical analysis. Each respondent was assigned a dis­ creet eightdigit number. The first three numbers re­ ferred to the individual participant. referred to their subgroup (i.e., classroom teacher, tor). 3 - parent, The fourth number 1 = T/C, 2 = regular 4 = Principal, 5 = Direc­ The fifth and sixth numbers referred to the region of the State where the participant resided. The seventh and eighth numbers referred to the Local School District. 82 This method of coding allowed respondents to remain anon­ ymous while still being identifiable to the researcher and was used for statistical analysis of the data. Several steps were taken in order to ensure the greatest possible return of questionnaires from the par­ ticipants. A cover letter from the researcher accompa­ nied the questionnaire explaining the purpose of the study, a timeline for the distribution and collection of the questionnaires, the feedback of final results, and an estimate of the expected time involvement of the respon­ dents. Also accompanying the questionnaire was a letter of endorsement for the study, signed by Dr. Edward Birch, Director of Special Education for the Michigan Department of Education (See Appendix I). research on surveys, As Parten (1966) found in endorsement by prominent individuals tends to increase the return rate because they add pres­ tige and credibility to the study. Additionally, respon­ dents were invited to receive a copy of the results of the study. addressed, Finally, each packet contained a self- stamped envelope. Trial Administrations of the Questionnaire The survey questionnaire proposed for use in this study was administered several times, on a piloting basis, in order to address issues of clarity and item 83 inclusion. The first draft was initially administered to a graduate level class of eleven students at Michigan State University in May, 1985. This course focused on the development of Teacher/Consultant skills. The stu­ dents consisted primarily of practicing Special Education classroom teachers and teacher/consultants. These stu­ dents were asked to complete the questionnaire and re­ spond with any comments or suggestions that they may have on the questionnaire. Based on this input, several statements were re-worded and directions re-written. During the summer and early fall of 1985, the ques­ tionnaire went through several trial administrations and re-drafts. These changes were made based upon the input of numerous individuals asked to complete the question­ naire and provide feedback. Individuals involved in­ cluded an I.S.D. director of special education, director of special education, two regular education teachers, an L.E.A. two school psychologists, three Teacher/Consul- tants. and four parents of handicapped children. Several additional changes were made to the question­ naire including the rewording of statements and direc­ tions. Also, the section on the direction page regarding the rank-ordering process was added. 84 Distribution and Collection of Questionnaires The questionnaire was mailed to the participants on February 7, 1986. Participants were requested to return the survey by February 28, 1986 and a stamped, self- addressed envelope was provided for their ease in reply­ ing. The return rates for all subgroups and the combined group are presented in Table 2,4. return rate was 43%. The combined group As noted in Table 2.4 the differ­ ences in return rates between participant subgroups were significant. Return rates for Directors of Special Edu­ cation (DIRs) and Teacher/Consultants (T/Cs) were rela­ tively high at 66% and 65.1% respectively. for Parents (PARs), Return rates Regular Classroom Teachers (RCTs), and Elementary Principals relatively low at 26.5%, (PRNs), on the other hand, were 33.8% and 35.3% respectively. Possible reasons for these low return rates, based on several comments written on returned surveys, include the complexity of the survey, difficulties in rank-ordering longer lists of items, and general disinterest in the research topic. In any event, these low return rates must be considered in the interpretation of the results. Table 2.4 - Questionnaire Return Rates by Region for Subgroups and Combined Group Region T/C(N) T/C(%) RCT(N) RCTCS) PAR(N) PAR(Z) PRN(N) 1 2 50 0 0 0 0 1 25 3 75 6 2 5 100 2 50 1 25 2 40 3 60 13 56.5 3 8 61.5 10 50 5 25 7 53.8 5 62.5 35 47.3 4 8 53.3 4 22.2 6 33 1 6.7 8 66.6 27 34.6 5 18 69.2 11 30.6 10 25 11 42.3 12 66.6 62 42.5 41 65.1 27 33.8 22 26.5 22 35.5 31 66 HAL T/C RCT PAR FRN DIR = = = = = Teacher/Consultant Regular Classroom Teacher Parent Elementary Principal Director of Special Education ERH(Z) DIR(H) DIR(%) TOTAL(N) 143 TOIftL(Z) 40 43 86 Treatment: of the Data After the data from the survey were collected they were recorded on computer entry data sheets from which the data cards were punched. All statistical computa­ tions were done utilizing the computer program SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, al., (Nie, et 1975) at Michigan State University. Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequences for all subgroups were obtained for each Activity and Outcome statement (actual and p r e fe rr ed ). The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of priority. The rank-order of priority for each statement (actual and preferred), as assigned by each subgroup was obtained in this manner. In order to obtain the rank- order of priority for the combined groups the mean of the subgroup means was obtained for each statement. This procedure was used in order to control for unequal sub­ group size (N). Therefore, the rank-order of priority as assigned by the study participants (combined groups) reflects an average of the combined groups' The rankings of each statement mean ranks. (actual and preferred) by all subgroups were compared to determine whether these subgroups responded as members of the same continuous 87 population. The statistical procedure employed for this purpose was the Mann-Whitney U Test. This test was cho­ sen over the extension of the Median test because it is more powerful than the Median test and uses the rank of each case, not just its location relative to the Median. To compare each subgroup's priority ranking of actual activities and outcomes with preferred activities and outcomes the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used. This procedure, based on the work of Siegel (19G5), was selected in order to determine both the di­ rection of the differences between actual and preferred (higher or lower rank-order) and the relative magnitude of the differences. According to Siegel (1965), this procedure gives more weight to pairs having large dif­ ferences than to pairs having small differences. Summary This chapter described the methodology used in this study to determine priority activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/Consultant Program in Michigan. This chapter included: took place, l) the setting in which the study 2) the subjects of the study and how they were selected, 3) the procedures employed in the study including the development of the survey instrument, its 88 trial administrations, collected, and how it was distributed and and 4) the treatment of the data. The results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter Three, C hapter III RESULTS This chapter presents the results of a study about the activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/ Consultant (T/C) programs in Michigan. broadly into three sections. It is divided The first section presents the results of that portion of the survey designed to collect participant (survey respondent) demographic data as well as basic attitudinal information about T/C pro­ grams and mainstreaming. These data are presented ini­ tially to describe more clearly the nature of the survey population. The results of this study concerning the Activities of T/C programs are presented in the second section of this chapter. Each research question (1 through 8, page 61) concerning T/c program activities is restated fol­ lowed by a review and analysis of the results of the statistical procedures employed. The third section of this chapter is similar to the preceeding section except that it focuses on the Outcomes ay 90 of T/C programs. In this section each research question (9 through 16, page 62 ) concerning T/c programs outcomes is restated, followed by a review and analysis of the results of the statistical procedures employed. It should be noted that the activity and outcome statements included on the accompanying tables in this chapter are abbreviated for the purpose of data presen­ tation. The reader is referred to the questionnaire (Appendix I) for actual wording of these statements. Demographic Information of Study Participants As noted in Chapter II, the fourth page of the survey questionnaire consisted of a series of short-answer ques­ tions designed to elicit information about the survey respondents. Each of the five subgroups received a some­ what different version of this page of the survey. Appendix J). (see Results for each subgroup are as follows: Teacher /Consul t.ants Forty of the forty-one Teacher/Consultants (t /C s ) returning completed surveys also completed all or part of this section. ended questions Data concerning responses to the close(1-15) are presented in Table 3.1. Each 91 Table 3.1 - Demographic Information - TEACHER/CONSULTANTS 1. How many years have your worked professionally in education? Range; 2. Mode: 10 3 MA/MS: 36 Specialists: (please circle) 2 PhD: 0 1 to 16 Mean: 3.75 Mode: 1 6 to 170 Mean: 50 Mode; 16 0 to 38 Mean: 18.1 Mode: 25 No: 21 Avg. Percent: 32.76 Range: 2 to 75 What Special Education certifications and/or endorsements do you have? (please circle) PPI: 1 AI: 0 El: 20 1 area = 1 5 10. Mean: 6,78 Do you also function part-time as special education classroom or resource room program? yes no (please circle). If yes, approx­ imately what percentage of your time do you function as Teacher/ Consultant? Yes: 17 9. 1 to 15 How many students are currently placed in your program or on your caseload? Range: 8. Mode: 4 What is the total number of regular classroom teachers in the building(s) you serve? (approx.) Range: 7. Mean: 6.58 How many spearate buildings do you serve as a Teacher/Consultant? Range: 6. 0 to 20 What is the highest degree you have earned? BA/BS: 5. Mode; 5 and 10 How many years have you been working as a Teacher/Consultant? Range: 4. Mean: 13.23 How many of these years did you work as a special education class­ room teacher? Range: 3. 4 to 24 LD: 32 MX: 2 areas = 16 21 VI: 0 3 areas = 9 HI: 1 POHI: 3 4 areas = 1 What grade levels are involved in the building(s) you serve? (please circle) K - 5: 16 K - 6: 9 K - 8: 6 K - 12: 10 92 (Table 3.1 cont.) 11. Do you work directly with students other than testing activities? Yes: 12. 25 No: Approximately what percentage of your time is spent working directly with students? Range: 0 to 98 13. Mean: 66.8 Mode: 90 and 95 Approximately what percentage of your time is spent working directly with regular classroom teachers? Range: 0 to 50 14. Mean: 13.5 Mode: 10 What is your general attitude toward mainstreaming? 1 (0) negative 15. 3 2 (1) 3(7) 4 (10) 5 (19) positive Mean: 4,27 What is your general attitude toward Teacher/Consultant programs? 1 (2) negative 2 (6) 3(6) 4 (14) 5 (11) positive Mean: 3.66 93 question is restated for ease of review and interpreta­ tion. These data suggest that T/Cs responding to the survey tend to have considerable professional experience in edu­ cation and special education in particular. T/Cs possess graduate level degrees Almost all (M.A. or higher). The range of buildings and regular classroom teachers served is quite larger tively. from 1 to 16 and 6 to 170 respec­ Despite this disparity, it is apparent that most T/Cs spend a greater portion of time providing direct service to children than providing indirect (consulting) services to professionals and parents. 13.5 percent An average of (with a range of 0 to 50%) is reported as that portion of time spent working directly with regular classroom teachers. An important observation is that almost all of the T/Cs possess certification in what has been termed "highincidence" handicap areas (i.e., L . D . , E.I., E.M.I.). According to Scandary (1979) T/C programs in Michigan, serving high incidence handicapped populations, have only increased significantly since the mid to late 1 9 7 0 's. A review of the results of questions 14 and 15 indicate that T/Cs report a more positive attitude toward mainstreaming than toward T/c programs in general. A summary 94 of the responses given to the open-ended questions followsi 16. What in your opinion, is the most, positive aspect of Teacher/Consultant programs? Eighteen of the 45 comments (40%) given in response to this question generally refer to the opportunity to help students be successful in the regular classroom en­ vironment (mainstream). The next two highest response categories continue with this theme. These include the provision of quality services directly to children (12 responses) and the opportunity to help the regular class­ room teacher 17. (11 responses). What, in your opinion, is the most negative aspect of Teacher/Consultant programs? Approximately 58% of the responses to this question cite various demands of the job as the most negative as­ pect of T/c programs. These include, spread too thin, paperwork, etc. for example, being lack of time and resources, The next highest category of response (approxi­ mately 25%) refers to factors concerning the lack of role definition and the differing expectancies people have for the role of the t /C. Ten percent of the respondents indicate that T/Cs are too involved with testing activi­ ties. 95 18. On the questionnaire you were asked to indicate dif­ ferences between actual and preferred activities and out­ comes. If you perceive differences between the actual and preferred, to what do you attribute these differ­ ences? Approximately 50% of the 45 responses to this ques­ tion refer to the factors of lack of time and resources as the major causes of the discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes of T/C programs. Ap­ proximately 30% felt that this discrepancy is caused by attitudes and expectancies of the T/C program including a misunderstanding of the T/c role. Regular Classroom Teachers All 27 of the Regular Classroom Teachers (RCTs) re­ turning completed surveys also completed all or part of this section. Data concerning responses to the close- ended questions (1-8) are presented in Table 3.2. These data suggest generally that RCTs also possess consider­ able professional experience with an average of 16.36 years reported. A clear majority of the RCTs also pos­ sess graduate level degrees. The average number of main­ streamed special education students in their classrooms (other than those receiving Speech Therapy Services) was 2.75 with an average of 2.11 receiving services from a T/C program. RCTs indicate an average to high degree of familiarity with T/c programs and a moderately positive 96 Table 3.2 - Demographic Information - REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHERS 1. How many years have you worked professionally in education? Range: 2. (2) 6th: 1st: (4) 2nd: (9) MA/MS: 3rd: (7) 4th: (3) 5th: (5) (19) Specialists: (0) PhD: (0) Mode: 26 Of these, how many are currently receiving some type of special education program or service other than speech therapy? Mean: 2.75 Mode: 1 How many are in Teacher/Consultant programs or receive Teacher/ Consultant services? Mean: 2.11 Mode: 1 How would you rate your degree of familiarity with Teacher/ Consultant programs? 1: (2) 2: unfamiliar 8. (4) Mean: 25.79 Range: 1 to 7 7. 15 and 20 How many students do you have in your classroom? Range: 1 to 8 6. Mode: What is the highest degree you have earned? Range: 9 to 34 5. 16.36 (3) BA/BS: 4. Mean: What grade level do you presently teach? K: 3. 3 to 30 (2) 3: (11) 4: (8) 5: (5) familiar What is your general attitude toward mainstreaming? on back) 1: (2) 2: (5) 3: (4) 4: (10) 5: (6) Mean: 3.43 (see definition Mean: 3.48 97 attitude toward mainstreaming. A summary of the re­ sponses given to the open-ended questions 9. (9-11) follows: What, in your opinion, is the most positive aspect of Teacher/Consultant programs? Of the 27 comments received in response to this question, slightly over half (14) refer to the general topic of opportunity for academic help for students. Approximately 30% of the comments refer to the availa­ bility of help or advice concerning problems they face in the teaching of children. 10. What, in your opinion, is the most negative aspect of Teacher/Consultant programs? Fifty percent of the responses to this question consist of comments regarding the general area of scarce program resources. scarcity of staff, This includes, staff time, for example, etc. the Six of the 22 re­ sponses refer to a general lack of program acceptance or a poor attitude toward T/C programs. Only two responses indicate any concern regarding the lack of skill of the Teacher/Consultant. 11. On the questionnaire you were asked to indicate differences betwen actual and preferred activities and outcomes. If you perceive differences between the actual and preferred, to what do you attribute these differences? 98 As is the case with T/Cs, RCT s also site lack of staff and resources as the major cause for a discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes of T/C programs. These factors are cited by approximately 75% of the responses to this question. Approximately 10% of the RCTs cite t/c program role expectancy or understanding as a factor. Parents of T/C Program Students Twenty of the 22 parents {PARs) returning completed surveys also completed all or part of this section. Data concerning responses to the closed-ended questions (1-5) are presented in Table 3.3. Sixteen of the 20 PARs are mothers and all twenty re­ port they are the natural parent. All but two have grad­ uated from high school and six report completing a bacca­ laureate or graduate degree. PARs report an average to above average degree of familiarity with T/C programs and are, as a group, somewhat more positive toward main- streaming than regular classroom teachers. A summary of the responses to the open-ended questions (6-8) follows: 99 Table 3.3 - Demographic Information - PARENTS 1. 2. Are you: (please circle) a. mother; (16) or father: b. natural parent: 35-39: 4. (0 ) or legal guardian: Please check your age group: 24 years or less: 3. (20) (4) (0) 25-29: (9) (2) 30-34: 40 years or above: What is the level of your formal education? (7) (2) (please circle) grade: (2) H.S. Diploma?G,E.D,; (11) MA/MS: (1) FhD/MD or equivalent: BA/BS: (2) (1) How would you rate your degree of familiarity with Teacher/ Consultant programs? 1: (1) 2 : (2) 3: (6 ) 4: unfamiliar (5) 5: (6 ) very familiar Mean: 3.65 5. What is your general attitude toward mainstreaming? on back) 1: (1) 2: (0) 3: (6 ) negative Mean 4.05 4: (3) 5: (10) positive (see definition 100 6. How has the Teacher/Consultant Program been most helpful to your child? Ten of the 23 responses to this question cite the improvement of their child's self-esteem and/or motiva­ tion as the most positve outcome of the T/C program. Nine responses refer to the gains in academic skills or success in the regular classroom. Only one PAR referred to the support they personally received from the T/c. 7. How could the Teacher/Consultant program be more helpful? Approximately 33% of the PARs program needs to provide for more the education of their child. indicate that theT/C parent involvement in Thirty percent felt that T/C programs do not provide enough academic support and that more is needed. Finally, another 30% feel that the program/service should be provided earlier, before their child failed academically in 8. the regular classroom. On the questionnaire you were asked to indicate differences between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. If you perceive differences between the actual and preferred, to what do you attribute these differences? As was reported by T/Cs and RCTs, a clear majority (80%) of the PAR's cite the lack of resources as the primary reason for discrepancies between actual and pre­ ferred activities and outcomes of T/c programs. Only one parent cited a lack of skill on the part of the T/C as a 101 cause of the discrepancy. Elementary Principals Twenty-one of the 22 Elementary Principals (PRNs) returning completed surveys also completed all or part of this section. Data concerning responses to the close- ended questions (1-11) are presented in Table 3.4. PRNs report considerably more professional experience than T/Cs, years. RCT s , and DIRs, with an average of 24.76 An average of approximately IS years experience as a building principal is also reported. Virtually all PRNs possess graduate level degrees and 2 report posses­ sing doctoral level degrees. Most indicate having only one Special Education classroom in their building(s) (average 2.5). PRNs indicate a high degree of famili­ arity with T/C programs and a very positive attitude toward mainstreaming in general. It is also interesting to note that they report a somewhat higher positive atti­ tude toward T/c programs in general than did T/Cs. A summary of the responses to the open-ended questions (12-14) 12. follows: What, in your opinion, is the most positive aspect of Teacher/Consultant programs? 102 Table 3.4 - Demographic Information - PRINCIPAL 1. How many years have you worked professionally in education? Range: 2. 2 to 24 (1) MA/MS: 1 to 11 to What grade levels? K - 5: 7. Mean: 14.95 Mode: (16) Specialists: 20 (please circle) (3) PhD: (2) 3. Mean: 1.43 Mode: 1 How many regular education classrooms are you responsible for? Range: 6. Mode: 18 For how many separate buildings are you the principal? Range: 5. Mean: 24.76 What is the highest degree you have earned? BA/BS: 4. 33 How many years have you been a principal? Range: 3. 16 to 35 Mean: 19.43 Mode: 17 (please circle) K - 6: (7) (14) How many special education classrooms or resource rooms? Range: 1 to 6 Mean: 2.5 Mode: 1 8 . How many different Teacher/Consultants regularly serve your build­ ing Range: 1 to 5 9. (2) 3: (5) 4: (6 ) 5: (8 ) very familiar What is your general attitude toward mainstreaming? on back) 1: (2) negative 11. Mode: 1 How would you rate your degree of familiarity with T/C programs? 1: (0) 2: unfamiliar 10. Mean: 2.38 2: (0) 3: (3) 4: (6 ) 5: (10) positive Mean: 3.95 (see definition Mean: 4.05 What is your general attitude toward T/C programs? 1: (3) negative 2: (0) 3: (4) 4: (5) 5: (9) positive Mean: 3.81 103 Approximately 50% of the PRNs indicate that academic support for T/c program students is the most positive aspect of T/C programs. Other positive aspects include support for regular classroom teachers and helping stu­ dents be successful in the mainstream. 13. What, in your opinion, of t /c programs? As in the case of T/Cs, program resource limits aspect of T/C programs. is the most negative aspect PARs, and RCTs, PRNs cite (50%) as the primary negative Factors such as paperwork, time, and personnel limitations are mentioned as examples. Approximately 15% cite regular classroom teacher atti­ tudes toward the T/c program as a negative aspect of T/c p ro gr a m s . 14. On the questionnaire you were asked to indicate differences between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. If you perceive differences between the actual and preferred, to what do you attribute these differences? Again, as in the case of previously reported sub­ groups, a clear majority of PRNs cite resource factors as the major cause of discrepancies between actual and preferred activities and outcomes of T/c programs. 104 D ir e c to r s of S p ecia l E d u ca tio n Thirty of the 31 Directors of Special Education (DIRs) returning completed surveys also completed all or part of this section. close-ended questions Data conerning responses to the (1-10) are presented in Table 3.5. DIRs report an average of 22.17 years of professional experience in education. An average of 12.6 years is reported as their experience as a Special Education ad­ ministrator. All DIRs possess graduate level degrees with three possessing doctoral level degrees. While most DIRs report responsibility for only one local school dis­ trict (13 of 29) the range is considerably large (1 to 14). This is also true for the number of Special Educa­ tion programs, in total, and T/c programs, in particular* The range of Special Education programs is 6 to 106 and for t /c programs, 1 to 28. This suggests that Directors from both small and large districts are represented in the sample. Direct supervision of T/C programs is reported to be evenly distributed between building Principals or the Directors themselves. DIRs indicate a very positive attitude toward mainstreaming in general and the most positive attitude of all subgroups toward T/C programs. 105 Table 3.5 - Demographic Information - DIRECTORS 1. How many years have you worked professionally in education? Range: 12 to 35 Mean: 22.17 Mode: 26 2. How many years have you worked as a Special Education Administrator? Range: A to 23 Mean: 12.6 Mode: 11 3. What is the highest degree you have earned? BA/BS; (0) MA/MS: (20) (please circle) Specialists: (7) PhD: (3) 4. How many local school districts are you responsible for as Director? Range: 1 to 14 Mean: 3.76 Mode: 1 5. How many Special Education programs or services are you responsible for as Director? Range: 6 to 106 Mean: 34.32 Mode: 14 6 . How many Teacher/Consultant programs do you have? Range: 1 to 28 Mean: 7.27 Mode: 1 7. Who provides for their direct supervision? Self (10) Special Ed. (6 ) Supervisor (please circle) Building (12) Principals Other (5) Combination 8 . What is your general attitude toward mainstreamin? 1: (0) negative 2: (1) 3: (4) 4: (7) 5: (19) positive Mean: 4,42 9. What is your general attitude toward Teacher/Consultant programs? 1: (1) negative 2: (0) 3: (7) 4: (7) 5: (16) positive Mean: 4.19 10. How would you rate your degree of familiarity with Teacher/ Consultant programs? 1: (0) 2: (0) unfamiliar 3: (3) 4: (8 ) 5: (20) very familiar Mean: 4.55 106 A summary of the responses to the open-ended questions (11-13) follows: 11. What, in your opinion, of T/C programs? is the most positive aspect Of the 30 comments received in response to this ques­ tion, 14 (approximately 50%) cite the opportunity for student academic success in the mainstream as the most positive aspect. given. No other major category of response is Other responses include role flexibility, in­ volvement in student testing, and teacher/staff support. 12. What, in your opinion, of t /c programs? is the most negative aspect Two broad categories of responses are given as an­ swers to this question. Approximately 60% of the DIRs share the observation of the other subgroups by citing the limited resources of staff and time as the primary negative aspect. However, 40% refer to factors related to program acceptance and attitude toward T/C programs. 13. On the questionnaire you were asked to indicate dif­ ferences between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. If you perceive differences between the actual and preferred, to what do you attribute these differences? Approximately 33% of the DIRs cite resource factors as the primary cause of the discrepancy between Actual 107 and Preferred T/c program activities and outcomes. Another 25%, however, cite disagreements over program expectancies and the role of T/Cs. Activities of Teacher/Consultant Programs The results of this study concerning the activities of Teacher/Consultant (T/c) programs are presented in this section. Sixteen T/C program activites, identified and extracted from previous research and the professional literature, were rank-ordered according to priority by the study participants representing five distinct strata (subgroups) involved with T/C programs on a day-to-day basis. Participants were requested to rank-order the activity statements by priority according to the manner in which they perceived T/c programs were actually oper­ ated or implemented. Particpants were then requested to rank-order the activity statements by priority according to the manner in which they would prefer T/c programs to be operated or implemented in order to maximize program effectiveness. All statistical computations were done utilizing the computer program SPSS, for the Social Sciences, State University. Statistical Package (Nie, et al., 1975) at Michigan 108 In this section, each research question concerning (questions l- 8 f pg 61 ) is re­ T/c program activities stated, followed by a review and analysis of the results of the statistical procedures employed. Research Question 1; Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant programs as identified and extracted from research and the profes­ sional literature, what is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the actual rank-order of priority of each activity statement. In order to deter­ mine the rank-order of priority for the combined groups the average of the subgroups means was obtained for each statement. This procedure was used to control for unequal subgroup size (N). The results of this procedure are presented in Table 3.6. The average subgroups mean response and standard deviation is presented following each activity statement. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the 16 T/C program activity statements. 109 Table 3.6 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 , 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Combined Groups Mean Standard Deviation 7.370 3.980 8 9.389 3.932 11 3.245 1 6.181 4.511 3 6.976 4.156 6 7.078 3.125 7 5.051 3.978 2 6 .8 6 8 3.755 5 6.208 3.012 4 9.377 3.525 10 7.692 3.591 9 10.062 3.306 12 12.615 3.044 14 13.472 2.611 16 10.806 3.413 13 13.232 3.454 15 3.583 . Rank 110 These data indicate clearly that the activity of pro­ viding tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content is the highest priority activity of T/c programs as they are actually operated. The lowest p r i ­ ority actual activity selected by the participants is providing training programs to parents. It is interesting to note that actual activities identified as high priority tend to be those closely associated with the provision of direct services to children and that actual activities identified as low priority tend to be those closely associated with the provision of indirect services (i.e. focusing on support of the adult receiving T/C services. Research Question 2: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant, programs as identifed and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? The same statistical procedure used to determine the answer to research question 1 was used to address research question 2. The results of this procedure for preferred activities are presented in Table 3.7. The average sub­ group mean response and standard deviation are presented Ill Table 3.7 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Groups Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * « ties Combined Mean Standard Deviation 6.826 4.379 3 9.757 4.696 12 5.267 4.052 1 8.096 4.766 9 7.748 4.417 6 7.878 3.779 7 7.723 4.532 5 8.477 3.809 10 6.366 3.512 2 8.009 3.721 8 7.545 3.803 4 10.258 3.714 13 11.490 4.038 14 11.606 3.751 15 8.831 3.872 11 11.948 4.222 16 Rank 112 for each activity statement. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of preferred priority of the 16 T/C program activity statements. The results of this procedure indicate that the activ­ ity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of reg­ ular classroom content is the highest preferred priority activity or T/C programs as assigned by the combined g ro u p s . The lowest priority activity preferred by the combined groups is team-teaching with the regular classroom teacher. Differences between actual and preferred rank-order of priority are noted. A detailed analysis of these differ­ ences is presented under research question #7, Research Question 3; Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the actual rank-order of prior­ ity of each activity statement. The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of priority. 113 The results of this procedure are presented in the accom­ panying Tables subgroup. {3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12) for each Each statement is followed by its mean response and the standard deviation. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the 16 T/C program activity statements. Teacher/Consultant: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.8) that, for Teacher/Consultant respondents indicate (T/Cs) the activ­ ity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content is the highest priority activity of T/C programs as they are actually implemented. The difference between the mean rank of this activity and the second and third highest-ranked activities appears consid­ erably large indicating a strong concensus. Furthermore, the standard deviations for the second and third priorityranked activities appear to be considerably large indi­ cating a larger degree of variability among T/Cs in their ranking of these activities. Differences in the mean ranks of the remaining activities appear relatively small. The lowest ranked activity was the provision of formal inserv­ ice training programs to educational personnel. 114 Table 3.8 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Consultants Activity 1, Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Mean Teacher/ Standard Deviation Rank 6.872 3.342 7 9.846 3.794 12 3.103 3.331 1 6 .0 0 0 5.005 3 6.359 3.475 6 7.744 2.953 9 5.538 4.559 2 7.487 3.713 8 6.026 2.334 4 8.974 3.535 10 6.256 2.692 5 9.667 3.586 11 14.051 2.685 16 13.974 2.334 15 10.615 3.400 13 13.462 2.751 14 115 Regular Classroom Teacher: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.9) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) perceive the activity of conducting student assessment for eligi­ bility as the highest priority activity of T/C programs. The mean rank of the second priority activity (providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content) does not differ considerably from the mean rank of the first priority activity. Similar to PARs, RCTs indi­ cate that providing training programs to parents is the lowest priority activity of T/c programs as actually implemented. Parents: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.10) that Parent respondents indicate (PARs) perceive the activity of pro­ viding tutorial or supportive instruction of regular class­ room content to be the highest priority activity of T/C p r o­ grams. The lowest priority is activity was the provision of training programs to parents. dard deviations Taken as a whole, the stan­ for the activity statements as rank-ordered 116 Table 3.9 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Classroom Teachers Activity 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Regular Mean Standard Deviation 8.136 4.313 8 11.000 3.665 12 3.621 2 5.136 3.226 3 6,364 4.499 5 7.045 3.139 6 4.045 2.803 1 6.182 3.621 4* 6.182 3.126 4* 10.273 2.453 10 7.909 3.841 7 9.909 3.351 9 13.227 3.085 14 13,500 3.036 15 10.591 3.686 11 12.318 4.815 13 4.182 . Rank 117 Table 3.10 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Parents Standard Deviation Mean Rank 7.714 4.480 7 8.357 4.684 8* 3.610 1 7.357 5.733 6 8.357 4.668 8* 6.571 3.480 3* 6.571 4.127 3* 7.000 3.679 4 5.714 3.911 2 9.500 3.818 9 7.286 4.665 5 9.643 3,225 10 10.786 4.173 11 12.357 3.079 14 12.214 3,806 13 11.929 4.599 12 4.571 . 118 by PARs indicates somewhat larger variability when compared to other subgroups. Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.11) indicate that Principal respondents {PRNs) also perceive the activity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content to be the highest priority activity of T/C programs. As indicated by other subgroups, the activity of conducting student assessment for eligibility is also highly ranked. PRNs, as well as T/Cs (see Table 3.8) differ some­ what from RCTs in the degree of variability in their rank order of this activity. T/Cs and PRNs exhibit considerably more variability than RCTs for this activity. The lowest priority activity perceived by PRNs is team-teaching with regular classroom teachers. D irectors: Again, as in the case of all subgroups (except RCTs) Director respondents (DIRs) perceive (see Table 3.12) the provision of tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content as the highest priority activity of T/C programs. Furthermore, DIRs also exhibit the least degree 119 Table 3-11 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities*. Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 + Test T/C prpgram students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10 . Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12 . Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Principals Standard Deviation Mean Rank S.250 3.522 8 10.500 3.804 13 3.017 1 6.650 4.694 6 5.600 3.885 4 5.150 3.133 3 4.500 4.347 2 7.350 4.056 7 6.000 2.575 5 9.100 3.919 10 8.650 3.675 9 9.650 3.167 11 12.850 2,498 14 13.250 2.552 15 10.450 2.911 12 14.450 2.395 16 3.500 . 120 Table 3.12 - Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 , 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of canpensatory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * » ties Directors Standard Deviation Mean Rank 5.880 4.246 4 7.240 3.711 7 2.647 1 5.760 3.897 3 8 .2 0 0 4.252 8 8.880 2.920 10 4.600 4.052 2 6.320 3.705 5 7.120 3.113 6 9.040 3.900 11 8.360 3,081 9 11.440 3.203 13 12.160 2.779 14 14.280 2.052 16 10.160 3.262 12 14.000 2.708 15 2.560 . 121 o£ variability in their ranking of this activity as evi­ denced by a standard deviation of 2.647. A larger degree of variablity is evidenced by the priority ranking of DIRs for the second highest ranked activity of conducting student assessment as a part of determining eligibility. This p e r ­ haps suggests considerable variability across the state regarding the role of the T/C and their involvement in the referral-to-placement process. Again, the provision of training programs to parents was identified by DIRs as the lowest priority activity of T/C programs. Research Question 4: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant, programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the preferred rank-order of pri­ ority of each activity statement. The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of p r i ­ ority. The results of this procedure are presented in the accompanying Tables each subgroup. (3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17) for Each statement is followed by its mean re­ sponse and the standard deviation. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the 16 T/c program activity statements. 122 Teacher/Consultants: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.13) that for Teacher/Consultant, respondents indicate (T/Cs) the activity of providing information about a student's difficulty or problem to parents and educational personnel is the highestpreferred. It should also be noted that with a standard deviation of 2.703, T/Cs indicate the lowest degree of vari­ ability in response to this activity statement. The second highest preferred activity is listening and responding to questions/concerns of parents or educational personnel. This activity received a rank-order of 5 by T/Cs among actual activities of T/c programs. The highest ranked actual activity received a rank of 3 among preferred activities. This activity involves the p r o ­ vision of tutorial or supportive instruction to students. Similarly, the second highest ranked actual activity, that of providing direct instruction of content different from the regular classroom content, was ranked 8th among pre­ ferred activities by T/Cs. A considerable degree of vari­ ability among T/Cs is noted for these activities with stan­ dard deviations of 5,040 and 5.386 respectively. A consid­ erable degree of variability is also evident among T/Cs for the activity of conducting student assessment activities for determining eligibility for special education. A lack of concensus is apparent among T/Cs with a standard deviation 123 Table 3.13 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultants Activity 1 . Instruct students in Teacher/ Standard Deviation Rank 6.872 3.935 4 9.590 4.172 12 6.590 5,040 3 7.872 5.386 8 7.564 3.926 6 9.103 3.740 10 7.667 5.392 7 9.154 4.088 11 5.103 2.703 1 7.000 3.713 5 5.846 3.453 2 9.795 4.426 13 11.615 4.308 15 11.436 4.064 14 8.154 4.036 9 12.359 3.930 16 Mean learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties 124 of 5.392. It is also noteworthy that the first and second ranked activities preferred by T/Cs are activities that could be characterized as indirect services. That is, services provided to other adults versus directly to students. Regular Classroom Teachers; The results of this procedure (see Table 3.14) that for Regular Classroom Teacher respondents indicate (RCTs) the activity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content is the highest preferred. second, The third and fourth highest preferred activities by RCTs also involve the provision of direct services to students and include the provision of direct instruction of content dif­ ferent from the regular classroom content, the direct imple­ mentation of behavior management techniques, and counseling with students about feelings or attitudes. The activity of providing formal inservice training pro­ grams to educational personnel is identified as the leastpreferred activity by RCTs. 125 Table 3.14 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Classroom Teachers Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp, Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demans trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Mean Regular Standard Deviation Rank 7.682 4.476 7 11.500 4.585 13 3.773 4.047 1 6.409 3.972 2 6.864 4.389 4 6.636 3.259 3 8.455 4.867 10 * 8.091 3.337 8 7.045 3.552 5 8.455 3.725 10 * 8.273 4.108 9 7.545 5.050 6 13.045 3.258 15 10.545 3.863 12 9.227 3.571 11 12.682 4.592 14 126 Parents: The results of this procedure that for Parent respondents (see Table 3,15) indicate (PARs) providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content is the highest preferred activity, A relatively high degree of con­ census regarding this activity is apparent with a standard deviation of 2.848, The second highest preferred activity is instructing students in various classroom learning strate­ gies. T/Cs and RCTs rank this activity at 4 and 7 respec­ tively. Considerable difference between PARs and RCTs is apparent for the activity of assisting school personnel in behavioral crisis situations. as the lowest This activity was identified (16) preferred among PARs and the seventh highest preferred among RCTs. Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.16) indicate that, for Principal respondents (PRNs), providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content is the highest preferred activity. This corresponds with the pref­ erences indicated by RCTs and PARs. T/Cs however, Unlike PARs, RCTs and PRNs identify conducting student assessment activities for determining special education eligibility as their second highest priority. The assigned ranks for this 127 Table 3.15 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C prpgram students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = ties Parents Mean Standard Deviation 5.214 4.758 2 9.214 6 .0 0 2 11 4.429 2.848 1 7.571 4.831 5 8 .0 0 0 4.961 6 8.071 3.912 7 9.071 2.731 10 9.000 3.419 9 5.500 3.976 3 8.500 4.256 8 7.286 4.393 4 11.929 2.369 16 11.500 4.292 15 10.857 3.860 14 9.643 4.551 12 1 0 .0 0 0 5.306 13 Rank 128 Table 3.16 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Activity 1. Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of canpensatory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * “ ties Principals Standard Deviation Mean Rank 8.400 4.223 9 10.600 4.477 13 4.078 1 6.950 5.135 6 6.550 4.729 5 6.500 3.993 4 5.700 4.835 2 7.100 4.115 7 5.900 2.789 3 8.450 3.000 10 7.800 3.254 8 9.700 3.743 11 11.450 3.818 14 12.550 3.316 15 1 0 ,1 0 0 3.024 12 13.700 2.849 16 4.000 . 129 activity by these subgroups were 7, 10, and 10 respectively. With a standard deviation of 4.835, considerable variability among PRNs is indicated for this activity. Providing information about a student's difficulty or problem to parents or school personnel is the third highest preferred activity according to PRNs. A relatively lower degree of variability among PRNs is suggested with a standard deviation of 2.789. Their lowest preferred activity is team- teaching with regular classroom teachers. Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.17) that, for Director respondents (DIRs), indicate instructing students in classroom learning strategies is the highest preferred activity. With a standard deviation of 4.504, a relatively high degree of variability among DIRs is apparent for this activity. Ranks assigned to this activity by other respon­ dent subgroups are as follows: T/Cs - 4, RCTs - 7, PARs-2, PRNs-9. The second highest preferred activity of DIRs is pro­ viding and/or demonstrating alternative instructional mate­ rials to educational personnel or parents. Ranks assigned to this activity by other respondent subgroups are as follows: 130 Table 3.17 - Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 , 12 , 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * *=* ties Directors Mean Standard Deviation 5.960 4.504 1 7.880 4.246 6 7.542 4.166 3 11.680 4.233 14 9.760 4.800 11 9.080 3.999 10 7.720 4.233 5 9.040 4.087 9 8.280 3.966 7 7.640 4.022 4 8.520 3.809 8 12.320 2.982 15 9.840 4.516 12 12.640 3.650 16 7.040 4.178 2 11.000 4.435 13 Rank 131 T/Cs-9, RCTs - 11, PARs-12, and PRNs - 12. A detailed anal­ ysis of the differences among subgroups will be addressed under research question 6. Research Question 5: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences in the actual rank-order of priority between subgroups? The purpose of this research question was to determine the extent of agreement between respondent subgroups re­ garding their perceptions of the actual activities of T/c programs. That is, the priority of activities of T/c pro­ grams as they are actually implemented. To determine if the subgroups responded similarily their "actual" rankings for each activity statement were compared. The statistical procedure employed for this purpose was the Mann-Whitney U Test. The results of this procedure are presented on the accompanying Tables 3.24, 3.25, (3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.26, and 3.27) for each of the 10 comparisons. Each statement is followed by the mean rank for each of two subgroups being compared. These data are followed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2-tailed £ test. Significant differences are denoted via asteriks where * = £ > . 0 5 and ** = £ > .01 levels of significance. 132 T ea ch er/C o n su lta n ts and R eg u la r C lassroom The results of this procedure T eachers! (see Table 3.19) indicate that there are no significant differences in the rank-order of priority between Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) and Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) regarding actual activities of T/c programs. While not statistically significant# a difference is indicated between T/Cs and RCTs for the activity of listening and responding to the questions/concerns of parents or educa­ tional personnel. T/Cs tend to give this actual activity a higher rank-order of priority than do RCTs. Therefore, T/Cs tend to perceive themselves to be actually engaged in this activity somewhat more than do RCTs. Teacher/Consultants and Parents: The results of this procedure that Parent respondents (see Table 3,19) indicate (PARs) perceive the activity of pro­ viding formal in-service training programs to education per­ sonnel to be a significantly higher priority than Teacher/ Consultant respondents (T/Cs). No other significant differ­ ences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities are indicated. It is of interest to note that a large (but not statistically 133 Table 3.18 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** T/C RCT learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. = p >.05 - £ > .01 = Teacher/Consultant = Regular Classroom Teacher Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank RCT Mean Rank Z P 29.49 33.68 - . 8899 .3735 29.09 34.39 -1.1242 .2609 28.46 35.50 -1.5482 .1216 30.87 31.23 - .0757 .9396 31.37 30.34 .2190 .8266 32.40 28.52 .8228 .4106 32.28 28.73 .7583 .4483 33.13 27.23 1.2523 .2104 30.88 21.20 - .0681 .9457 28.76 34.98 -1.3228 .1859 28,36 35.68 -1.5564 .1196 30.56 31.77 - .2567 .7974 33.31 26.91 1.3837 .1664 32.12 29.02 .6728 .5011 30.74 31.45 - .1518 .8794 31.22 30.61 .1320 .8950 134 Table 3.19 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities! Consultant and Parent Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** T/C PAR learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. « £ > .05 a jj > ,01 = Teacher/Consultant = Parent T/C Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank Z Teacher/ P 26.54 28.29 - .3648 .7153 28.81 21.96 1.4300 .1527 25.22 31.96 -1.4692 .1418 26.03 29.71 - .7731 .4394 25.27 31.82 -1.3702 .1706 28.55 22.68 1.2283 .2193 25.54 31.07 -1.1580 .2469 27.44 25.79 .3444 .7305 27.51 25.57 .4069 .6841 26.13 29.43 - .6902 .4901 26.55 28.25 - .3552 .7225 27.12 26.68 .0912 .9273 31.12 15.54 3.2974 .0010** 29.28 20.64 1.8330 .0668 24.78 33.18 -1.7580 .0788 28.05 24.07 .8491 .3958 135 significant) difference also exists between these subgroups for the activity of providing training programs to parents. PARs tend to perceive this activity to be of higher priority than do T/Cs. Teacher/Consultants and Principals: The results of this procedure {see Table 3.20) that Teacher/Consultant respondents respondents indicate (T/Cs) and Principal (PRNs) differ significantly in their perceptions of Rank-Order of Priority for three greatest difference (3) Activities. The (Z - 2.9Q05, £ > .01) is indicated for the actual activity of developing, implementing, and moni­ toring behavior management techniques for students. PRNs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher actual priority than do T/Cs. The second greatest difference between these subgroups (Z = 2.6596, £ > .01) is indicated for the activity of pro­ viding formal inservice training programs to educational personnel. Again, PRNs perceive this actual activity to be of significantly higher priority than do T/Cs. The third significant difference is indicated for the activity of listening and responding to the questions/concerns of par­ ents or educational personnel (Z - -2.3852, £ > .05). T/Cs 136 Table 3.20 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Consultant and Principal Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** T/C PRN = = = Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. p > .05 £ > .01 Teacher/Consultant Principal Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank 27.53 34.82 -1.5521 .1206 28.96 32.02 - .6527 .5139 28.88 32.17 - .7331 .4635 28.62 32.70 - .8701 .3843 31.56 26.95 .9825 .3258 34.74 20.75 2.9805 31.24 27.57 .7860 .4319 30.33 29.35 .2092 .8343 30.19 29.63 .1215 .9033 29.95 30.10 - .0322 .9743 26.21 37.40 -2.3852 .0171* 30.18 29.65 .1126 .9104 34.17 21.88 2.6596 .0078 31.64 26.80 1.0704 .2844 31.03 28.00 .6453 .5187 27.50 34.87 -1.6449 .1000 Z p .0029** 137 perceive this activity to be of significantly higher pri­ ority than do PRNs. Teacher/Consultants and Directors: The results of this procedure {see Table 3.21) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) and Director re­ spondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their perceptions of the Rank-order of Priority for four greatest difference (4) Activities. The (Z = 3.3031, £ > .01) between T/Cs and DIRs is indicated for the activity of providing formal inservice training programs to educational personnel. DIRs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher prior­ ity than do T/Cs. these subgroups The second greatest difference between (Z = 2.6938, £ > .05) is indicated for the activity of teaching students to use compensatory devices. Again, DIRs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than do T/Cs. The third greatest significant difference (Z = -2.5893, £ ■> .05) between these two subgroups is indicated for the activity of listening and responding to questions/concerns of parents or educational personnel. T/Cs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than DIRs. This relationship is also found for the activity of as­ sisting school personnel immediately in behavioral crisis 138 Table 3.21 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Consultant and Director Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 , 11 . 12 , 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * - £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant DIR = Director Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 35.18 28.32 1.4437 .1488 37.50 24.70 2.6938 .0071** 32.90 31.88 .2273 .8202 31.82 33.56 - .3671 .7136 29.28 37.52 -1.7354 .0827 30.01 36.38 -1.3424 .1795 33.46 31.00 .5213 .6021 35.04 28.54 1.3692 .1709 30.05 36.32 -1.3244 .1854 32.62 32,32 .0623 .9503 27.71 39.98 -2.5893 .0096** 28.60 38.58 -2.1038 .0354** 38.56 23.04 3.3031 .0010** 31.12 34.66 - .7653 .4441 33.88 30.34 .7490 .4539 30.95 34.92 - .8585 .3906 Z P 139 situations. Again, T/Cs perceive this activity to be of significantly (Z = -2.1038, £ >■ .05) higher priority than DIRs. Regular Classroom Teachers and Parents: The results of this procedure {see Table 3.22) indicate that there were no significant differences in the rank-order of priority between Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) and Parent respondents (PARs) regarding the actual activities of T/C programs. While not statistically significant the greatest differ­ ence between RCTs and PARs was found for the activity of providing formal inservice training programs to education personnel. PARs tend to perceive this activity to be of higher priority than RCTs. Regular Classroom Teachers and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.23) that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents cipal respondents indicate (RCTs) and Prin­ (PRNs) differ significantly in their per­ ceptions of the Rank-Order of Priority for only one actual 140 Table 3.22 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Classroom Teacher and Parent Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. • 1— 1 * ** RCT PAR learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. = p > .05 - £ > .01 = Regular Classroom Teacher = Parent Regular RCT Mean Rank. PAR Mean Rank Z 19.09 17.57 .4248 .6710 21.07 14.46 1.8437 .0652 18.18 19.00 - .2323 .8163 17.50 20.07 - .7207 .4711 16.84 21.11 -1.1904 .2339 19.41 17.07 .6544 .5128 15.89 22.61 -1.8782 .0603 17.57 19.96 - .6699 .5030 18.91 17.86 .2943 .7685 18.75 18.11 .1806 .8567 19.30 17.25 .5703 .5685 18.95 17.79 .3277 .7432 21.20 14.25 1.9489 .0513 20.30 15.68 1.2992 .1939 16.16 22.18 -1.6958 .0899 19.09 17.57 .4384 .6611 P 141 Table 3.23 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: Classroom Teacher and Principal Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > ,01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher PRN = Principal Regular RCT Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 20.98 22.07 - .2906 .7713 22.07 20.88 .3163 .7518 22.70 20.17 .6850 .4934 19.91 23.25 - .8871 .3750 22,30 20.63 .4432 .6576 25.41 17.20 2.1793 21.98 20.97 .2681 .7886 20.07 23.07 - .7985 .4246 21.80 21.17 .1650 .8690 23.09 19.75 .8868 .3752 20.30 22.82 - .6712 .5021 22.70 20.17 .6712 .5021 23.05 19.80 .8690 .3849 22.32 20.60 .4683 .6396 22.91 19.95 .7868 .4314 19.16 24.07 -1.4202 .1556 .0293* 142 activity, A difference (Z - 2,1793, £ for the activity of developing, .05) is indicated implementing and monitoring behavioral management/modification techniques for students. PRNs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than do RCTs. Regular Classroom Teachers and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.24) that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents rector respondents indicate (RCTs) and Di­ (DIRs) differ significantly in their per­ ceptions of the Rank-Order of Priority for only one Activity. This difference (Z = 3.2411, £ > .01) is indicated for the activity of teaching students to use compensatory devices. DIRs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than RCTs. A nearly significant difference is also indicated for the activity of developing, implementing, and monitoring behav­ ioral management/modification techniques for students. RCTs generally perceive this actual activity to of a higher prior­ ity than DIRs. 143 Table 3.24 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Actual Activities: Classroom Teacher and Director Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * - p > .05 ** = £ > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher DIR = Director Regular RCT Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 28.05 20.44 1.9066 .0566 30.89 17.94 3.2411 .0012** 27.70 20.74 1.8021 .0715 22.98 24.90 - .4833 .6289 21.14 26.52 -1.3475 .1778 19,86 27,64 -1,9574 .0503 23.95 24.04 - .1216 .9828 23.84 24.14 - .0750 .9402 21.48 26.22 -1.1920 .2332 26.64 21.68 1.2438 .2136 22.91 24.96 - .5141 .6072 20.41 27.16 -1.6998 .0892 27.52 20.90 1.6668 .0955 21.57 26.14 -1.1668 .2433 25.52 22.66 .7186 .4724 22.75 25.10 - .6116 .5408 144 P arents and P r i n c i p a l s : The results of this procedure (see Table 3.25) indicate that there were no significant differences in the rank-order of priority between Parent respondents respondents programs. (PARs) and Principal (PRNs) regarding the actual activities of T/c While not statistically significant the greatest differences between PARs and PRNs were found for the activi­ ties of providing and/or demonstrating alternative instruc­ tional materials Z = 1.9351) and counseling with students = 1.8996). (Z In both instances, PRNs tend to perceive these activities to be of somewhat higher priority than do PARs. PARs. Parents and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.26) indicate that Parent respondents (PARs) and Director respondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their perceptions of the rank-order of priority for three actual activities of T/c programs. The greatest difference (Z = -2.2553, £ > indicated for the activity of developing, .05) is implementing, and monitoring behavior management/modification techniques of students. PARs perceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than do DIRs. also differ It is noteworthy that PRNs from DIRs for this acit.vity in a similar manner. 145 Table 3.25 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: and Principal Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** PAR PRN = “ = = learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. £ > .05 £ > .01 Parent Principal Parent PAR Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 16.36 18.30 - .5621 .5741 14.14 19.85 -1.6553 .0979 19.29 16.25 .9023 .3669 17.75 17.32 ,1234 .9018 21.36 14.80 1.8996 .0575 20.43 15.45 1.4485 .1475 21.14 14.95 1.7970 ,0723 17.04 17.-82 - .2289 .8190 16.57 18.15 - .4578 .6471 18.32 16.92 .4049 ,6856 15.61 18.82 - .9318 .3514 17.50 17.50 0.000 14.54 19.57 -1.4779 .1394 16.14 18.45 - .6788 .4973 21.43 14.75 1.9351 .0530 14.14 19.85 -1.7841 .0744 1.0000 146 Table 3.26 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Activities: and Director Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** PAR DIR » = = = learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. p > .05 £ > .01 Parent Director Parent PAR Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 23.11 18.26 1.2789 .2009 21.86 18,96 .7652 .4442 23.79 17.88 1.6195 .1053 21.39 19.22 .5740 .5660 20.14 19.92 .0588 .9531 14.54 23.06 -2.2553 24.11 17.70 1.6956 .0900 21.50 19.16 .6182 .5364 17.32 21.50 -1.1029 .2701 21.86 18.96 .7647 .4444 17.71 21.28 - .9400 .3472 15.16 22.46 -1.8160 .0692 18.32 20.94 - .6934 .4881 15.04 27.78 -2.0765 ,0379* 25.04 17.18 2.0771 .0378 17.21 21.56 -1.1798 .2381 Z P .0241* 147 PARs also perceive the activity of providing training p r o ­ grams to parents to be of significantly higher priority than do DIRs (Z = 2.0765, £ > .05). DIRs perceive only one actual activity to be of signif­ icantly higher priority than do PARs. This activity involves the provision and/or demonstration of alternative instruc­ tional materials to educational personnel or parents 2.0771, £ .05). (Z = A similar, albeit non-signficant, rela­ tionship for this activity is indicated between PARs and PRNs. Principals and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.27) indicate that Principal respondents (PRNs) and Director respondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their perceptions of the ranlcorder of priority for five actual activities of T/c programs. The greatest difference (Z = 3.7421, £ > .01) between PRNs and DIRs is indicated for the activity of developing, menting, imple­ and monitoring behavior management/modification techniques for students. PRNs (as also found with PARs) per­ ceive this activity to be of significantly higher priority than do DIRs. 148 Table 3.27 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Actual Activities: and Director Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** PRN DIR learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. = P > .05 = £ > ,01 = Principal = Director Principal PRN Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 27.55 19.36 2.0862 .0370* 29.05 18.16 2.7732 .0056** 24.97 21.42 .9482 .3430 24.20 22.04 .5512 .5815 18.55 26.56 -2.0428 .0411* 14.85 29.52 -3.7421 .0002** 22.17 23.66 - .3824 .7022 25.13 21.30 .9772 .3285 20.35 25.12 -1.2185 .2230 23.15 22.88 .0690 .9450 23.62 22.50 .2872 .7740 18.27 26,78 -2.1734 25.17 21.26 1.0061 .3143 19.45 25.84 -1.6710 .0947 23.30 22.76 .1385 .8899 25.15 21.28 1.0571 .2905 .0298* 149 PRNs also perceive two other activities to he of signif­ icantly higher priority than do DIRs. These activities in­ clude counseling with students about feelings or attitudes = -2.0428, £ > (Z .05) and assisting school personnel in behav­ ioral crisis situations (Z = -2.1734, £ > .05). DIRs perceive significantly higher priorities than PRNs for two other T/C program activities. These include instruc­ ting students in classroom learning strategies (Z = 2.0862, £ *>.05) and teaching students to use compensatory devices (Z = 2.7732, £ *> .05). It is interesting to note that more sig­ nificant differences were found between these subgroups than any of the other comparisons. Research Question 6: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences in the preferred rank-order of priority between subgroups? The purpose of this research question was to determine the extent of agreement between respondent subgroups re­ garding their preferred rank-order of priority of activities of T/C programs? that is, the activities of T/c programs as subgroups would prefer them to operate. To determine if the subgroups responded similarly their "preferred" rankings for 150 each activity statement were compared* The statistical pro­ cedure employed for this purpose was the Mann-Whitney U Test. The results of this procedure are presented in the accompa­ nying Tables 3.36, (3.28, 3.29, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, and 3.37) for each of the 10 comparisons. 3.34, 3.35, Each activ­ ity statement is followed by the mean rank for each of the two subgroups being compared. These data are followed by the obtained score and the results of the 2-tailed £ test. Significant differences are denoted via asterisk where * = £ > .05 and ** = £ > .01 levels of significance. Teacher/Consultants and Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.28) that Teacher/Consultant respondents room Teacher respondents (T/Cs) and Regular Class­ (RCTs) differ significantly in their preferences for four T/C program activities. difference indicate (Z = 2.4057, £ > the activity of developing, The largest .05) between T/Cs and RCTs is for implementing, and monitoring b e­ havior management/modification techniques for children. RCTs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do T/Cs. This same relationship is also indicated for the activity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content. Again, RCTs prefer this activ­ ity to be of significantly higher priority (Z - 2.1725, £ > .05) than do T/Cs. 151 Table 3.28 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demenstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * - p > .05 * * - 2 > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank RCT Mean Rank Z P 30.03 32.73 - .5726 .5669 27.78 36.70 -1,8921 .0585 34.63 24,57 2,1725 .0298* 32.41 28.50 ,8299 .4066 32.46 28.41 .8596 .3900 35.09 23.75 2.4057 29.99 32.80 - .5959 .5512 32.69 28.08 .9941 .3202 27.65 36.93 -1.9727 .0485* 28.59 35.27 -1.4166 .1566 27.29 37.57 -2.1778 .0294* 34.05 25.59 1.7928 .0730 28.82 34.86 -1.2893 .1973 32.78 27.84 1.0492 .2941 29.37 33.89 - .9573 .3384 29.58 33.52 - .8492 .3958 .0161* 152 Two activities are preferred by T/Cs to be of signifi­ cantly higher priority than RCTs. These include the activi­ ties of listening and responding to questions and concerns of parents or educational personnel (Z = -2.1776, £ > .05) and providing information about a s t ud en t’s difficulty or problem to parents and educational personnel (Z = -1.9727, £ > .05). It is interesting to note that the activities more highly preferred by RCTs are those that constitute direct services of students and deal more specifically with classroom per­ formance, behavioral and academic. Teacher/Consultant and Parents: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.29) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents dents (T/Cs) and Parent respon­ (PARs) do not differ significantly in their preferences for T/C program activities. T/Cs do not prefer any of the 16 activities to be of significantly higher priority than do PARs and vice versa. Teacher/Consultant and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.30) indicate 153 Table 3.29 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultant and Parent Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 , 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = p > .05 ** = £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant PAR = Parent Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank Z 29.00 21.43 1.5815 .1138 27.12 26.68 .0912 .9274 27.44 23.00 1.1424 .2533 27.06 26.82 .0507 .9596 26.85 27.43 - .1217 .9032 27.88 24.54 .6985 .4849 25.72 30.57 -1.0133 .3109 27.19 26.46 .1518 .8793 27.00 27.00 0.000 25.35 31.61 -1.3051 .1919 25,64 30.79 -1.0729 .2833 25,22 31.96 -1.4078 .1792 27.01 26.96 .0102 .9919 27.55 25.46 .4366 .6624 25.58 30.96 -1,1237 .2612 28.90 21.71 1.5064 .1320 P 1.0000 154 Table 3.30 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultant and Principal Activity 1 . Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10 . 11 . 12 . 13, 14. 15. 16. learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = £ > .05 ** » £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant PRN = Principal Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 27.81 34.27 -1.3743 .1693 28.32 33.27 -1.0534 .2921 32.95 24.25 1.8755 .0607 30.91 28.22 .5709 .5680 31.73 26.62 1.0876 .2768 33.74 22.70 2.3475 ,0189* 31.91 26.27 1.1998 .2302 32.90 24.35 1.8162 .0693 28.47 32.97 - .9638 .3352 27.53 34.82 -1.5518 .1207 27.09 35.67 -1.8265 .0678 30.29 29.42 .1849 .8533 30.90 28.25 .5649 .5721 28.44 33.05 - .9844 .3249 27.51 34.85 -1.5588 .1190 27.76 34.38 1.4325 .1520 155 (-.hat-. Teacher/Consultant respondents spondents only one (t /C s ) and Principal re­ (PRNs) differ significantly in their preference for t /c program activity. activity of developing, PRNs more highly prefer the implementing, and monitoring behavior management/modification techniques for students than do T/Cs (z = 2.3475, £ "> .05). The reader will also note a similar significant difference between T/Cs and RCTs for this same activity, Teacher/Consultants and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.31) that Teacher/Consultant respondents indicate (T/Cs) and Director re­ spondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their preferences for three T/C program activities. The greatest difference (Z = -2.9313, £ > .01) between T/Cs and DIRs is indicated for their preferences for the activity of providing information about a student's difficulty or problem to parents and edu­ cational personnel. T/Cs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do DIRs. Similar signif­ icant differences are also noted between T/Cs and RCTs for this same activity. DIRs and T/Cs also differ (Z = -2.7333, £ > . 0 1 ) in their preferences for the activity of listening and responding to 156 Table 3.31 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultant and Director Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** T/C DIR = = = Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. p > .05 £ > .01 Teacher/Consultant Director Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 34.49 29.40 1.0705 .2844 35.35 28.06 1.5337 .1251 33.29 29.90 .7256 .4681 30.63 35.42 -1.0075 .3137 29.54 37.12 -1.5950 .1107 32.88 31.90 .2071 .8359 33.54 30.88 .5604 .5752 32.69 32.20 .1035 .9176 27.08 40.96 -2.9313 33.26 31.32 .4074 27.42 40.42 -2.7333 .0063** 28.42 38.86 -2.1961 .0281* 35.62 27.64 1.6825 .0925 30.10 36.24 -1.2976 .1944 34.47 29.42 1.0635 .2875 34.68 29.10 1,1814 .2374 .0034** .6837 157 questions/concerns of parents or educational personnel. T/Cs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do DIRs. A similar relationship (Z = -2.21961, £ > .05) exists for the activity of assisting school personnel immedi­ ately in behavioral crisis situations. T/Cs again prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do DIRs. Regular Classroom Teachers and Parents: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.32) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents respondents (RCTs) and Parent (PARs) differ significantly in their preference for only one T/C program activity. RCTs more highly prefer the activity of assisting school personnel immediately in behavioral crisis situations than do PARs .05). (z = -2.3147, £ > The reader will also note a similar significant dif­ ference between RCTs and DIRs for this same activity. Regular Classroom Teachers and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.33) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents cipal respondents (RCTs) and Prin­ (PRNs) do not differ significantly in their preferences for T/C program activities. RCTs do not prefer 158 Table 3.32 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Classroom Teacher and Parent Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * ** RCT PAR = = Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. £ > .05 £ > .01 Regular Classroom Teacher Parent Regular RCT Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank _Z_ _E__ 21.02 14.54 1.8113 .0701 19.50 16.93 .7233 .4695 16.70 21.32 -1.3171 .1878 17.66 19.82 - ,6036 .5461 17.30 20.39 - .8648 .3871 16.89 21.04 -1.1567 .2474 17,93 19.39 - .4073 .6838 17.55 20.00 - .6853 .4932 20.73 1500 1.5989 .1098 18.41 18.64 - .0654 .9479 19.43 17.04 .6681 .5041 15.27 23.57 -2.3147 19.66 16.68 .8382 .4019 17.91 19.43 - .4245 .6712 17.98 19.32 - .3759 .7070 21.05 14.50 1.8547 .0636 .0206* 159 Table 3,33 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Classroom Teacher and Principal Activity 1. Instruct students in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * * learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/ implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. d > .05 ** = 2 > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher PRN = Principal Regular RCT Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank 20.50 22.60 - ,5560 ,5782 23.23 19.60 .9631 .3355 20.80 22.26 - .4077 .6835 21.14 21.90 - .2024 .8396 21.52 21.47 .0127 .9899 22.05 20.90 .3036 .7614 24.86 17.80 1.8721 .0612 23.27 19.55 .9868 .3237 23.66 19.12 1.2051 .2282 21,64 21.35 .0760 .9394 21.95 21.00 .2529 .8004 18.77 24.50 -1.5180 ,1290 24.80 17.87 1.8495 .0644 18.14 25.20 -1.8916 .0585 20.64 22.45 - .4813 .6303 20.48 22.63 - .5966 .5508 Z P 160 any of the 16 activities of T/C programs to be of signifi­ cantly higher priority than do PRNs and vice versa. It is interesting to note that nearly significant differ­ ences between these two respondent subgroups are indicated for the activities of providing formal inservice to educa­ tional personnel and providing training programs to parents. RCTs tend to more highly prefer training programs for parents while PRNs tend to more highly prefer inservice training programs for educational personnel. Regular Classroom Teachers and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.34) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents rector respondents (RCTs) and Di­ (DIRs) differ significantly in their pref­ erences for five (5) T/C program activities. Differences between these two groups are at the .01 level of significance for three of the 16 T/c program activities. Differences of this magnitude for this many T/c program activities are not indicated between any of the other group comparisons for preferred activities. The greatest difference (Z = -3.2298, £ > .01) between RCTs and DIRs is indicated in their preferences for the 161 Table 3.34 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Classroom Teacher and Director Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to 11. adult questions/concerns. 12 . Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * ** RCT DIR = p > .05 - £ > .01 = Regular Classroom Teacher = Director Regular RCT Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 26.95 21.40 1.3912 .1642 29.82 18.88 2.7394 .0062** 20.80 25.98 -1.3518 .1764 20.16 27.38 -1.8060 .0709 20.23 27.32 -1.7772 .0755 19.36 28.08 -2.1850 .0289* 26.45 21.84 1.1559 .2477 22.32 25.48 - .7921 .4283 22.14 25.64 - .8776 .3802 27.41 21.00 1.6067 .1081 23.36 24.56 - .2996 .7645 17.14 30.04 -3.2298 .0012 29.75 18.94 2.7208 .0065** 19.43 28.02 -2.1575 .0310* 27.91 20.56 1.8405 .0657 27.34 21.06 1.5938 .1110 162 activity of assisting school personnel immediately in be­ havioral crisis situations. RCTs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do DIRs. The reader will note similar significant differences between RCTs and PARs as well as DIRs and PRNs for this same actvity. The results of this procedure also indicate that RCTs more highly prefer the activities of developing, menting, imple­ and monitoring behavior management/modification techniques for students (Z - -2.1850, £ > .05) and providing training programs to parents (Z = -2.1575, £ > ,05) than do DIRs. This same relationship (for the activity of devel­ oping, implementing, and monitoring behavior management/ modification techniques) was also indicated between RCTs and T/Cs. RCTs and DIRs also differ greatly in their preferences for the activities of teaching students to use compensatory devices (Z — 2.7394, £>.01) and providing formal inservice training programs to educational personnel .01). (Z - 2.7208, £ > DIRs prefer these activities to be of a significantly higher priority than do RCTs. Parents and Principals! The results of this procedure (see Table 3.35) indicate 163 Table 3.35 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: and Principal Activity * i—i t—i 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of canpensatory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with 5. students. 6 . Develop/ implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * ** PAR PRN = P > .05 = £ > .01 = Parent = Principal Parent PAR Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 13.46 20.32 -1.9887 .0467* 17.00 17.85 - .2467 .8052 19.54 16.07 1.0180 .3087 18.57 16.75 .5273 .5980 19.64 16.00 1.0574 .2903 19.86 15.85 1.1589 .2465 22.75 13.82 2.5811 .0098** 20.39 15.47 1.4248 .1542 16.29 18.35 - .6024 .5469 18.29 16.95 .3868 .6989 16.50 18.20 - .4917 .6229 21.04 15.02 1.7447 .0810 18.07 17.10 .2829 .7773 14.61 19.52 -1.4391 .1501 17.93 17.20 .2114 ,8326 12.86 20.75 -2.3311 .0197 164 that Parent respondents (PARs) and Principal respondents (PRNs) differ significantly in their preferences for t h re e(3) T/c program activities. The greatest difference (Z « 2.5811, £ > .01) between PARs and PRNs is indicated in the prefer­ ences for the activity of conducting student assessment ac­ tivities as a part of the eligibility determination process. PRNs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher XJriority than do PARs. PARs prefer the activities of instructing students in classroom learning strategies (Z - -1*9887, £ > team-teaching with regular classroom teachers > .05) and (Z = -2.3311, £ .05) to be of significantly higher priority than do PRNs. It is interesting to note that a similar (albeit not statistically significant) difference between PARs and RCTs is also indicated for the activity of instructing students in classroom learning strategies. Parents and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.36) indicate that Parent respondents (PARs) and Director respondents do not differ significantly in their preferences for any any of the T/C program activity statements. difference (Z = 1.9247, £ ^ .0543) A nearly significant is noted for the activity 165 Table 3.36 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: and Director Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6. Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9, provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * ** PAR DIR = = = - p > .05 £ > .01 Parent Director Parent PAR Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 18.29 20.96 - .7086 .4786 22.11 18.82 .8679 .3855 19.07 19.75 - .1843 .8538 17.82 21.22 - .8954 .3706 17.36 21.48 -1.0878 .2767 18.61 20.78 - .5740 .5660 24.39 17.54 1.8096 .0704 19.82 20.10 - .0735 .9414 15.75 22.38 -1.7516 .0798 22.75 18.45 1.1329 .2573 17.68 21.30 - .9561 .3390 18.57 20.80 - .5899 .5552 23.32 18.14 1.3676 .1715 16.00 22.24 -1.6547 .0980 24.68 17.38 1.9247 .0543 18.43 20.88 - .6480 .5170 166 of providing and/or demonstrating alternative instructional materials to parents and educational personnel. more highly prefer this activity than do PARs. DIRs tend to It is noted that DIRs did perceive this activity to be of a significantly higher actual priority than did PARs. Principals and Directors: The results of this procedure that Principal respondents Isee Table 3.37) indicate (PRNs) and Director respondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their preferences for seven of the 16 T/c program activities. Differences in preferred priority for this many activities are not indicated between any of the other subgroup comparisons. The greatest difference (Z - 2.5918, £ > .01) between PRNs and DIRs is indicated in their preferences for the activity of providing and/or demonstrating alternative instructional materials to educational personnel or parents. DIRs prefer this activity to be of a significantly higher priority than do PRNs. It is noteworthy that significant differences between other subgroups are not indicated for this activity. Similar differences between PRNs and DIRs are indicated for the activities of team-teaching with regular classroom 167 Table 3.37 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: and Director Activity 1. Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14, Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * ** PRN DIR = P > .05 » £ > .01 = Principal = Director Principal PRN Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z 27.27 19.58 1.9612 .0499* 27.55 19.36 2.0860 .0370* 20.25 24.38 -1.0890 .2762 19.90 25.48 -1,4206 .1554 18.27 26.78 -2.1663 .0303* 18.67 26.46 -1.9827 .0474* 21.07 24.54 - .8853 .3760 19.63 25.70 -1.5468 .1219 19.22 26.02 -1.7386 .0821 25.90 20.68 1.3316 .1830 21.40 24.28 - .7337 .4632 17.90 27.08 -2.3412 .0192 25.35 21.12 1.0827 .2289 22.02 23.78 - .4530 .6505 28.65 18.48 2.5918 .0095** 27.92 19.06 2.2971 .0216* P 168 teachers (Z = 2.2971, £ > compensatory devices *05), teaching students to use (Z - 2.0860, £ >■ .05), and instructing students in classroom learning strategies .05). (Z = 1.9612, £ > DIRs prefer these activities to be of a significantly higher priority than do PRNs. It is noteworthy that the preferences of DIRs are similar to those of PARs for 2 of these activities. The results of this procedure indicate that PRNs more highly prefer the activities of assisting school personnel immediately in behavioral crisis situations .05), (Z = -2.3412, £ counseling with students about feelings or attitudes (Z = -2.1663, £ "> .05), and developing, implementing, and monitoring behavior management/modification techniques for students (Z = -1.9827, £ ^ .05). PRNs prefer these activi­ ties to be of a significantly higher priority than do DIRs. The reader should note similar differences in preferences for these activities between DIRs and RCTs. Research Question 7: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant Programs as iden­ tified and extracted from research and professional liter­ ature, what are the differences between the actual rankorder of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? The Wilcoxon Matched-Paris Signed-Ranks Test was em­ ployed to compare the combined groups priority ranking of actual T/c program activities with the combined groups 169 priority ranking of preferred T/C program activities. The results of this procedure are presented on Table 3.38. Each activity statement is followed by the number of negative and positive ranks along with their corresponding mean ranks. These data are followed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2tailed £ test. Significant differences are denoted via asterisks where * » £ levels of significance. of negative .05 and * * = £ * > .01 Please note that where the number (-) ranks is smaller than the number of positive (+) ranks the activity has been assigned a higher actual priority than preferred priority. Conversely, where the number of negative ranks is larger than the number of posi­ tive ranks the activity has been assigned a higher preferred priority than actual priority. The results of this procedure indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are as­ signed by the combined groups for 10 of the 16 activities of T/C programs. Significantly higher actual priority rankings are indicated for five of the activity statements* The greatest difference between actual and preferred activities, where higher actual priority rankings is indicated, is for the activity of conducting student assessment for the eligi­ bility determination process other words, (Z = -5.481, £ > .01). in the combined group ranks this T/C program ac­ tivity significantly lower in preferred priority than they perceive its actual priority. Similar differences are 170 Table 3.38 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Combined Groups Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * “ £ > .05 * * = . £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Rariks /Mean Z P 42/41.04 36/37.71 .911 .362 39/42.04 45/42.90 .649 .516 28/29.63 50/45.03 3.541 .000** 23/33.41 55/42.05 3.845 .000** 30/40.25 52/42.22 2.284 .022* 34/44.25 54/44.66 1.887 .059 14/27.64 61/40.38 5.481 .000** 24/37.98 61/44.98 4.014 .000** 48/37.78 36/48.79 -.127 .899 56/45.74 26/32.37 3.976 .000** 44/48.41 47/43.74 .146 .884 41/47.78 50/44.54 .530 .596 49/46.53 30/26.33 3.421 .001** 59/43.83 20/28.70 4.916 .000** 64/47.25 21/30.05 5.243 .000** 44/35.22 21/28.36 3.117 .002** 171 in d ica te d for the fo llo w in g a c tiv itie s: 1. Conducting student assessment with special educa­ tion students in program as ongoing measures of achievement {Z = -4.014, £ >- .01) 2. Providing direct instruction of content different from regular classroom content (Z = -3.845, p ;> .0 1 ). 3. Providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content (Z = -3.541, £ > .01). 4. Counseling with students about feelings or attitudes (Z = 2.284, £ > .05). Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated for five other T/c program activities. The great­ est difference between actual and preferred activities, where a higher preferred ranking is indicated, is for the activity of providing and/or demonstrating alternative instructional materials to educational personnel or parents {Z = -5.243, £ > . 0 1 ) . Similar differences are indicated for the following activities: 1. provide training program to parents (Z = -4.916, £ > .0 1 ). 2. provide and/or demonstrate different intervention techniques to parents and educational personnel (Z = -3.976, £ > .01) 3. provide formal inservice training programs to educational personnel (z = -3.421, £ > .01). 4. team-teach with regular classroom teachers (Z « -3.117, £ > .01). 172 R esearch Q u estio n 8: Given 16 Activities of Teacher/Consultant Programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the subgroups? The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was em­ ployed to compare each subgroups priority ranking of actual T/C program activities with the priority ranking of pre­ ferred T/C program activities. The results of this pro­ cedure for each subgroups are presented in the accompanying Tables (3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, and 3.43). Each activity statement is followed by the number of negative and positive ranks along with their corresponding mean ranks. These data are followed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2-tailed £ test. Significant differences are denoted via asterik where * = £ *> .05 and ** = £ > nificance. *01 levels of sig­ Please note that where the number of negative ranks is smaller than the number of positive ranks, the activity has been assigned a higher actual priority than preferred priority by the respondents. the number of negative Conversely, where (-) ranks is larger than the number of positive (+) ranks the activity has been assigned a higher preferred priority than actual priority. Following are the results of this procedure for each respondent subgroup: 173 T ea ch er/C o n su lta n ts: The results of this procedure (see Table 3*39) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) for nine of the 16 activities of T/C programs. Sig­ nificantly higher actual priority rankings are indicated for five of the activity statements. The greatest difference between actual and preferred activities, cated, where higher actual priority rankings are indi­ is for the activity of providing tutorial or sup­ portive instruction of regular classroom content -3.746, £ >• .01). (Z - In other words, T/Cs rank this T/C pro­ gram activity significantly lower in preferred priority than they perceive its actual priority. however, it is important to note, that this activity receives an overall rank of three (out of 16) for T/Cs preferred activities. Similar differences are indicated for the following activities: 1. Conducting student assessment as a part of eligibility determination process (Z = -3.165, £ -> .0 1 ). 2. Providing direct instruction of content different from regular classroom content (Z = -2.967, p ;> .0 1 ). 3. Conducting student assessement with special educa­ tion students as ongoing measures of achievement (Z = -2.459, £ > . 0 5 ) . 174 Table 3.39 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Teacher/Consultant Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * =* £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean 14/13.75 13/14.27 .084 .933 16/15.34 13/14.58 .605 .545 5/7.70 23/15.98 3.746 .000** 5/13.10 22/14.20 2.967 .003** 10/13.30 18/15.17 1.594 .111 9/16.22 22/15.91 1.999 .046* 3/9.67 19/11.79 3.165 .002** 8/11.88 20/15.55 2.459 .014* 19/13.21 7/14.29 1.918 .055 20/15.72 8/11.44 2.539 .011* 17/15.50 13/15.50 .638 .524 14/16.86 18/16,22 .524 .601 19/13.53 4/4,75 3.619 .000** 22/14.05 3/5.33 3.942 .000** 24/17.42 6/7.83 3.815 .000** 15/13.43 9/10.94 1.471 .141 Z P 175 4. Directly develop, implement, and monitor behavior management/modification techniques (Z = -1.999, £ > .05). Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated for four other T/c program activities by T/Cs. The greatest difference between actual and preferred ac­ tivities, indicated, where a higher preferred priority ranking is is for the activity of providing training pro­ grams for parents (Z - -3.942, £ * > . 0 1 ) . Similar differ­ ences are indicated for the following activities! 1. Provide and/or demonstrate alternative instruction materials to educational personnel or parents (Z = -3.815, £ > .01). 2. Provide formal inservice training programs to educational personnel (Z = -3.619, £ > .01). 3. Provide and/or demonstrate different intervention techniques to parents or educational personnel (Z = -2.539, £ > ,05). Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.40) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Regular Classroom Teacher respon­ dents (RCTs) for three of the 16 T/C program activities. Only one activity receives a significantly higher actual priority than preferred priority. Furthermore, the greatest difference between actual and preferred priority (Z = -3.506, £>.01) was assigned to this activity. This activity 176 Table 3.AO - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Regular Classroom Teachers Activity 1 , Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4, Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = £ > ,05 ** = £ > .0 1 -Ranks /Mean -(■Ranks /Mean 9/9.61 8/8.31 .473 .636 7/9.21 10/8.85 .568 .570 9/8.11 6/7.83 .738 .460 6/8.42 12/10.04 1.524 .127 4/11.00 12/7.67 1.241 .215 9/12.72 10/7.55 .785 .433 2/2.50 16/10.37 3.506 .000** 6/9.42 14/10.96 1.811 .070 9/6.06 8/12.31 1.041 .298 14/8.93 3/9.33 2.296 .022* 7/8.07 9/8.83 .595 .552 12/11.50 7/7.43 1.730 .084 8/9.38 9/8,67 .071 .943 15/9.47 3/9,67 2.461 .014* 11/8.59 5/8.30 1.370 .171 4/3.88 5/5.90 .829 .407 Z P 177 involves the conducting of student assessment for the eligi­ bility determination process. that t It is interesting to note /C s , RCT s and PARs indicate a significant higher ac­ tual priority than preferred priority for this activity. Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated by RCTs for the T/C program activities of pro­ viding training programs to parents (Z = -2,461, p > *05) and providing and/or demonstrating different intervention techniques to parents or educationl personnel .01). Therefore, (Z - -2.296, £ > RCTs indicate that these activities are of higher preferred priority than actual priority. These re­ sults indicate agreement with T/Cs and DIRs regarding these activities and their preferred versus actual priority. Parents: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.41) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Parent respondents four of the 16 T/C program activities. (PARs) for Significantly higher actual priority rankings are indicated for two of the activ­ ity statements. The greatest difference between actual and preferred 178 Table 3.41 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Parents Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demons trate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z P .043* 6/4.33 1/2.00 2.028 4/4.38 5/5.50 .592 .554 5/5.80 5/5.20 .153 .878 2/5.75 5/3.30 .423 .673 5/5.30 4/4.63 .474 .636 3/5.00 7/5.71 1.274 .203 2/6.75 10/6.45 2.000 .045* 2/8.50 9/5.44 1.423 .155 6/5.00 4/6.25 .255 .799 5/5.80 4/4.00 .770 .441 5/7.30 6/4.92 .311 .756 2/4.00 8/5.88 1.988 .047* 5/6.90 7/6.21 3.530 .724 6/6.25 4/4.38 1.019 .308 9/5.00 0/0.00 2.666 .008** 7/5.50 3/5.50 1.121 .262 179 activities, cated, where higher actual priority rankings are indi­ is for the activity of conducting student assessment for the eligibility determination process (Z = -2.000 £ > .05). In other words, PARs ranked this T/C program activity significantly lower in preferred priority than they perceive its actual priority. As noted earlier, this difference is similar to the findings for T/Cs and RCTs. A similar difference is indicated for the activity of assisting school prsonnel immediately in behavioral crisis situations (Z = -1.9Q8, £ > - . 0 5 ) . PARs are the only sub­ group to indicate a difference between actual and preferred priority for this activity. Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated for two T/C program activities by PARs. The greatest difference between actual and preferred activities, where a higher preferred priority ranking is indicated, is for the activity of providing and/or demonstrating alterna­ tive instructional materials to educational personnel or parents (z = -2.666, £ > .01). A similar difference is indicated for the activity of instructing student.3 in classroom learning strategies (Z = ,2.028, £ >* .05). Again, PARs are the only subgroup to cite a difference between actual and preferred priority for this activity. 180 P rin cip a ls: The results o£ this procedure (see Table 3.42) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Principal respondents only two of the 16 T/C program activities. (PRNs) for PRNs assigned significantly higher preferred priority rankings to the ac­ tivities of providing formal inservice training programs to educational personnel (Z = -2.170, p > .05) and team teaching with regular classroom teachers .05). Therefore, (Z - -2.023, p > PRNs indicate that these activities are of higher preferred priority than actual priority. A similar relationship is shared by PRNs and T/Cs for this activity of providing inservice training programs to educational per­ sonnel . Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.43) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Director respondents (DIRs) six of the 16 activities of T/c programs. for Significantly higher actual priority rankings are indicated for three of the activity statements. The greatest difference between actual and preferred 181 Table 3.42 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Principals Activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Instruct students in learning strategies. Teach use of compen­ satory devices. Provide tutorial instruction. Provide remedial instruction. Counsel with students. Develop/implement behavior management. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. Test T/C program students for planning. Provide information about student difficulties. Provide/demonstrate intervention techniques. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. Assist in behavior crisis. Provide formal inservice to teachers. Provide training to parents. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = P > .05 * * « £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z . P 3/7.50 7/4.64 .510 .610 4/4.75 5/5.20 .415 .678 4/3.13 3/5.17 .254 .800 4/3.63 4/5.38 .490 .624 5/5,20 7/7.43 1.020 .308 3/3.33 7/6.43 1.784 .074 3/3.33 6/5.83 1.481 .139 5/5.30 4/4.63 .474 .636 6/7.17 6/5.83 .314 .754 6/8.83 7/5.43 .524 .600 7/7.43 6/6.50 .454 .650 6/7.83 7/6.29 .105 .917 7/4.79 1/2.50 2.170 4/6.00 4/3.00 .840 .401 6/6.58 5/5.30 .578 .563 5/3.00 0/0.00 2.023 .030* .043* 182 Table 3.43 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Activities: Directors Activity 1 . Instruct students in learning strategies. 2 . Teach use of compen­ satory devices. 3. Provide tutorial instruction. 4. Provide remedial instruction. 5. Counsel with students. 6 . Develop/implement behavior management. 7. Test students for Sp. Ed. eligibility. 8 . Test T/C program students for planning. 9. Provide information about student difficulties. 10. Provide/demons trate intervention techniques. 11. Listen/respond to adult questions/concerns. 12. Assist in behavior crisis. 13. Provide formal inservice to teachers. 14. Provide training to parents. 15. Provide/demonstrate instructional materials. 16. Team teach with regular class teachers. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z 10.8.05 7/10.36 .189 .850 8/10.44 12/10.54 .803 .422 5/6.20 13/10.77 2.373 .018* 6/5.25 12/11.62 2.352 .019* 6/8.08 11/9,50 1.325 .185 10/9.00 8/10.13 .196 .845 4/6.63 10/7.85 1.632 .103 3/4.17 14/10.04 3.030 .002 8/8.69 14/10.95 1.026 .305 11/8.73 4/6.00 2.045 .041* 8/12.44 13/10.12 .556 .578 7/8.14 10/9.60 .923 .356 10/13.80 9/5.78 1.730 .084 12/10.67 6/7.17 1.851 .064 14/12.04 5/4.30 2.985 .003** 13/10.35 4/4.63 2.746 .006** P 183 activities, cated, where higher actual priority rankings are indi­ is for the activity of conducting student assessment of Special Education students as ongoing measures of achievement (Z = -3.030, £ > .01). DIRs, in other words, ranked this T/C program activity significantly lower in preferred priority than they perceive its actual priority. A difference in priority ranking for this activity is also indicated by T/Cs. It is interesting to note, however, DIRs do not share similar results to T/Cs, that RCTs and PARs for the related activity of conducting student assessment for the eligibility determination process. Higher actual priority rankings are also indicated by DIRs for the T/C program activities of providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content 2.373, £ (Z = .05) and providing direct instruction of content different from regular classroom content {z = -2.352, £ .05). Similar differences are also indicated by T/Cs for these two activities. Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated by DIRs for three T/C program activities. The greatest difference between actual and preferred activities, where a higher preferred priority ranking is indicated, is for the activity of providing and/or demonstrating alterna­ tive instructional materials to educational personnel or 184 parents (Z = -2.958, £ > .01). A similar relationship be ­ tween actual and preferred priority was indicated by PARs and T/Cs for this activity. DIRs also differed significantly in this manner preferred higher priority than actual) (i.e., for the T/C program activities of team-teaching with regular classroom teachers (Z - -2.746, £ > .01) and providing and/or demonstrating different intervention techniques to parents and educational personnel (Z = -2.045, £ "> .05). Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs The results of this study concerning the outcomes of Teacher/Consultant {T/c) programs are presented in this sec­ tion. Ten T/C program outcomes, identified and extracted from previous research and the professional literature, were rank-ordered according to priority by the study participants representing five distinct strata {subgroups) T/C programs on a day-to-day basis. quested to, first of all, involved with Participants were re­ rank-order the outcome statements by pri ority according to the manner in which they perceived T/C programs are actually operated or implemented. Partic­ ipants were then requested to rank-order the outcome state­ ments, by priority, according to the manner in which they would prefer t/c programs to be operated or implemented in 185 order ho maximize program effectiveness. All statistical computations were done utilizing the computer program SPSS, Statisticcal Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, et al., 1975) at Michgan State University. In this section each research question concerning T/c program outcomes (questions 9-16, pg, 62 ) is restated, fol­ lowed by a review and analysis of the statistical procedures employed. Research Question 9; Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant, programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups? Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the actual rank-order of pri­ ority of each outcome statement. In order to determine the rank-order of priority for the combined groups the average of the subgroup means was obtained for each statement. This procedure was used to control for unequal subgroup size (N). The results of this procedure are presented in Table 3.44. The average subgroup mean response and standard devi­ ation are presented following each outcome statement. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the ten T/c program outcome statements. 186 Table 3.44 - Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success in regular class. 2 . Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10* Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Combined Group Mean Standard Deviation Rank 3.1486 2.5436 1 6.2166 2.6140 7 4.8790 2.7942 4 6.2096 2.3822 6 4.5106 2.4808 3 6.2202 2.5254 8 6.7580 2.3584 9 4.1470 2.2860 2 7.1746 2.1928 10 5.6496 3.2072 5 187 These data indicate that increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest priority outcome of T/C programs as they are presently implemented. The second highest priority outcome is the improvement of the students' esteem. self-concept or self­ It is interesting to note that these outcomes in­ volve student based change versus change in the adults receiving T/C program services. Research Question 10: Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined groups7 The same statistical procedures used to determine the answer to research question 9 was used to address research question 10. The results of this procedure for preferred outcomes are presented in Table 3.45. The average subgroup mean response and standard deviation are presented for each outcome statement. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of preferred priority of the ten T/c program outcome statements. These results indicate that increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest priority preferred outcome. The reader will 188 Table 3.45 - Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes; Outcomes 1. Increase time-success in regular class. 2 . Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Combined Groups Mean Standard Deviation Rank 2.9584 2.4646 1 6.8984 2.4614 9 4.5064 2.7558 3 5.8120 2.3794 5 4.9858 2.5062 4 5.8656 2.5902 6 6.2292 2.3200 7 4.1420 2.6706 2 6.8094 2.3102 8 7.3932 2.5826 10 189 recall from the previous section that this outcome was also the.highest actual priority perceived by the combined groups. Research Question 11: Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their actual rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the actual rank-order of pri­ ority of each outcome statement. The mean response for each statement was used to determine "the rank-order of priority. The results of this procedure are presented in the accompa­ nying Tables subgroup. (3.46, 3.47, 3.4Q, 3.49, and 3.50) for each Each statement is followed by its mean response and the standard deviation. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the ten T/c program outcome statements. Teacher/Consultants: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.46) that for Teacher/Consultant respondents indicate (T/Cs) perceive the outcome of increasing the time that the student successfully 190 Table 3.46 - Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Teacher/Gonsultants Standard Deviation Rank 3.026 2.323 1 6.385 2.730 7 5.051 2.920 4 6.308 2.567 6* 4.718 2.635 3 6.308 2.319 6* 6.872 2.238 8 3.590 2.149 2 7.282 2.247 9 5.590 3.354 5 Mean 191 spends in the regular classroom setting as the highest pri­ ority outcome of T/C programs as they are actually imple­ mented. This corresponds with the highest ranked actual outcome for the combined group and therefore indicates that T/Cs are in general agreement with all study participants. The second highest ranked actual outcome by T/Cs is the improvement of the students self-concept or self-esteem. The difference between the mean rank of this outcome and the highest rank outcome (above) is considerably small perhaps indicating some lack of concensus among T/Cs in the relative order of ranks. The lowest ranked outcome of T/c pr og ra ms , as perceived by T/Cs, is increasing the skills of adults receiving T/C services. As one of the original goals of supportive programs, it is noteworthy that this outcome should be assigned the lowest rank. The same could perhaps be said for the second-lowest ranked outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/c services. Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.47) that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents indicate (RCTs) also 192 Table 3.47 - Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Regular Classroom Teachers Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Increase time-success in regular class, Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration, Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Mean Standard Deviation Rank 3.091 2.599 1 6.091 2.793 6 6.318 2.885 7 6.818 2.085 8* 4.455 2.464 4 5.682 2.885 5 6.818 2.383 8* 4.045 1.864 2 7.318 2.191 9 4.364 3.444 3 193 perceive the outcome of increasing the time the student suc­ cessfully spends in the regular classroom setting as the highest priority outcome of T/C programs as they are actu­ ally implemented. The reader will also note apparent agree­ ment with T/Cs for the lowest ranked outcome of T/C pro­ grams. RCTs indicate that oral and/or written reports of stu­ dent assessments is a relatively high priority outcome of T/C programs. The reader is encouraged to note its priority ranking as a preferred outcome by the combined group as well the data concerning the actual and preferred activity of student assessment presented in the previous section of this chapter. It is apparent that RCTs perceive testing activi­ ties# and the outcometof test result reporting# priorities for T/c programs. On the other hand, to be high RCTs are indicating that they hold very little value for these activ­ ities and outcomes (see research question 10). Parents: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.48) that for Parent respondents (PARs), indicate increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is perceived to be the highest priority outcome of T/C programs. As was noted for T/Cs and RCTs the highest 194 Table 3.48 - Rank-Order of Actual (Xitcomes: Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Increase time-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Parents Mean Standard Deviation 2.786 2.082 1 5.357 2.649 4 4.286 3.124 2 5.857 3.035 7 5.500 3.057 5 7.357 2.925 10 6.000 2.253 8 5.000 2.542 3 7.143 1.916 9 5.714 2.920 6 Rank 195 ranked outcomes perceived by PARs pertain to student change versus adult change. Likewise, lower ranked outcomes indi­ cated by parents generally pertain to adult change. P ri ncipals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.49) that for Principal respondents indicate (PRNs) improving a student's self-concept or self-esteem is perceived to be the highest priority-ranked outcome of T/C programs. PRNs, it should be noted, are the only subgroup that do not perceive that in­ creasing the time the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest ranked outcome. It should also be noted that the obtained standard devi­ ations for each outcome statement appear to be relatively small for PRNs when compared to the other subgroups. This perhaps indicates a somewhat greater degree of concensus among this subgroup. One noted exception involves the a c­ tual outcome of assessment reports where a greater disparity among PRNs appears to exist. 196 Table 3.49 - Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. * in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral /written reports of testing results. ties Principals Standard Deviation Rank 3.400 2.644 3 7.850 1.843 10 4.500 2.439 4 7.150 1.814 8 3.200 1.936 2 5.550 1.932 5 6.900 2.469 7 2.700 2.003 1 7.650 2.159 9 6.100 3.076 6 Mean 197 Directors t Again, as in the case of all subgroups rector respondents (except PRNs) Di­ (DIRs) perceive (see Table 3.50) that increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest priority out­ come of T/C programs as they are actually implemented. DIRs also indicate that outcomes emphasizing student level change are the highest priority actual outcomes of T/C programs. Research Question 1 2 i Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what is their preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by each subgroup? Relative, adjusted and cumulative frequencies for all subgroups were obtained for the preferred rank-order of pri­ ority of each outcome statement. The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of priority. The results of this procedure are presented in the accom­ panying Tables (3.51, 3.52, 3.53, 3.54, and 3.55) for each subgroup. Each statement is followed by its mean response « and the standard deviation. These data are followed by the relative rank-order of priority of the ten T/C program outcome statements. 198 Table 3,50 - Rarik-Order of Actual Outcomes: Outcomes 1. Increase time-success in re&jlar class* 2. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/witten reports of testing results. * “ ties Directors Mean Standard Deviation 3.440 3.070 1 5.400 3.055 5* 4.240 2.603 2 5.320 2.410 4 4.680 2.322 3 6.200 2.566 6 7.200 2.449 8 5.400 2.872 5* 6.480 2.452 7* 6.480 3.242 7* Rank 199 T ea ch er/C o n su lta n ts: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.51) indicate that for Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) the outcome of increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest preferred. It should also be noted that with a standard deviation of 2,399, T/Cs display a relatively low degree of variability in response to this outcome statement. The second highest preferred outcome for T/Cs is im­ proving the students self-concept or self-esteem. fore, There­ the first and second highest preferred outcomes cor­ respond exactly with T/Cs perceptions of actual T/c program outcomes. The outcome of oral and/or written reports of student assessment results is indicated to be the lowest preferred priority by T/Cs. This outcome received a rank of five and three by T/Cs and RCTs respectively as an actual outcome. It is also noteworthy that preferred outcomes, as indicated by T/Cs, are outcomes that could be characterized as child centered (versus adult centered). 200 Table 3.51 - Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . Increase time-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Teacher/Consultant Mean Standard Deviation 3.077 2.399 1 7.385 2.740 9 4.513 2.713 3 4.949 2.585 4 5.128 2.342 5 6.462 2.780 8 5.974 2.529 3 3.897 2.447 2 6.051 2.235 7 7.564 2.673 10 Rank 201 R eg u la r C la ssro o m T eachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.52) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) also more highly prefer the outcome of increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting than any of the other outcome statements. The second, third and fourth highest preferred outcomes by RCTs involve stu­ dent level change and include improving a students selfconcept or self-esteem, improving student behavior and in­ creasing a students academic achievement level. same lines, Along these the outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services is indicated by RCTs to be the lowest preferred outcome. With a standard deviation of 1.711, RCTs also indicate the lowest degree of variability among themselves in response to this outcome statement. This perhaps indicates a relatively high degree of concensus among the RCT subgroup for this outcome statement. P a re nt s: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.53) also indicate that for Parent respondents (PARs), increasing the time a student successfully spends in the regular education setting is the highest preferred outcome of T/C programs. Oral and/or written reports of student assessment is ranked 202 Table 3.52 - Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Teachers Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. ties Regular Classrocm Standard Deviation Rank 2.455 2.324 1 6.727 2.694 9 5.455 2.940 4 6.591 2.840 8 3.955 2.126 3 6.227 2.599 6 7.455 1.711 10 3.727 2.434 2 5.955 2.478 5 6.455 2.595 7 Mean 203 Table 3.53 - Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Outcomes 1. Increase time-success in regular class. 2. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Parents Standard Deviation Rank 3.000 2.631 1 6.000 2.572 6 3.714 2.463 2 6.500 2.103 8 6.286 3.245 7 6.929 2,868 9 5.357 2,098 4 4.286 3.049 3 7.071 2.200 10 5.827 2.958 5 Mean 204 fifth among the ten outcomes by PARs. The reader will note that this outcome is the lowest preferred by T/Cs, DIRs. PRN s and The lowest priority-ranked outcome indicated by PARs is increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/c serv­ ices. This outcome, as noted earlier, is one of the primary reasons given for the development of early T/C program m od e l s . Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.54} indicate that for Principal respondents (PRNs) the outcome of in­ creasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is the highest preferred. The lowest preferred outcome for PRNs also corresponds with other subgroups and involves written and/or oral reports of student assessment testing. D ir ec to r s: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.55) indicate that the outcome of increasing the time that the student successfully spends in the regular classroom setting is also 205 Table 3.54 - Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success in regular class. 2 . Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10 . Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties * Principals Standard Deviation Rank 3.300 2.598 1 7.100 2.150 9 4.850 3.265 5 6.100 2.269 7 4.200 2.505 3 4.750 1.943 4 5.800 2.462 6 3.600 2.437 2 7.050 2.259 8 8.250 2.673 10 Mean 206 Table 3.55 - Rarik-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = ties Directors Standard Deviation Rank 2.960 2.371 1 7.280 2.151 8 4.000 2.398 2 4.920 2.100 3* 5.360 2.271 6 4.960 2.761 4 6.560 2.800 7 5.200 2.986 5 4.920 2.379 3* 8.840 2.014 9 Mean the highest preferred outcome for this respondent subgroup (DIRs). Also, written and/or oral reports of student as­ sessments is again indicated to be the lowest preferred out­ come of T/c programs. The outcomes of increasing adult skills or improving their attitudes, however, appear to be ranked somewhat higher by DIRs than other subgroups. An analysis of these apparent differences are addressed under Research Question 14. Research Question 13; Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences in the actual rankorder of priority between subgroups? The purpose of this research question was to determine the extent of agreement between respondent subgroups re­ garding their rank-order of priority of actual outcomes of T/C programs. That is, the priority of outcomes of T/c pro­ grams as they are actually implemented. To determine if the subgroups responded similarly their rankings for each "ac­ tual" outcome statement were compared. The statistical pro­ cedure employed for this purpose was the Mann-Whitney U Test. The results of this procedure are presented in the accompanying Tables (3.56, 3.57, 3.50, 3.59, 3.60, 3.61, 208 3.62, 3.63, 3.64, and 3.65) for each of the ten comparisons. Each outcome statement is followed by the mean rank for each of the two subgroups begin compared. These data are fol­ lowed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2tailed £ test. Significant differences are denoted via asterisk where * = £ > .05 and * * - £ > ■ .01 levels of significance. Teacher/Consultants and Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.56) indicate that there were no significant differences between Teacher/ Consultant respondents respondents (T/Cs) and Regular Classroom Teacher (RCTs) in their rank-order of priority of actual outcomes of T/c programs. Therefore, T/Cs and RCTs do not significantly differ in their perceptions of the rank-order of priority of T/C program outcomes as they are actually implemented. While not statistically significant, it is interesting to note that the greatest difference between T/Cs and RCTs is indicated for the outcome of increasing academic achieve­ ment levels of students. T/Cs tend to give this actual out­ come a higher rank-order of priority than do RCTs. 209 Table 3,56 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. * ** T/C RCT in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C, Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. = £ > .05 = £ > .01 = Teacher/Consultant = Regular Classroom Teacher Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank RCT Mean Rank 31.32 30.43 .1934 .8466 31.69 29.77 .4090 .6825 28.19 35.98 -1.6544 .0980 29.95 32.86 - .6225 .5336 31.62 29.91 .3638 .7160 32.22 28.84 .7196 .4718 31.03 30.95 .0156 .9879 29.31 34.00 -1.0038 .3155 31.10 30.85 .0608 .9515 33.33 28.86 1.3809 .1673 Z p 210 RCTs and T/Cs demonstrate considerable concensus .9879) (£ ~ for the actual outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services. RCTs and T/Cs each rank this actual outcome eighth out of the ten statements. Teacher/Consultants and Parents; The results of this procedure (see Table 3.57) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents spondents (RCTs) and Parent re­ (PARs) do not significantly differ in their pe r ­ ceptions of the rank-order of priority of T/C program o u t ­ comes. The greatest difference (albeit not statistically significant) between T/Cs and PARs is found for the outcome of improving the students' self-concept or self-esteem. T/Cs appear to perceive this outcome to be of somewhat higher priority than do PARs. Teacher/Consultants and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.50) that Teacher/Consultant respondents spondents indicate (T/Cs) and Principal re­ (PRNs) differ significantly in their perceptions of the outcome of improving the school-related behavior of students. PRNs perceive this outcome to be of significantly higher priority than do T/Cs (Z = 2.1337, £ > .05). 211 Table 3.57 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Actual Outcomes: Consultant and Parent Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = P > .05 * * - £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant PAR = Parent Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank 27.42 25.82 .3429 .7317 28.47 22.89 1.1680 .2428 28.23 23.57 .9760 .3291 27.54 25.50 .4282 .6685 26.08 29.57 -.7325 .4639 24.94 32.75 -1.6417 .1006 28.59 22.57 1.2658 .2056 24.72 33.36 -1.8164 .0693 27.42 25.82 .3367 .7364 26.92 27.21 -.0612 .9512 Z P Table 3.58 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Consultant and Principal Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** T/C PRN « = = = Increase tima-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. p > .05 £ > .01 Teacher/Consultant Principal Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank 29.15 31.65 -.5410 .5885 26.96 35.92 -1.9175 .0552 30.90 28.25 .5644 .5725 28.60 32.72 -.8837 .3769 33.38 23.40 2.1337 .0329* 32.50 25.13 1.5787 .1144 29.82 30.35 -.1134 .9097 32.62 24.90 1.6592 .0971 28.95 32.50 -.6666 .5050 28.90 32.15 -.6966 .4860 Z P 213 A nearly significant, difference between T/Cs and PRNs is also indicated for the outcome of the degree of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the adult receiving T/C services (Z = “1.9175, £ = .0552). T/Cs tend to perceive this out­ come to be of somewhat higher priority than do PRNs. Teacher/Consultants and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.59) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) and Director re­ spondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their perceptions of the rank-order of priority of improving the students self-concept or self-esteem (Z = -2.5179, > .05). T/Cs perceive this outcome to be of higher priority than do DIRs. It is interesting to note that T/Cs and PRNs, as indicated in the previous section, also differed somewhat in their perceptions of this outcome. T/Cs, therefore, tend to per­ ceive student self-concept or self-esteem to be of higher priority than do the school administration subgroups. Nearly significant differences between T/Cs and DIRs are noted for the outcome of improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/C program services (Z = 1.7007, £ = .0890). DIRs tend to perceive this outcome to be of somewhat higher priority than do T/Cs. 214 Table 3.59 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Consultant and Director Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant DIR = Director Teacher T/C Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z 32.64 32.28 .0781 .9377 34.92 28.72 1.3092 .1905 34.62 29.20 1.1432 .2529 35.64 27.60 1.7007 .0890 32.37 32.70 -.0695 .9446 32.91 31.86 .2223 .8241 30.95 34.92 -.8432 .3991 27.85 39.76 -2.5179 .0118* 34.96 28.66 1.3336 .1823 30.58 35.50 -1.0432 ,2969 P 215 R eg u la r C la ssro o m Teachers and P a r e n ts : The results of this procedure (see Table 3*60) that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents indicate (RCTs) and Parent respondents (PARs) do not differ significantly in their per­ ceptions of actual T/C program outcomes. differences are indicated, however, noted. Nearly significant and perhaps should be PARs tend to perceive increasing academic achieve­ ment to be a somewhat higher priority (Z = 1.9341, .0531) than do RCTs. = The opposite relationship is indicated for the outcome of increasing the regular classroom teachers collaborative arrangements with the T/C (Z = -1.7827, £ = .0746), That is, RCTs tend to perceive this outcome to be of higher priority than do PARs. Regular Classroom Teachers and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.61) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents cipal respondents (RCTs) and Prin­ (PRNs) differ significantly in their per­ ceptions of the ranh-order of priority of three T/C program outcomes. The greatest difference (Z = 2.7792, £ > .01) is indicated for the outcome of improving the students selfconcept or self-esteem. PRNs perceive this outcome to be a significantly higher priority than do RCTs. Similar signif­ icant differences between these two subgroups are indicated 216 Table 3.60 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Regular Classroom Teacher and Parent CXitcomes 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . Increase time-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher PAR = Parent RCT Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank 18.73 18.14 .1690 .8658 19.66 16.68 .8328 .4050 21.18 14.29 1.9341 .0531 19.61 16.75 .8104 .4177 17.23 20.50 -.9178 .3587 16.02 22.39 -1.7827 .0746 20.09 16.00 1.1482 .2509 16.64 21.43 -1.3528 .1761 19.11 17.54 16.77 21.21 2 ■ I T I I -1.2478 P .6567 .2121 217 Table 3.61 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes*. Classroom Teacher and Principal Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = P > .05 ** = £ > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher PRN = Principal Regular RCT Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 20.50 22.60 -.5683 .5699 17.73 25.65 -2.1123 .0347* 25.32 17.30 2.1285 .0333* 20.36 22.75 -.6405 .5219 24.43 18.27 1.6434 .1003 22.14 20.80 .3567 ,7213 21.25 21.77 -.1400 .8886 26.41 16.10 2.7792 .0054** 20.39 22.72 -.6263 .5311 18.09 25.25 -1.9114 .0560 218 for the outcome of increasing the academic achievement levels of students (Z = 2.1285, £ > .05). PRNs again pe r ­ ceive this outcome to be of higher priority than do RCTs. RCTs perceive the actual outcome of the degree of h e l p ­ fulness of the T/C to be of significantly higher priority than do PRNs (Z = -2.1123, £ "> .05). assessment results Reports of student {oral and/or written) are also perceived to be of somewhat higher priority (although not statisti­ cally significant) by RCTs (Z = -1.9114, £ » .0560). Regular Classroom Teachers and Directors: While Regular Classroom Teacher respondents Director respondents (RCTs) and (DIRs) differ significantly in their perceptions of four actual activities of T/C programs, results of this procedure (see Table 3.62) the indicates a sig­ nificant difference for only one actual outcome of T/c pro­ grams. DIRs perceive the outcome of increasing academic achievement levels of students to be of significantly higher priority than do RCTs (Z = 2.4310, £ > .05). It is also of interest to note that a nearly significant difference between these respondent subgroups is indicated for the outcome of reports of student assessment results - -1.9078, £ = .0564). (Z RCTs tend to perceive this outcome 2X9 Table 3.62 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Classroom Teacher and Director Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * =• p > .05 ** = £ > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher DIR = Director Regular RCT Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 27.73 24.24 -.1334 .8938 25.70 22.50 .8050 ,4208 29.14 19.48 2.4310 .0151* 27.93 20.54 1.8695 ,0616 22.84 25.02 -.5496 .5826 22.82 25.04 -.5577 .5771 22.55 25.28 -.6902 .4901 20.95 26.68 -1.4451 .1484 26.61 21.70 1.2387 ,2155 19.98 27.54 -1.9078 .0564 220 to be of higher priority than do DIRs. Parents and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.63) indicate that Parent respondents (PARs) and Principal respondents (PRNs) differ significantly in their perceived rank-order of priority for four of the ten outcomes of T/c programs. The greatest difference is indicated for the outcome of the de­ gree of helpfulness of the T/c as perceived by the adult receiving T/c services (Z = -2.8398, £ > .01). PARs per­ ceive this outcome to be of significantly higher priority than do PRNs. A similar difference is also indicated b e­ tween PRNs and DIRs for this outcome. PRNs perceive a significantly higher priority for the outcomes of improving the students self-concept or self­ esteem (Z = 2.7517, £ > .01), increasing the general educa­ tion teacher initiated collaborative arrangements 2.2077, £ > .05), and improving the students' behavior (Z = 2.1552, £ > .05). (Z = school-related It should be noted that PRNs also differ from the other respondent subgroups with regards to these outcomes. 221 Table 3.63 - Differences in Rarik-Order of Actual Outcomes: Principal Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** PAR PRN in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. = £ > .05 » £ > .01 = Parent = Principal Parent and PAR Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 16.04 18.52 -.7357 .4619 11.79 21.50 -2.8398 16.29 18.35 -.6009 .5479 15.43 18.95 -1.0366 .2999 21.86 14.45 2.1552 .0311* 21.96 14.38 2.2077 .0273* 15.25 19.07 -1.1124 .2660 23.04 13,62 2.7517 .0059** 15.71 18.75 -.8903 .3733 16.93 17.90 -.2843 .7761 .0045** 222 Parents and Directors: The results of this procedure that Parent respondents (see Table 3.64) indicate (PARs) and Director respondents (DIRs) do not differ significantly in their perceptions of actual T/C program outcomes. Nearly significant differences (Z = -1.6996, £ = .0892) are noted for the outcome of in­ creasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C program services. PARs tend to perceive this outcome to be of some­ what higher priority than do DIRs. Principals and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.65) indicate that Principal respondents (PRNs) and Director respondents (DIRs) differ in their perceptions of the rank-order of priority for four outcomes of T/C programs. PRNs indicate significantly higher priority rankings for the outcomes of improving student self-concept or self-esteem (Z = -3.8283, £ > .01) and improving the school related behavior of the student (Z = -2.1627, £ > .05). As noted before, PRNs have consistently ranked these outcomes more highly than other respondent subgroups (i.e., PAR, RCT, T/Cs). PRNs and DIRs also differ greatly in their perceptions of the rank-order of priority of the outcomes of the degree 223 Table 3.64 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: Director Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** PAR DIR = = “ = in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. £ > .05 £ > .01 Parent Director Parent and PAR Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 2 P 19.25 20.42 -.3217 .7477 20.25 19.86 .1032 .9178 20.07 19.96 .0298 .9762 21.68 19.06 .6935 .4880 21.36 19.24 .5626 .5737 23.43 19.08 1.4184 .1561 15.89 22.30 -1.6996 .0892 19.07 20.52 -.3834 .7014 21.86 18.96 .7687 .4421 17.61 21.34 -.9913 .3216 224 Table 3.65 - Differences in Rank-Order of Actual Outcomes: and Director Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** PRN DIR in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. - p > .05 = £ > .01 = Principal = Director Principal PRN Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 24.07 22.14 .5050 29.02 18.18 2.7754 23.97 22.22 .4504 28.97 18.22 2.7619 .0057** 18,32 26.74 -2.1627 ,0306* 21.00 24.60 -.9230 .3560 22.05 23.76 -.4386 .6609 16.02 28.58 -3.2283 26.40 20.28 1.5710 .1162 22.20 23.64 -.3701 .7113 Z D .6136 .0055** .6524 .0012** 225 of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the adult re­ ceiving T/C service (Z - 2.7754, £ > .01), and improving the attitude of the adult receiving t/c services .01). (Z = 2.7619, p > DIRs perceive these outcomes to be of significantly higher priority than do PRNs. Research Question 14; Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs, as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences in the preferred rank-order of priority between subgroups? The purpose of this research question is to determine the extent of agreement between respondent subgroups re­ garding their preferred rank-order of priority of outcomes That is, the outcomes of T/c programs as of T/C programs. subgroups would prefer them to operate. To determine if the subgroups responded similarily their "preferred" rankings for each outcomes statement are compared. The statistical procedure employed for this purpose is the Mann-Whitney U Test. The results of this procedure are presented in the accompanying Tables 3.72, 3.73, 3.74, (3.66, and 3.75) 3.67, 3.60, 3.69, 3.70, 3,71, for each of the ten comparisons. Each outcome statement is followed by the mean rank for each of the two subgroups being compared. These data are fol­ lowed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2tailed £ test, significant differences are denoted via 226 asterisk where * = £ > .05 and ** - £ > 01 levels of signi £icance. Teacher/Consultant3 and Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.66) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents (T/Cs) and Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) differ significantly in their preferences for two T/c program outcomes. greatest difference (Z = -2.2611, £ > . 0 5 ) The between T/Cs and RCTs is for the outcome of improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/c services. T/Cs prefer this outcome to be of significantly higher priority than do RCTs. This same relationship is also indicated for the outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C serv­ ices. Again, T/Cs prefer this outcome to be of significant­ ly higher priority (Z = -2.1094, £ > .05) than do RCTs. It is noteworthy that these two outcomes are oriented to adult level change versus child level change (and most likely the RCT). A nearly significant difference is also noted for the outcome of improving the school-related behavior of stu­ dents. It will be recalled that this outcome was perceived to be of high actual priority by PRNs. RCTs tend to prefer 227 Table 3,66 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Consultant and Regular Classroom Teacher Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = £ > .05 ** = £ > .01 T/C = Teacher/Consultant RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank RCT Mean Rank Z P 33.40 26.75 1.4681 .1421 32.63 28.11 .9690 .3326 28.99 34.57 -1.1894 .2343 27.17 37.80 -2.2611 .0238* 34.21 22.32 1.8951 .0581 31.71 29.75 .4168 .6768 27.44 37.32 -2.1094 31.38 30.32 .2288 .8190 31,12 30,80 .0682 .9456 33.87 25.91 1.7197 .0855 .0349* 228 this outcome to be of higher priority than do T/Cs (Z = 1.8951, £ = .0581). Teacher/Consultants and Parents: The results of this procedure {see Table 3.67) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents spondents (T/Cs) and Parent re­ (PARs) do not differ significantly in their pref­ erences for T/C program outcomes. It should also be noted that these two subgroups also do not differ significantly with regards to preferred activities of T/c programs. Nearly significant differences between these two sub­ groups, however, are noteworthy. PARs tend to more highly prefer reports of student assessment results than do T/Cs = 1.9141, £ = .0522). (Z Conversely, T/Cs tend to more highly prefer the improvement of the attitude of the adult, re­ ceiving T/C services than do PARs (Z = -1.8934, £ = .0583). Teacher/Consultants and Principals? The results of this procedure {see Table 3.68) indicate that Teacher/Consultant respondents spondents (T/Cs) and Principal re­ (PRNs) differ significantly in their preferences for the outcome of increasing general education teachers 229 Table 3.67 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Activities: Consultant and Parent Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** T/C PAR = = = = in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. p > .05 £ > .01 Teacher Consultant Parent Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank 27.60 25.32 .4897 .6244 29.31 20.57 1.8414 .0656 28.15 23.97 .9170 .3592 24.62 33.64 -1.8934 .0583 25.41 31.43 -1.2596 .2078 26.22 29.18 -.6204 .5350 28.22 23.61 .9690 .3325 26.69 27.86 -.2453 .8063 25,21 32.00 -1.4274 .1535 29.41 20.29 1.9414 .0522 2 P 230 Table 3.68 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Consultant and Principal Qutecmes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. * ** T/C PRN in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. - £ > .05 = £ > .01 = Teacher/Consultant = Principal Teacher/ T/C Mean Rank PRN Mean [tank Z p 29.71 30.57 -.1889 .8502 31.35 27.37 .8523 .3941 29.51 30.95 -.3069 .7589 27.40 35.07 -1.6383 .1014 32.21 27.70 1.3879 .1652 33.97 22.25 2.5008 .0124* 30.45 29.12 .2829 .7773 30.72 28.60 .4544 .6496 27.28 35.30 -1.7136 .0866 28.19 33.52 -1.1966 .2315 231 initiated collaborative arrangements with the T/c (Z 2.5008, £ > .05). PRNs prefer this outcome to be of sig­ nificantly higher priority than do T/Cs. Teacher/Consultants and Directors: As noted in the previous section for PRNs, Director respondents (DIRs) also more highly prefer the outcome of increasing general education teacher initiated collaborative arrangements than do Teacher/Consultants respondents (Z = 2.1025, £ > .05). (T/Cs) A significant difference between T/Cs and DIRs is also indicated for the outcome of reports of student assessment results (Z = -2.0188, £ > .05). T/Cs prefer this outcome of T/c programs significantly higher than do DIRs, despite the fact that both subgroups rank it lowest of all preferred outcomes. Regular Classroom Teachers and Parents: As indicated when comparing preferred outcomes between Regular Classroom Teacher respondents Consultant respondents (RCTs) and Teacher/ (t /C s ), RCTs indicate tsee Table 3.70) a significantly lower preference than PARs for the outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services (Z = 2.8197, £ .01). RCTs and PARs also 232 Table 3.69 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Teacher/ Consultant and Director Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** T/C DIR in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. « p > .05 = £ > .01 = Teacher/Consultant = Director T/C Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 33.13 31.52 .3473 .7284 33.71 30.62 6562 .5117 33.79 30.48 .7009 .4834 32.51 32.48 .0069 .9945 31.97 33.32 -.2848 .7758 36.38 26.44 2.1025 .0355* 30.47 35.66 -1.0972 .2726 29.29 37.50 -1.7338 .0830 35.73 27.46 1.7507 .0800 28.99 37.98 -2.0188 .0435* Z P 233 Table 3.70 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Classroom Teacher and Parent Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2, 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = p > .05 ** = £ > .01 RCT = Regular Classroom Teacher PAR = Parent Regular RCT Mean Rank PAR Mean Rank Z P 17.66 19.82 -.6609 .5087 19.89 16.32 .9994 .3176 21.02 14.54 1.8228 .0683 19.20 17.39 .5093 .6105 15.75 22.82 -1.9899 .0466* 17.32 20.36 -.8507 .3949 22.39 12.39 2.8197 .0048** 18.14 19.07 -.2647 .7913 16.68 21.36 -1.3093 .1904 19.23 17.36 ,5241 .6002 234 differ significantly in their preference for improving the school related behavior of students. RCTs more highly pre­ fer this T/C program outcome than do PARs (Z = -1.9899; jd > .05). Regular Classroom Teachers and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.71) indicate that Regular Classroom Teacher respondents (RCTs) and Prin­ cipals respondents (PRNs) differ significantly in their preferences for the rank-order of priority of three T/c p r o ­ gram outcomes. PRNs more highly prefer the T/C program out­ comes of increasing the general education teacher initiated collaborative arrangements (Z = 2.1815, £ > .05) and in­ creasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 2.1896, £ >■ .05) than do RCTs. It is noteworthy that RCTs have consistently ranked the later outcome (above) lower than other respondent subgroups. It is also of interest that RCTs more highly prefer the outcome of reports of student assessment results than do PRNs (Z = .2.4694, £ ">• .05). This difference is also indicated between RCTs and DIRs. 235 Table 3.71 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Classrocm Teacher and Principal Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . * ** RCT PRN = » = = in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. £ > .05 £ > .01 Regular Classroom Teacher Principal Regular RCT Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 18.91 24.35 -1.5153 ,1297 20.84 22.22 -.3694 .7118 22.70 20.17 .6720 .5016 23.20 19.63 .9545 .3398 21.23 21.80 -.1537 .8779 25.39 17.22 2.1815 .0291* 25.41 17.20 2.1896 .0286* 22.23 20.70 .4096 .6821 18.77 24.50 -1.5279 .1265 17.18 26.25 -2.4694 .0135* 236 R eg u la r C la ssro o m Teachers and D irec to rs: As noted in the previous section, reports of student assessment results are preferred significantly more by Regu­ lar Classroom Teacher respondents respondents (DIRs) this procedure (RCTs) than by Director (Z = -3.3613, £ > (see Table 3.72). .01) as indicated by Also, as noted previously, RCTs perceive this outcome to be a somewhat higher actual priority than do DIRs. These data also indicate that RCTs more highly prefer the outcome of improving the school rela­ ted behavior of students than do DIRs .05). A similar (Z = -2.5328, £ > (albeit not statistically significant) dif­ ference regarding this outcome was noted between RCTs and T/Cs. Also noted before, RCTs prefer the outcome of improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/C services signifi­ cantly lower than DIRs (Z = 2.3752, p words, .05). In other DIRs prefer this outcome to be of significantly higher priority than do RCTs. Parents and Principals: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.73) that Parent respondents indicate (PARs) and Principal respondents (PRNs) differ significantly in their preferences for two T/c 237 Table 3.72 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: Classrocm Teacher and Director Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. * ** RCT DIR Increase tlire-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. =■ p > .05 = £ > .01 = Regular Classrocm Teacher = Director Regular RCT Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 21.82 25.92 -1.0921 .2748 22.48 25.34 -.7269 .4673 27.73 20.72 1.7658 .0774 29.02 19.52 2.3752 .0175* 18.73 28.64 -2.5328 .0113* 27.41 21.00 1.6129 .1068 25.25 22.90 .5936 .5528 20.32 27.24 -1.7462 .0808 27.09 21.28 1.4612 .1440 17.14 30.04 -3.3613 .0008** 238 Table 3.73 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: and Principal Outcomes 1. Increase time-success in regular class. 2. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8. Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/written reports of testing results. * ** PAR PRN = = = = £ > .05 £ > .01 Parent Principal Parent PAR Mean Rank PRN Mean Rank Z P 16.18 18.42 -.6704 .5025 14.89 19.32 -1.2894 .1973 15.64 18.80 -.9198 .3577 18.64 16.70 .5688 .5695 21.21 14.90 1.8380 .0661 21.86 14.45 2.1544 .0312* 16.57 18.15 -.4596 .6458 18.86 16.55 .6738 .5004 17.39 17.57 -.0532 .9575 12.57 20.95 -2.5107 .0120* 239 program outcomes. As also noted for RCTs, PARs prefer the outcome of reports of student assessment results signifi­ cantly higher than do PRNs (Z = -2.5107, £ > ,05). That is, both PARs and RCTs prefer this outcome to be of a signifi­ cantly higher priority than do PRNs. PRNs prefer the outcome of increasing general education teacher inititated collaborative arrangements with the T/c to be of significantly higher priority than do PARs {Z = 2.1544, £ zr .05). A nearly significant difference between the preferred rankings of these two subgroups is also indi­ cated for the outcome of improving the school related behav­ ior of students. DIRs, PRNs again, as noted with T/Cs, RCTs and tend to prefer this outcome more than do PARs. Parents and Directors: The results of this procedure that Parent respondents (see Table 3.74) indicate (PARs) and Directors respondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their preferences for four T/C program outcomes. The greatest difference is indicated for the outcome of oral or written reports of student testing results (Z = 3.3066, with PRNs and RCTs, higher than do DIRs. jd :> .01). Again, as indicated PARs prefer this outcome significantly 240 Table 3.74 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: and Director Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. * ** PAR Dir = « = = Increase time-suecess in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. £ > .05 £ > .01 Parent Director Parent PAR Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank Z P 19.50 20.28 -.2146 .8301 16.07 22.20 -1,6338 .1023 19.00 20.56 -.4153 .6779 25.11 17.14 2.1187 .0341* 21.61 19.10 .6674 24.79 17.32 1.9730 .0485* 15.46 22.54 -1.8756 .0607 17.54 21.38 -1.0180 .3087 26.07 16.60 2.5079 .0121* 12.36 24.28 -3.3066 .0009** .5045 241 DIRs prefer the outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/C service to a significantly higher degree than do PARs (Z = 2.5079, £ > .05). This difference is also noted between DIRs and PRNs and DIRs and RCTs. Significantly higher levels of preferred priority are also indicated on the part of DIRs for the outcomes of in­ creasing general education teacher initiated collaborative arrangements (Z = 1.9730, £ >• .05) and improving the atti­ tude of the adult receving T/c services. DIRs continue to more highly prefer these outcomes than do other subgroups. Principals and Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.75) that Principal respondents indicate (PRNs) and Director respondents (DIRs) differ significantly in their preferences for only one T/C program outcome. The reader will note that these two subgroups differed significantly in their preferences for seven T/C program activities. The only significant difference between PRNs and DIRs regarding T/c program outcomes is indicated in their pref­ erences for increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/c program services (Z = 2.8321, £ "> .01). DIRs prefer this outcome to be significantly higher in priority than do PRNs. 242 Table 3.75 - Differences in Rank-Order of Preferred Outcomes: and Director Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. * ** PRN DIR = = = Increase time-success in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. p > .05 £ > .01 Principal Director Principal PRN Mean Rank DIR Mean Rank 24.12 22,10 ,5305 ,5958 22.32 23.54 -.3152 .7526 24.55 21.76 .7139 .4753 26.88 19.90 1.7912 .0733 19.02 26.18 -1.8449 .0650 22.30 23.56 -.3228 .7469 20.65 24.88 -1.0828 .2789 18.92 26.26 -1.8789 .0603 29.15 18.08 2.8321 ,0046** 22.00 23.80 -.5248 .5997 Z P 243 It should be noted that a similar (albeit, not statistically significant) difference is also indicated between T/Cs and DIRs regarding this outcome. Research Question 15; Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined group? The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was em­ ployed to compare the combined groups priority ranking of actual T/C program outcomes with the combined groups aciority ranking of preferred t/c program outcomes. The re­ sults of this procedure are presented in Table 3.76. Each outcome statement is followed by the number of negative and positive ranks along with their corresponding mean ranks. These data are followed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2-tailed £ test. denoted via asterik where * = £ > els of significance. negative Significant differences are .05 and ** = £ "> .01 lev­ Please note that where the number of (-) ranks is smaller than the number of positive (+) ranks the outcome has been assigned a higher actual priority than preferred priority ranking. Conversely, where the number of negative (-) ranks is larger than the number of positive (+) ranks the outcome has been assigned a higher preferred priority than actual priority. 244 The results o£ this procedure (see Table 3.76) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by the combined group for five of the ten outcomes of T/c programs. Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated for three of the outcome statements. These include increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 3.992, £ "> -01), in­ creasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 2.026, £ > .05), and improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/C services words, (Z = 2.276, £ :> .05). In other the combined group rank these outcomes significantly higher in preferred priority than they perceives there actual priority. Significantly higher actual priority rankings by the combined group are indicated for the T/c program outcomes of reports of student assessment results 5.278, £ (oral or written) (Z = .01) and the degree of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the adult receiving T/C services (Z = 2.966, £ .01). in other words, the combined group indicates that these outcomes are of significantly lower preferred priority than actual priority. 245 Table 3.76 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Combined Group Outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Increase time-success in regular class, Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = P > .05 ** = £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean 35/31.50 27/31.50 .883 28/34.75 51/42.88 2.966 .003** 44/43.68 37/37.81 1.231 .218 53/44.28 23/40.88 2.276 .023* 31/35.26 45/40.73 1.916 .055 49/45.38 39/43.40 1.105 .269 48/41.55 31/37.60 2.026 .043* 37.39.68 40/38.38 .170 55/46.64 27/31.04 3.992 . 000** 17/30.56 63/43.18 5.278 .000** Z P .377 .865 246 Research Question 16; Given 10 Outcomes of Teacher/Consultant Programs as identified and extracted from research and the professional literature, what are the differences between the actual rank-order of priority and the preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the-subgroups? The wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was em­ ployed to compare each subgroups priority ranking of actual T/C program outcomes with the priority ranking of preferred T/C program outcomes. The results of this procedure for each subgroup are presented in the accompanying tables (3.77, 3.78, 3.79, 3.80, and 3.81), Each outcome statement is followed by the number of negative and positive ranks along with their corresponding mean ranks. These data are followed by the obtained Z score and the results of the 2-tailed p test. Significant differences are denoted via asterik where * = £ * > ■ .05 and * * = £ " > • .01 levels of signif­ icance. Please note that where the number of negative {-) ranks is smaller than the number of positive (+) ranks the outcome has been assigned a higher actual priority than pre­ ferred priority by the respondents. Conversely, where the number of negative {-) ranks is larger than the number of positive (+ ) ranks the activity has been assigned a higher preferred priority than actual priority. Following are the results of this procedure for each respondent subgroup: Teacher/Consultants: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.77) indicate 247 Table 3.77 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Teacher/Consultants Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success in regular class. 2 . Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10 . Oral/written reports of testing results. -Ranks /Mean +Rariks /Mean Z P 12/11.50 11/12.55 0.000 1.000 7/12.50 18/13.19 2.018 15/14.97 12/12.79 .853 .394 18/15.25 8/9.56 2.514 .012 11/11.14 14/14,46 1.076 ,282 13/14.92 15/14.13 .205 .838 16/13.97 8/9.56 2.100 .036* 7/15.57 17/11.24 1.171 .241 20/15.67 8/11.56 2.516 .012 6/8.75 19/14,34 2,960 .003** .044* 248 that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Teacher/Consultant respondents tT/Cs) for five of the ten outcomes of T/c programs. It is noteworthy that significant differences regarding actual and preferred outcomes of T/c programs were larger in number for T/Cs than for any other subgroup. Furthermore, this is also the case for that portion of this study that focused on the Activities of T/C programs. Significantly higher preferred priority rankings are indicated by T/Cs for three of the outcome statements. These include improving the attitude of adults receiving T/c services (Z = 2.514, j a ^ . O S ) , increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 2.100, j s ^ . O S ) , and increasing the skills of the adult receving T/C services {Z - 2.516, £ .05). In other words, T/Cs rank these outcomes significantly higher in preferred priority than they per­ ceive their actual priority. It should be noted that RCTs and DIRs indicate similar actual versus preferred priority rankings for the T/c program outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/C services. The greatest difference between actual and preferred outcomes for T/Cs involves reports of student assessment re­ sults. T/Cs indicate significantly lower preferred prior­ ity than actual priority for this T/C program outcome (Z - 249 2.960, £>.01). In other words, T/Cs rank this outcome sig­ nificantly lower in preferred priority than they perceive its actual priority. for RCTs, This again, is similar to the results PRNs, and DIRs. A similar difference for t/Cs ority than preferred) (i.e., actual higher pri­ is indicated for the outcome of the degree of helpfulness of the T/c as perceived by the adult receiving T/C services (Z = 2.018, £ > .05). This differ­ ence is also indicated by DIRs. Regular Classroom Teachers: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.78) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Regular Classroom Teacher respon­ dents (RCTs) for two of the ten T/C program outcomes. thermore, by T/Cs, Fur­ these differences are similar to those indicated PRN s and DIRs. A significantly higher preferred priority ranking is indicated by RCTs for the T/C program outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/C program services (Z = 2.229, £ “> .05). A significantly lower preferred priority ranking is indicated by RCTs for the T/c program outcome of reports of student assessment results (Z = 2.509, £ ’>-.05). 250 Table 3.78 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Regular Classroom Teachers Outcomes 1. Increase time-success in regular class. 2. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = p > .05 ** " £ > *01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z P 8 /6.88 4/5.75 1.255 .209 4/5.38 7/6.36 1.022 .307 9/11.78 8/5.88 1.396 .163 10/8.00 7/10.43 .166 .868 9/9.56 7/7.14 .931 .352 7/7.57 9/9.22 .776 .438 6/5.00 7/8.71 1.083 .279 13/8.77 5/11.40 1.241 .215 10/8.80 4/4.25 2.229 .026* 3/7.83 14/9.25 2.509 .012* 251 Parentis: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.79) that Parent respondents indicate (PARs) do not assign significantly different priority rankings between the actual and preferred outcomes of T/C programs. In other words, PARs do not indi­ cate preferred outcomes of T/C programs to be any different priority than actual outcomes. Princi pal s: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.80) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Principal respondents only two of the ten T/C program outcomes. T/Cs, (PRNs) for As noted for RCT s and DIRs; PRNs assign significantly lower pre­ ferred priority rankings to the outcome of reports of stu­ dent assessment results (Z = 2.803, £ > . 0 1 ) . Therefore, PRNs concur with these subgroups that this outcome is of lower preferred priority than actual priority. PRNs also indicate a similar difference for the outcome of improving the school related behavior of students 2.014, £ > .05). (z = PRNs indicate that this outcome is of lower preferred priority than actual priority. 252 Table 3.79 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Parents Outcomes 1. Increase time-suceess 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . in regular class. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = p > .05 * * = £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z p 4/2.50 2/5.50 .105 .917 2/9.25 9/5.28 1.289 .197 6/6.25 5/5.70 .400 ,689 5/4.30 5/6.70 .612 .541 3/5,00 6/5.00 .889 .374 6/6.50 5/5,40 .533 .594 7/5,86 4/6.25 .711 .477 7/6.29 4/5.50 .978 .328 6/6.00 5/6.00 .267 .790 4/6.50 6/4.83 .153 .878 253 Table 3.80 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Principals Outcomes 1 . Increase time-success -Ranks /Mean +Rahks /Mean Z P 4/4.75 4/4.25 .140 .889 10/7.35 4/7.88 1.318 .187 8/5.38 5/9.60 .175 .861 10/8.65 5/6.70 1.505 .132 2/2.75 7/5.64 2.014 .044* 11/7.32 3/8.17 1.758 .079 9/8.50 5/5.70 1.507 .132 4/4.38 7/6.93 1.378 .168 8/7.56 5/6.10 1.048 .295 0 /0.00 10/5.50 2.803 .005** in regular class. 2 . Perceived helpfulness 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . of T/C. Increase academic achievement level. Improve attitude of adult. Improve behavior of student. Increase teacher initiated collaboration. Increase knowledge of adult. Improve student self-concept. Increase skills of adult. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = p > .05 **=■£> .01 254 Directors: The results of this procedure (see Table 3.81) indicate that significant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by Director respondents for three of the ten T/C program outcome statements. Significantly lower preferred priority rankings are indicated for two outcomes. The greatest difference between actual and preferred, lower preferred priority rankings are indicated, where is for the outcome of reports of student assessment results (Z - 2.787, £ > .01). DIRs, in other words, rank this T/c program out­ come significantly higher in actual priority than in pre­ ferred priority. It has been noted previously that a dif­ ference between actual and preferred priority for this T/c program outcome is also indicated by T/Cs, RCTs, and PRHs. A significantly higher actual priority ranking is also indicated by DIRs for the outcome of the degree of helpful­ ness of the T/c as perceived by the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 2.678, £ > - . 0 1 ) . This is similar to the dif­ ference indicated by T/Cs for this outcome statement. A significantly higher preferred priority ranking is indicated by DIRs for the outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/c services (Z = 2.275, £ !>.05). This again is similar to the difference indicated by T/Cs 255 Table 3.81 - Differences Between Actual and Preferred Ranking of Outcomes: Directors (Xitccmes 1. Increase time-success in regular class. 2. Perceived helpfulness of T/C. 3. Increase academic achievement level. 4. Improve attitude of adult. 5. Improve behavior of student. 6 . Increase teacher initiated collaboration. 7. Increase knowledge of adult. 8 . Improve student self-concept. 9. Increase skills of adult. 10. Oral/written reports of testing results. * = p > .05 * * - £ > .01 -Ranks /Mean +Ranks /Mean Z P 7/8.57 6/5,17 1.013 .311 5/4.80 13/11.31 2.678 .007** 6/8.25 7/5.93 .380 .780 10/8.70 7/9.43 .497 .619 6/8.42 11/9.32 1.231 .218 12/11.04 7/8.21 1.509 .131 10/9.25 7/8.64 .757 .449 6/8.08 7/6.07 .210 .834 11/10.18 5/4.80 2.275 .023* 4/5.38 14/10.68 2.787 .005** 256 and RCTs for th is outcom e statem en t. Summary This chapter has presented the results of the study about activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/ Consultant (T/C) programs in Michigan. The first section presented the results of that portion of the survey designed to collect participant demographic data as well as attitudes about T/C programs and mainstreaming in general. The second section of this chapter presented the results of this study concerning the Activities of T/c programs. Each research question concerning T/c program activities was restated followed by a review and analysis of the statistical proce­ dures employed. Tables containing the results of the statistical procedures employed are also included for each research question. The third section of this chapter presented the results of this study concerning the Outcomes of T/C programs and was presented in the same manner as the second section. Chapter Four will present a summary of this study and its findings. It will also contain a discussion of conclusions and implications along with several recommendations for future study. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents a summary of the study about activities and outcomes of Elementary Level Teacher/Consul­ tant (T/C) programs in Michigan. The findings are reviewed and conclusions and implications are discussed. Finally, several recommendations are made concerning the implementa­ tion and administration of T/C programs, personnel prepara­ tion, and topics needing further research. Summary Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was threefold. First of all, to determine the activities and outcomes of Elementary Level T/C programs in Michigan that are preferred by the key con­ sumers and providers of T/C programs. Activities and out­ comes extracted from research and the professional litera­ ture were compiled and randomly listed for this purpose. The second purpose of this study was to determine the dif­ ferences in priorities between key consumer and provider subgroups. The third purpose of this study was to determine 257 258 the differences between the priorities identified ferred) (pre­ and consumer and provider subgroups opinions about the manner in which T/C programs are presently implemented. Therefore, (actually) the 16 research questions addressed can be summarized as follows: Given 16 Activities and ten Outcomes of Teacher/ Consultant programs, (1) what is their actual and preferred rank-order of priority as assigned by the combined group and each subgroup, (2) what are the dif­ ferences in rank-order of priority between subgroups, and (3) what are the differences between actual and preferred rank-order of priority among the combined group and within each subgroup? Methodology A random sampling technique was employed to select the survey population for this study from five distinct strata that represent the key consumers and providers of T/C pro­ grams in Michigan as of September 1, 1985. The selection was stratified based upon the K-12 student population within five state planning regions in order to obtain a sample representative of Michigan's population distribution. purposes of this study these strata were referred to as subgroups. The five subgroups included: For 259 1. Special Education Teacher/Consultants that provide services to Elementary Level students, their regular classroom teachers, and their parents. 2. Elementary Level Regular Classroom Teachers having at least one student from their classroom that is placed in a Special Education Teacher/Consultant program. 3. Parents having at least one Elementary Level child that receives Special Education from a Teacher/Con­ sultant program. 4. Directors of Special Education that supervise the operation of Teacher/Consultant programs. 5. Elementary Building Principals that have Teacher/ Consultant programs operating within their building(s). The questionnaire used in this study initially drafted in May, 1985. (Appendix I) was It consisted of four pages. The first page was a cover sheet which included directions for completing the questionnaire. The second and third pages were the rank-order response sheets. sponse sheet (second page) The first re­ consisted of 16 statements d e ­ scribing activities of T/C programs. The second response 260 sheet (third page} consisted of 10 statements describing outcomes of T/C programs. The third response sheet (fourth page), differing slightly for each subgroup, consisted of various short answer questions designed to obtain basic demographic information (Appendix J ) . The survey questionnaire was mailed to the participants on February 7, 1986. Each questionnaire was coded for con­ fidentiality and for ease in statistical analysis. turn rate for the total (combined) The re­ group was 43 percent. All statistical computations were done utilizing the com­ puter program SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, (Nie, et al,, 1975) at Michigan State University. Relative, adjusted, and cumulative frequencies for all sub­ groups were obtained for each Activity and Outcomes state­ ment (actual and pr eferred). The mean response for each statement was used to determine the rank-order of priority. The rank-order of priority for each statement preferred) manner. (actual and as assigned by each subgroup was obtained in this In order to obtain the rank-order of priority for the combined groups the mean of the subgroup means was ob­ tained for each statement in order to control for unequal subgroup size (N). The Mann-Whitney U Test was employed to determine whether the subgroups responded as members of the same continuous population. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs 261 Signed-Ranks test was employed to compare each subgroup's priority ranking of actual activities and outcomes with preferred activities and outcomes. Limi tations For the purposes of this study the participants were identified as members of their respective subgroups for the 1985-86 school year. From one perspective these groups may be viewed as population and thus the information gathered in this study is statistically limited to the population pa ram­ eter. From another perspective, the participants do repre­ sent subgroups directly involved with Teacher/Consultant programs. Extensions may be logically bridged to larger populations of Teacher/Consultants, Teachers, Regular Classroom Parents, Elementary Principals, and Directors of Special Education. for Parent, The relatively low survey return rates Regular Classroom Teacher and Principal sub­ groups, however, must be considered as a limitation in this regard. Individuals that did not return survey question­ naires were not contacted to determine their reasons for not responding. An additional limitation should be mentioned regarding the survey population. Very few T/C respondents indicate certification for low incidence handicapped popu­ lations (e.g., H.I., V.I., and P.O.H.I). Therefore, the interpretation of the data may not accurately be extended to these T/C programs. 262 Limitations in the design of the study include the unit of analysis and the teliance on subjective measures. The activities and outcomes of T/C programs identified for this study may not be the only variables that exist (although they were derived from a comprehensive review of the liter­ ature) and they may not be mutually exclusive. Secondly, the survey responses were restricted to subjective percep­ tions of actual and preferred priority. These limitations do not invalidate the findings, but they do suggest that different findings might have been discovered with objective measures. A considerable degree of concensus within and among the subgroups however, is apparent. It is suggested that this concensus may be an indication of validity. Findings A summary of the results of this study is presented including the nature of the study participants, concerning T/C program activities, results and results concerning T/C program outcomes. Study Participants Teacher/Consultants (T/Cs)i T/Cs report an average of 13.23 years experience in education and an average of 6.78 years experience as a T/C. Almost all possess a graduate level PLEASE NOTE: This page n o t included with original material. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 264 degree. ported A wide range of separate buildings served is re­ (1 to 16) with an average of 3.75. Considerable dif­ ferences are also indicated for the number of regular class­ rooms (6 to 170) and students of 50 and 18.1 respectively. (0 to 38) served with averages Of particular interest is the fact that approximately 40% of the T/Cs report that they also function "part-timeM as a classroom or resource room program teacher. T/Cs also report wide ranges of time spent working directly with students regular classroom teachers (0 to 100%) and working with (0% to 50%). Average responses for these two activities are 66.8% and 13.5% respectively. A considerably higher positive attitude toward mainstreaming than toward T/C programs is also indicated. In fact, T/Cs indicate a less favorable attitude toward T/C programs than do DIRs and PRNs. According to T/Cs, the most positive as­ pect of T/C programs is the opportunity to help students be successful in the regular classroom* job (e.g., Various demands of the lack of time, being spread too thin) are cited as the most negative aspect of T/C programs. Also mentioned frequently are the lack of role definition and being too involved with testing activities. The lack of time and resources are cited as the major reasons for discrepancies between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. Regular Classroom Teachers (RCTs): RCTs report an average of 16.36 years experience in education and all grade levels 6} are represented. Approximately 66% possess a graduate (K- 265 level degree. RCTs report an average of 2.75 students in their classroom receiving some type of special education program or service other than Speech Therapy. The average total number of all students in their classroom is 25.79. Almost all RCTs indicate a moderate to high positive atti­ tude toward mainstreaming and consider themselves moderately familiar with T/C programs. It should be noted, however, that as a group RCTs report lower familiarity with T/C pro­ grams than the other subgroups. According to RCTs the most positive aspect of T/C pr o ­ grams is the opportunity for academic support of students. Approximately 30% indicated that help and advice received from the T/C was the most positive aspect. T/Cs, RCTs also cite lack of time, As indicated by resources, etc. as the most negative aspect of T/C programs as well as the primary cause for the discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. Parents (PARs): Approximately 80% of the PARs are the stu­ dents natural mothers and are in the 30 to 40 year age group. Twenty-five percent B.S. degrees or higher. (25%) report possessing B .A ./ As a group, PARs report themselves to be moderately familiar with T/C programs and indicate a relatively high positive attitude toward mainstreaming. 266 According to PARs the most positive aspect of T/C pro­ grams (i.e., how it has been most helpful) is the improve­ ment they have seen in their c h i l d ’s self-concept, self­ esteem, and motivation. Academic support and success is also cited as a positive aspect. helpful, according to PARs, T/C programs could be more if the program could provide for more parent involvement and be implemented much sooner fore their child failed). Again, (be­ the lack of resources are cited by PARs as the major cause for a discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. Principals (PRNs): PRNs reported the highest average expe­ rience in education with 24.76 years. An average of 14,95 years is reported for their experience as a principal. Again, as reported by the other professional subgroups, al­ most all PRNs possess a graduate level degree. PRNs indi­ cated a considerably wide range of classrooms for which they are responsible (11 to 35, mean = 19.43) and all report re­ sponsibility for at least one special education classroom within their building(s). As a group, PRNs perceive them­ selves to be moderate to highly familiar with T/C programs and also moderate to highly positive in their attitude toward them. A somewhat higher positive attitude toward mainstreaming is also indicated. PRNs and RCTs were very similar in their opinions about the positive aspects of T/C programs (i.e., academic support 267 for students and help for regular classroom teachers). Again, lack of time and resources are cited as the most negative aspect and the primary cause of the discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes. Directors {DIRs}: DIRs report an average of 22.17 years experience in education and an average of 12.6 years as a Director. All report possessing a graduate level degree. considerably wide range of districts (1 to 14) are reported for which they have responsibility. Similarily, of programs A the range is 6 to 105 suggesting that both large and small district Directors are represented in the sample. A very positive attitude toward mainstreaming is indicated and DIRs report the highest positive attitude toward T/C programs of all subgroups. While agreeing with the other subgroups about the posi­ tive aspects of T/C programs, many DIRs indicate that fac­ tors related to their acceptance by others is the most nega­ tive aspect. Most, however, are the most negative aspect. agree that limited resources According to DIRs the above factors are also cited for the discrepancy between actual and preferred activities and outcomes (i.e., resources and program acceptance or expectancies). Program acceptance and expectancy factors are cited considerably more often by Directors than any other subgroup. 268 T/C Program a c tiv itie s While controlling for unequal subgroup size the highest priority actual activity {out of 16) (N) clearly for the combined group is providing tutorial or supportive instruc­ tion of regular classroom content. The only subgroups not perceiving this activity to be the highest priority is Reg­ ular Classroom Teachers (RCTs). RCTs perceive the activity of conducting student assessment for Special Education eli­ gibility determination as the highest priority. This activ­ ity is ranked as the second highest priority by the combined group. Providing tutorial instruction is perceived to be the second highest priority activity by RCTs. The third highest priority actual activity for the com­ bined group is providing instruction of content different from the regular classroom such as remedial or compensatory instruction. A relatively high degree of variability among respondents, however, more, is noted for ths activity. Further­ the mean ranks between the third and ninth highest priority activities do not differ greatly. The lowest pri­ ority actual activity for the combined group, with a rela­ tively small degree of variability, programs to parents. is providing training Other low priority actual activities perceived by the combined group include team-teaching, pro­ viding inservice training programs, and demonstrating/pro­ viding alternative instructional materials to teachers 269 and/or parents. From a broader perspective the actual activities per­ ceived by the combined group to be of higher priority tend to involve direct services to students while low priority activities tend to involve services to adults. The lowest priority actual activity involving a direct service to stu­ dents is teaching them to use compensatory devices 12th by the combined grou p). (ranked A possible reason for this low priority ranking is the fact that T/C respondents primarily serve "high incidence" (E.I., L . D . , E.M.I.) Special Educa­ tion student populations. The highest ranked preferred activity for the combined group is also the provision of tutorial or supportive in­ struction of regular classroom content. PARs, RCTs and PRNs rank this activity as their highest preferred while T/Cs and DIRs rank it as their third highest. Ranked by the combined group as the fourth highest actual activity, the second highest ranked preferred activity is providing information about a student's difficulty to parents and educational pe r ­ sonnel. The third highest ranked preferred activity is in­ structing students in classroom learning strategies. This is ranked 8th as an actual activity by the combined group. 270 The third highest ranked actual activity for the com­ bined group, providing direct instruction of content differ­ ent from the regular classroom content, ranked preferred activity. is the 9th highest A similar change in overall rank is noted for the activity of conducting student's assess­ ments for Special Education eligibility determination. Ranked second by the combined group as an actual activity it is the fifth highest preferred activity. activity, it is ranked 7th by T/Cs, PARs, 2nd by PRNs and 5th by DIRs. As a preferred 10th by RCTs, 10th by Generally, however, the actual activities ranked as lowest priority by the combined group were also ranked as the lowest preferred activities. A number of significant differences are noted between respondent subgroups (T/Cs, RCTs, PARs, PRNs, and DIRs) regarding their perceptions of actual T/C program activi­ ties. The subgroup differing most often from other su b­ groups is DIRs. The subgroup differing least often is RCTs. Following are the significant findings from this analysis: 1. There are no differences between T/Cs and RCTs, PARs and RCTs and PARs and PRNs. 2. T/Cs perceive the activity of listening and re­ sponding to questions/concerns to be of higher priority than do PRNs and DIRs. 3. T/Cs and PRNs perceive the activity of assisting in behavior crisis situations to be of higher priority than do DIRs. 4. PARs, PRNs, and DIRs perceive the activity of 271 providing insetvice training programs to be of higher priority than do T/Cs. 5. PRNs perceive the activity of developing and implementing behavior management techniques to be of higher priority than do T/Cs, RCTs and DIRs. 6. DIRs perceive the activity of teaching students to use compensatory devices to be of higher priority than T / C s , RCTs, and PRNs. 7. DIRs perceive the activity of providing/demonstra­ ting alternative instructional materials to be of higher priority than PARs. 8. DIRs perceive the activity of instructing students in classroom learning strategies to be of higher priority than PRNs. 9. PARs perceive the activities of developing and implementing behavior management strategies and providing training programs to parents to be of higher priority than DIRs. A number of significant differences are also noted between respondent subgroups regarding preferred T/C program activities. Again, the subgroup differing most often from other subgroups is DIRs. is PARs. The subgroup differing least often Following are the significant findings from this analysis: 1. There are no differences between T/Cs and PARs, DIRs and PARs and PRNs and RCTs. 2. T/Cs prefer the activity of providing information about a student’s difficulty to parents and teachers to be of higher priority than do RCTs and DIRs. 3. T/Cs prefer the activity of listening and responding to questions/concerns of parents and teachers to be of higher priority than do RCTs and DIRs. 4. RCTs and PRNs prefer the activity of developing and implementing behavior management techniques to be of higher priority than do T/Cs and DIRs. 272 5. T/Cs, RCTs and PRNs prefer the activity of assisting in behavioral crisis situations to be of higher priority than do DIRs. 6. DIRs prefer the activity of teaching students to use compensatory devices to be of higher priority than do RCTs and PRNs. 7. PARs and DIRs prefer the activity of team-teaching with regular classroom teachers to be of higher priority than do PRNs. 8. RCTs prefer the activity of providing tutorial or supportive instruction to be of higher priority than do T/Cs. 9. RCTs prefer the activity of assisting in behavioral crisis situations to be of higher priority than do PARs. 10. RCTs prefer the activity of providing training pro­ grams to parents to be of higher priority than do PARs. 11. PARs prefer the activity of instructing students in classroom learning strategies to be of higher priority than do PRNs. 12. PRNs prefer the activity of conducting student assessment activities for special education eligi­ bility to be of higher priority than do PARs, 13. DIRs prefer the activity of providing inservice training programs to be of higher priority than do RCTs. 14. DIRs prefer the activity of demonstrating/providing alternative instructional materials to be of higher priority than do PRNs. Differences in priority between actual and preferred T/C program activities were analyzed for the combined group and each respondent subgroup. The findings indicate that sig­ nificant differences between actual and preferred priorities 273 ace assigned by the combined group for ten of the 16 activi­ ties. Five actual activities received a significantly lower priority ranking as a preferred activity. These include: 1. Conducting student assessment activities as a part of eligibility determination. 2. Conducting student assessment with students in program as ongoing measures of achievement. 3. Providing direct instruction of content different from regular classroom content. 4. Providing tutorial or supportive instruction of regular classroom content. 5. Counseling with students about feelings or atti tudes. Five actual activities received a significantly higher priority ranking as a preferred activity. These include: 1. Providing and/or demonstrating alternative instruc­ tional materials to educational personnel or parents. 2. Providing training programs to parents. 3. Provide and/or demonstrate different intervention techniques to parents and/or educational personnel. 4. Provide formal inservice training programs to educational personnel. 5. Team-teach with regular classroom teachers. Focusing on individual subgroups and their respective differences in priority between actual and preferred activ­ ities, it is noted that no differences exist between sub­ groups in the direction of change. In other words, for all 274 actual activities assigned a higher priority by one or more subgroups, none of the remaining subgroups assigned the activity a higher preferred priority and vice-versa. Fol­ lowing are the results of this analysis: 1. T/Cs and DIRs prefer the activities of providing tutorial/supportive instruction, providing instruc­ tion of regular classroom content and conducting assessment activities of students in program to be of lower priority. 2. T/Cs, RCTs, and PARs prefer the activity of con­ ducting student assessment for eligibility to be of lower priority. 3. T/Cs prefer the activity of developing and imple­ menting behavior management techniques to be of lower priority. 4. PARs prefer the activity of assisting in behavior crisis situations to be of lower priority. 5. PARs prefer the activity of instructing students in classroom learning strategies to be of higher prior it y , 6. T/Cs, RCTs, and DIRs prefer the activity of demon­ strating and/or providing different intervention techniques to parents and educational personnel to be of higher priority. 7. T/Cs and PRNs prefer the activity of providing inservice training programs to be of higher priority. 8. T/Cs and RCTs prefer the activity of providing training programs to parents to be of higher priority. 9. T/Cs, PARs and DIRs prefer the activity of providing and/or demonstrating alternative instructional mate­ rials to educational personnel or parents to be of higher priority. 10. PRNs and DIRs prefer the activity of team-teaching with regular classroom teachers to be of higher priority. 275 T /C Program O utcom es While controlling for unequal subgroups size the highest priority actual outcome {out of 10) (N) clearly for the com­ bined group is increasing the time a student successfully spends in the regular classroom. The only subgroup not perceiving this outcome to be the highest priority is PRNs. This actual outcome is ranked third highest in priority by PRNs as they rank the improvement of the students self-concept/self-esteem to be the highest priority actual outcome. This outcome is ranked second in priority by the combined group. The third highest priority actual outcome for the com­ bined group is improving school-related behavior of the student. This outcome is ranked as third or fourth highest priority by each subgroup except PRNs which rank it as second highest priority. The lowest priority actual outcome for the combined group, with a relative small degree of variability, is the increase in skills of the adult receiving services. A re­ lated outcome, the increase in knowledge of the adult re­ ceiving T/C services, is ranked as the second lowest pr i­ ority of the combined group. that for Parent respondents It is interesting to note, {PARs) the increase in regular classroom teacher initiated collaborative arrangements with 276 T/Cs is the lowest priority actual outcome of T/C programs. Again, taken from a broader perspective, the actual outcomes perceived by the combined group to be of lower priority tend to be those generally associated with services to adults. Student level outcomes are perceived to be of higher prior­ ity in so far as T/C programs are actually implemented. The highest ranked preferred outcome for the combined group is also the increase in time that the student success­ fully spends in the regular classroom. this outcome as their highest preferred. Each subgroup ranks The outcome of im­ provement of the students self-concept/self-esteem, second in priority overall as an actual outcome, ranked is also ranked second for the combined group as a preferred outcome. T/Cs, RCTs and PRNs rank this outcome as their second high­ est preferred while PARs rank it as third highest and D i ­ rectors rank it as fifth highest. The second highest preferred outcome for DIRs is increasing the academic achievement levels of students. This is the third highest ranked outcome for the combined group. Ranked fifth by the combined group as an actual outcome, the lowest ranked preferred outcome for the combined group is reports {oral or wirtten) of student assessment results. This preferred outcome was ranked fifth by PARs. PARs rank the outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving 277 T/C services as their lowest preferred. come, As a preferred out this is ranked 7th by T/Cs, 5th by RCTs, 8th by PRNs, and 3rd by DIRs. It was 8th overall by the combined group. The second lowest preferred outcome for the combined group is the degree of helpfulness of the T/C services. This outcome was ranked 6th by PARs. A number of significant differences are noted between respondent subgroups regarding their perceptions of actual T/C program outcomes. The subgroup differing most often from other subgroups is PRNs. often is T/Cs. The subgroup differing least Following are the significant findings from this analysis: 1. There are and PARs, no differences between T/Cs and RCTs, T/Cs RCTs and PARs and PARs and DIRs. 2. RCTs, PARs and DIRs perceive the outcome of the degree of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the regular classroom teacher to be of higher priority than do PRNs. 3. PRNs perceive the outcome of the improvement of students school related behavior to be of higher priority than do T/Cs, PARs, and DIRs. 4. PRNs perceive the outcome of improving thestudents self-concept/self-esteem to be of higher priority than do RCTs, PARs and DIRs. 5. DIRs perceive the outcome of increasing the students academic achievement levels to be of higher priority than do RCTs and PRNs. 6. T/Cs perceive the outcome of improving the students self-concept/self-esteem to be of higher priority than do DIRs. 7. PRNs perceive the outcome of increasing teacher initiated collaborative arrangement with the T/C to 278 be of higher priority than do PARs A number of significant differences are also noted between respondent subgroups regarding their preferred T/C program outcomes. The subgroup differing most often from other subgroups is DIRs. is T/Cs. The subgroup differing least often Following are the significant findings from this analy sis : 1. There are no differences between T/Cs and PARs. 2. PRNs and DIRs prefer the outcome of increasing general education teacher initiated collaborative arrangements with the T/C to be of higher priority than do T/Cs, PARs, and RCTs. 3. T/Cs, PARs, and PRNs prefer the outcome of in­ creasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher priority than do RCTs. 4. T/Cs and DIRs prefer the outcome of improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher priority than do RCTs. 5. DIRs prefer the outcome of increasing the skills of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher priority than do PARs and PRNs, 6. RCTs prefer the outcome of improving the students school-related behavior to be of higher priority than do PARs and DIRs, 7. T/Cs, RCTs, and PARs prefer the outcome of reporting (oral or written) student assessment results to be of higher priority than do PRNs and DIRs. Differences in priority between actual and preferred T/C program outcomes were analyzed for the combined group and 279 each respondent subgroup. The findings indicate that sig­ nificant differences between actual and preferred priorities are assigned by the combined group for five of the ten out­ comes. Two actual outcomes received a significantly lower priority ranking as a preferred outcome. These include: 1. Reports of student assessment results w r i tten). {oral or 2. The degree of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the adult receiving T/C services. Three outcomes received a significantly higher priority ranking as a preferred outcome. These include: 1. Improvement of the attitude of the adult receiving T/C services. 2. Increase in the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services. 3. Increasing in the skills of the adult receiving T/C services. Focusing on individual subgroups and their respective differences in priority between actual and preferred out­ comes, it is noted that no differences exist between sub­ groups in the direction of change. In other words, for all actual outcomes assigned a higher priority by one or more subgroups, none of the remaining subgroups assign the out­ come a higher preferred priority and vice-versa. PARs were the only subgroups for which no differences between actual 280 and preferred outcomes ace indicated. Following are the results of this analysis: 1. T/Cs, R C T s , PRNs and DXRs prefer the outcome of reports (oral and/or written) of student assessment results to be of lower priority. 2. T/Cs and DIRs prefer the outcome of the degree of helpfulness of the T/C as perceived by the adult receiving T/C services to be of lower priority. 3. PRNs prefer the outcome of improving the students school related behavior to be of lower priority* 4. T/Cs prefer the outcome of improving the attitude of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher priori ty. 5. T/Cs prefer the outcome of increasing the knowledge of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher prior ity. 6. T / C s , RCTs, and DIRs prefer the outcome of increasng the skills of the adult receiving T/C services to be of higher priority. Conclusions and Implications Conclusions and implications are presented in this section. They are based upon the purposes of the study and have been derived from the findings for the research questions addressed. Teacher/Consultant in the professional consultation (T/C) program models, as described literature, consistently emphasize (i.e., adult-centered or indirect) services 281 and goals as the primary (and sometimes sole) role of T/C programs under the continuum of services concept as de ­ scribed by Deno in 1970 1975; McGlothlin, data, however, (Idol-Maestas, 1981; Little, 1981). It can be concluded from these that Elementary level T/C programs in Michigan primarily provide student-centered services and focus upon student-centered change programs therefore, (i.e., outcomes). T/C are primarily providing instruction to students and spending very little time (average = 13%) consulting with regular classroom teachers despite orig­ inal intentions for this program model. Similar differences are also noted for student testing and assessment practices. described These practices, as in the T/C program literature, suggest that student assessment techniques be used for instructional problem-solving and planning purposes 1973; Idol-Maestas, 1981; Little, from these data, however, great amounts of time (Prouty, et al., 1975). It is apparent that many T/Cs are spending (100% in some instances) "testing for eligibility" process. Therefore, in the it can be concluded that T/C programs in Michigan primarily serve two purposes including (1) tutorial instruction, and (2) testing for eligibility. Differences between the primary services provided and those originally intended for the T/C program model have 282 strategic implications for public policy regarding the T/C program role and caseload, as well as implications for program administration and supervision causes for these differences Possible {intended vs. actual) will be explored and discussed throughout the remainder of this section. Perhaps one of the more interesting conclusions that can be derived from these findings, and certainly related to the above discussion, is that Directors of Special Education appear much less familiar with T/C programs than the level for which they report themselves. Gener­ ally, Directors tend to perceive T/C programs to be en­ gaged in indirect services to a higher degree than other subgroups. Directors also report themselves to be highly suppor­ tive of T/C programs. This support appears to be based upon false assumptions about the actual day-to-day activ­ ities of the T/C program teacher. Implications are fore­ seen regarding the future direction and administration of T/C programs especially as Directors are involved in d e­ fining policy regarding the role of the T/C program with­ in the schools. Along these same lines, it is concluded that T/Cs and 283 Regular Classroom Teachers share highly similar percep­ tions of the day-to-day activities of the T/C program including perceptions of program goals. Preferences for T/C program services between these two gr oups, however, differ greatly. Other than testing for eligibility ac­ tivities, Regular Classroom Teachers more highly prefer student-centered services and therefore indicate little difference between what T/C programs presently do and what they would prefer they do. Conversely, T/Cs more highly prefer indirect services and therefore tend to agree highly with Director's pref­ erences. Lack of support for the T/C program model, reported by T/Cs, as is perhaps explained in this regard. T/Cs appear to feel "betwixt and between" in an adultcentered vs. child-centered tug-of-war. This dilemma for T/Cs portrays possible implications for T/C morale. Ad­ ditional implications are also indicated for improving Regular Classroom Teacher's familiarity with the T/C pro­ gram model and the role of the T/C in that they report themselves to be the least familiar with T/C program services. Perhaps acceptance of, and demand for, collab­ orative consultation services could be increased through effective inservice education of Regular Classroom Teach­ ers about the nature and benefits of these services. 284 Also related to the above discussion is the finding that Principals and Directors differ greatly in their perceptions and preferences for T/C programs and the services they provide. It can be concluded that, as co- administrators, a partnership between these groups does not exist as it relates to the T/C program. Again, in- service education regarding the T/C program directed at Principals has implications for program supervision at the building level. Further discussion of inter-group differences and the concensus process is presented~at the end of this section. Conclusions regarding two specific activities of T/C programs are noteworthy and deserve special attention. The data strongly suggest that the activities of testing students for eligibility and providing remedial instruc­ tion supplanting regular class content be modified. It is significant that Michigan's special education rules (P.A. 451) to be implemented on July 1, 1987 specifically prohibit the remedial services described above. The data suggest that time will become available for more indirect services. Activities related to assessment, however, continues to be permissible under these new rules. It will be recalled that student-centered services of T/C programs are generally preferred by Regular Classroom Teachers, Principals, and Parents. The data suggest, 285 however, that some Indirect services are desired at lev­ els higher than presently provided (e.g., provide/demon­ strate new instructional materials/intervention techniques), This presents an interesting interaction indicating perhaps that the high demand for tutorial instruction precludes the opportunity and/or desire to provide these services. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that indirect services can serve to obfuscate the need for tutorial instruction a l . f 1981; Wixson, 1980; Nelson, et al., (Knight, et 1981). One of the primary purposes of this study was to determine the differences between consumer and provider subgroups for their preferences for T/C program services (activities) and the focus of these services (outcomes). One conclusion that may be derived from these findings is that a high degree of concensus exists for the vast m a ­ jority of T/C program activities and outcomes* thorough review of the results, however, A more reveals very basic and fundamental differences and a lack of concensus is apparent. These differences, as mentioned before, revolve around the issue of the adult-centered vs. child-centered focus of T/C program services. It is apparent from these findings that each subgroup has a somewhat different pr o­ fessional need which they would desire the T/C program to 286 fulfill. The following are cited as examples: Regular Classroom Teachers perceive a need for students to com­ plete and hopefully learn the instructional content of their curriculum. Principals perceive a need for main­ taining appropriate student behavior in the school and classroom. Parents perceive a need for their child to acquire learning skills and strategies. Directors pe r­ ceive a need to provide effective programs that satisfy parents and operate within due process procedures. It was noted in the findings that each subgroup identifies the lack of resources (e.g., time, personnel, money) as the primary cause of a difference between ac­ tual and preferred activities and outcomes of T/C pro­ grams. In other words, each subgroup indicates that "their" perceived needs could be fulfilled if there were just "more services." These findings do not suggest that a greater degree of concensus could be obtained with "more resources." While those activities and outcomes identified by the combined group as highly preferred give some direction, it is apparent that T/C programs in Michigan lack a clear definition of "mission" that is specifically articulated for the program model. 287 A general mission for the T/c program model can be found in the Maestas, t /C program literature (Deno, 1981). 1970, Idol- Several barriers to its implementation appear to exist, howeverj as suggested by these findings. First of all, and perhaps the biggest barrier, is the high demand for the provision of tutorial instruction services. One really has to question, however, omy of this approach. the econ­ Implications for the use of a col­ laborative approach to solving student difficulties is noted. This "interactive" process has been shown to enable T/Cs and Regular Classroom Teachers to generate creative solutions to student learning and behavior problems (Idol-Maestas, 1986). A second barrier to the implementation of indirect services may be the categorical system upon which special education is based. In this regard, special education programs and services are often the only option available for students with even mild handicapping conditions. any event, In implications for a state-wide effort to devel­ op a statement of T/C program mission can be seen. This may be provided through the development of T/C program gu idelines. Additional conclusions have implications for future research. The findings of this study support the notion that traditional efficacy studies of T/c programs are not 288 necessary at that present time, i.e., studies which use student academic gain scores as the dependent measure and compare T/C programs with the regular classroom (Lilly, et al., 1981). Furthermore, the findings suggest that the use of student academic gain scores as a dependent variable is inappropriate. Implications are foreseen for determining valid and reliable ways of measuring the increased time that a student successfully spends in the regular classroom. Stevens This approach used by Nelson and (1980), whereby "successful mainstreaming" was defined, appears to be promising. Recommendations Program Administration Based on the implications drawn from this study, five major recommendations have been formulated for change in T/C program administration. First, in consideration of these findings, a clear mission statement for the Teach­ er/Consultant program should be established for the State of Michigan. This statement, perhaps in the form of guidelines or policy, should reflect the principles of collaboration and support the services and program goals originally intended for this program model. Individuals, 289 representing various consumer and provider orientations, could perhaps form a task force to accomplish this task. The second recommendation is related to the differ­ ences discerned between subgroups' perceptions of and preferences for T/C program activities and outcomes. It is apparent that dialogue regarding priority differences is needed among these groups groups, (and possibly other s). (Directors in particular) Some need to become more aware of the realities confronted each day by Teacher/ Consultants in terms of the demands placed upon their time as well as difficulties in consulting with regular classroom teachers and parents. Collaboration between Principals, Directors, and T/Cs in the development of appropriate job descriptions is seen as one method by which this dialogue could occur. Inservice education regarding the T/C program model is also recommended for Principals and Regular Classroom Teachers. While highly related to public policy issues, it is recommended that the possibility of creating two separate Teacher/Consultant roles within public education be ex­ plored. One role, a "student support services special­ ist" could provide the tutorial/supportive services, so obviously needed and desired, directly to students. This role could possibly be fulfilled by someone other than a 290 highly trained individual and the use of para-professional level personnel should be explored. The second level role, a "helping teacher" could then focus his or her services toward the regular classroom teacher and/or parent and perhaps provide direct supervision to the "student support services specialists," This type of arrangement may help alleviate the breadth of responsi­ bility problems discovered while at the same time allow for both student and teacher-centered activities. While related to teacher preparation and future research issues, this arrangement may also allow for the provision of T/C programs and services as originally intended. That is, by increasing the amount of time available for T/Cs to provide services directly to regular classroom teachers and/or parents. Based on a cursory review of these findings, the above recommendation may appear to be contra-indicated. That is, one might expect RCTs to resist increased con­ sulting time for T/Cs. A closer examination however, re­ veals that while RCTs appear to reject consulting out­ comes related to increasing their knowledge or changing their attitudes, they do more highly prefer the activi­ ties related to providing and demonstrating different intervention techniques and alternative instructional materials. It is suggested by these findings (and the fact that 30% of the RCT respondents appreciate help and 291 advice received from the T/C) that RCTs do not reject input or help for a particular child but rather reject an attitude they detect when someone (often with less expe­ rience) purports a desire to improve their skills, atti­ tude, or knowledge. The use of the term "consultant'1 may also be a factor in this regard. In any event, it is recommended that the discontinuation of this term be stud ied. Specific recommendations appear to be in order re­ garding activities of Teacher/Consultant programs. As noted previously, the involvement of T/Cs in providing instruction of content different from the regular class­ room content (i.e. remedial instruction) volvement in student assessment (testing) and their in­ for special education eligibility, are seen universally to be of little value and unrelated to the preferred outcome of increased success/time for the student in the regular classroom. It is therefore recommended that remedial instruction, when needed, be provided by other special education programs and/or services such as "resource rooms" or "classroom programs.'1 It is also recommended that Teacher/Consultants not be primarily involved in the student eligibility determination process where duplica­ tion of services may be involved. This is not to say that some student assessment activities, focused upon specific academic skills (e.g. criterion referenced 292 testing) should not be a part of the Teacher/Consultants repertoire of skills and/or service. Personnel Preparation * While personnel preparation for Teacher/Consultants has traditionally occurred at the graduate level it should be stated that the recommendations that follow do not preclude the acquisition of these skills for all spe­ cial education teachers working with students that spend part of their school day in the regular classroom. Implicit from the findings of this study, is the need for all Teacher/Consultants to possess expertise in tuto­ rial/supportive instruction techniques. It is recom­ mended that personnel preparation programs and efforts focus, to a large extent, upon skills, techniques, and materials successful for accommodating students academic­ ally and behaviorally in the regular classroom. This would include a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the general education curriculum as well as perhaps direct experience teaching in the regular classroom. Expertise in behavior management/modification techniques and problem solving strategies are also supported. Along these lines, a second recommendation for per­ sonnel preparation is that Teacher/Consultants and future 293 Teacher/Consultants receive training in the development and coordination of volunteer and/or peer-tutoring pro­ grams in order to meet the high demand and need for tutorial/supportive instructional activities. This may also include the skills associated with supervising paraprofessionals or Teacher/Consultant program aides. While the findings of this study appear to suggest that consulting skills tiating skills) {e.g. inter-personal skills, nego­ are of little importance to the actual role of the Teacher/Consultant, the need for specific training in these areas is necessary if Teacher/Consul­ tant programs and services are to be implemented as orig­ inally intended. A misunderstanding of the term “consul­ tant" may exist in the field, especially on the part of regular classroom teachers as they reject all notions of the Teacher/Consultant role in improving their knowledge and/or attitudes. This problem may be compounded by the fact that regular classroom teachers tend to be as highly trained and more experienced than Teacher/Consultants. In this regard then, it is recommended that personnel preparation programs utilize approaches similar to the ones designed by Little or Idol-Maestas (1983) {1975) at the University of Iowa, at the University of Illinois. These approaches emphasize the regular class curricula while at the same time focusing on the development of 294 consultation processes and the principles of collabora­ tion on the part of the consultant and consultee. Future Research The implications drawn from this study lead to three major recommendations for future research. First of all, the high priority activities and outcomes established by this study need to be operationalized, and valid and reliable ways to measure them must be sought. cludes, This in­ for example, how to measure the success of in­ creased time a student spends in the regular classroom. While highly dependent upon the first recommendation, future research on teacher consultation should focus on the extent, nature, and results of various types of con­ sulting program models or services. The "best case" approach recommended by Lilly and Givens-Ogle supported. (1981) is This approach involves describing consultion projects and documenting the effects on teachers and stu­ dents. Furthermore, it is also recommended that these studies begin to focus on the components necessary for effective T/C program development. level, caseload, to be explored. Optimum training and breadth of responsibility issues beg 295 Lastly, efforts need to be made by program evaluation specialists to develop and disseminate Teacher/Consultant program evaluation models useful to the field. Evalua­ tion efforts at the program level may do much to enhance the dialogue among specific program consumers and pro­ viders. This will hopefully lead to greater familiarity and shared expectations among providers and consumers as well as improved T/C programs. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Letter to Local District Directors of Special Education APPENDIX A Letter to Local District Directors of Special Education Dear Special Education Coordinator/Drreetot! I am c o n d u c t i n g a s t u d y about E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t (T/C) p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n . Tht p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e ol this s t u d y is to f o r m u l a t e a d e f i n i t i o n of e f f e c t i v e 1/C p r o g r a m s as it r ela t e s to the a c t i v i t i e s of a T/C and the e x p e c t e d o u t c o m e s of a T/C p r o g r a m . This s t u d y will d e t e r m i n e the r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e (p rio rities) ol the v a r i o u s e l e m e n t s of a d e f i n i t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , this s t u d y will h e l p d e t e r m i n e the d i f f e r e n c e s bet w e e n actual p r i o r i t y a c t i v i t i e s / o u t c o m e s and thos e most p r e f e r r e d or d e s i r e d by a c o n s e n s u s of i n t e r e s t e d pa r t i es . P a r t i c i p a n t s will be s ele cte d fr o m s ev e n r e f e r e n t gr o u p s and include, i n t e r m e d i a t e d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r s of s pec i a l e d u c a t i o n , local d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r s , e l e m e n t a r y pri nci p a l s , te ac h e r c o n s u l t a n t s , school p s y c h o l o g i s t s , general e d u c a t i o n tea che rs, an d p a t e n t s of s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g T / c services. As a d i r e c t o r / c o o r d i n a t o r of special e d u c a t i o n at the local d i s t r i c t level, your role in this s t u d y Is ext r e m e l y important. Fi r s t of all, to h e l p m e i den t i f y the n a m e s an d b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s e s of those 1/C's (in your employ) that s e r v e e l e m e n t a r y ag e s t u d e n t s (grades K-t) and s e c o n d l y , as a su r v e y r e s p o n d e n t later thi s Fall. P l e a s e note that, m a d d i t i o n to being s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s , 1 will be r e q u e s t i n g T / C ' s to p r o v i d e me w i t h t he n a m e s and a d d r e s s e s of general e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s of s t u d e n t s p l a c e d in their prog ram s. 1 will b e s e l e c t i n g , by s y s t e m a t i c r a n d o m sample, one teacher and one p a r e n t (pet T/C) to be s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s . My e s t i ­ ma t e of their total tim e i n v o l v e m e n t is b e t w e e n 2 P - 2 5 m i n u t e s . Plea s e al s o note that all p a r t i c i p a n t s in this s t u d y will remain a n o n y m o u s to each other and will not be s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n any report. The results of tht s t u d y will be s h a r e d with all p a r t i c i p a n t s in a s e p a r a t e m ailing. E n c l o s e d p l e a s e find a st am p e d , s e l f - a d d i e s s e d e n v e l o p e and a re spo nst form for your e a s e in s e n d i n g the n a m e s and b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s e s of your T / C ' s serving e l e m e n t a r y age c h i l d r e n (grades K-6), T h a n k you in a d v a n c e for your h e l p f u l n e s s and pr o m p t a t t e n t i o n to m y request. If yo u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , or w i s h to c o n t a c t me, p l e a s e call l o n y T h a x t o n at (616) 39&-694P. An t h Enclosure 296 APPENDIX B Letter to Intermediate District Directors of Special Education APPENDIX B Letter to Intermediate District Directors of Special Education Dear I.5.D. Direct or: M it d i f f i c u l t to deternij ne the e f f i c a c y of tht Teacher /Co nsu l t a n t p r o g r a m roc-dtl w h e n the re i e little a g r e e m e n t about it* p r i m a r y a c t i v i ­ t ie s and e x p e c t e d o u t c o m e ! . 3 a m c o n d u c t i n g a s t u d y about e l e m e n t a r y level T e a c h e r / C o n s u l tent (1/C) p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n os a d oct ora l s t u ­ dent in Special E d u c a t i o n at M i c h i g a n St ate U n i v e r s i t y . The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e of this s t u d y is to i d e n t i f y p r i o r i t y a c t i v i t i e s and o u t c o m e s of T/C p r o g r a m s as p e r c e i v e d by a c o n c e n s u s of i n t e r e s t e d pa rti e s . P a r t i c i p a n t s will be s e l e c t e d fro m five (5) ref e r e n t g r o u p s and i n c l u d e D i r e c t o r s of Special Edu ca t i o n , E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s , T e a c h e r / C o n s u l tants, R e g u l a r C l a s s r o o m teachers, a nd P a r e n t s of s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g T / C se rv i c e s . A s a D i r e c t o r of Sp ecial E d u c a t i o n , your role in this s t u d y is very important. First of all, to h e l p me i d e n t i f y the n a m e s and b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s e s of these T/C's (in your e mploy) that s er v e e l e m e n t a r y age s t u d e n t s (grades K-6) and s e c o n d l y , as a p o s s i b l e s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t later thi s w i n t e r . Pl e a s e note that in a ddi t i o n to be i n g s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s , I will be r e ­ q u e s t i n g s e l e c t e d T/C ' s to p r o v i d e me w i t h the namet and a d d r e s s e s of p a r e n t s and tegular clasi t eac her s of s t u d e n t s in their p rog r a m . 1 will t hen select, at random, one p a r e n t and one reg u l a r class teacher to b e c o m e p a r t i c i p a n t s . My e s t i m a t e of your T / C ' s tot a 1 time i n v o l v e ­ m ent is b e t w e e n 2 f- 2 l m inu t e s . P lea s e a l s o note that all p a r t i c i p a n t s in this stud y will remain a n ony mou s to e a c h othei and will not be i d e n ­ t if i e d w i t h i n a n y report. F u r t h e r m o r e , the r e s u l t s of the st u d y will be s h a r e d w ith all p a r t i c i p a n t s in a s e p a r a t e m a i l i n g . E n c l o s e d please find a stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e and a r e s p o n s e f o r m for your ease in sending the n a m e s and b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s e s of your T / C ' s s e r v i n g e l e m e n t a r y age c h i l d r e n (grades K-6], T ha n k you in advanct for your h e l p f u l n e s r and a t t e n t i o n to m y r equ est . If y o u have a n y q u e F t i o n t , or w i s h to contact me, p l e a s e call Tony T h a x t o n at (616) 395*— P . Tha nk you. Anthony A . Thaxton AST:sd Enelosure 297 APPENDIX C Teacher/Consultant List Form APPENDIX C Teacher/Consultant List Form TEACH EE/CONSULTANTS 1. T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t B n t E N a m e : __________________ B u 1 Idi n c : ______________________________________ Ditt r ic t :,_____________________________________ S t r e e t : ______ __________________________________ City, State, Phone: J. Z i p : ____________________________ A iea C o d e 1 > N u m b e r : ____________ T e a r n * i / C e n t u 1 tent 6 N a m e : __________________ BuiIdi n g :______________________________________ District: S t r e e t : ________________________________________ City, State, Phone: 3, Z i p : ____________________________ Area C o d e ! Teacher/Consultants 1 Number:,_____________ Name:,__________________ Buildt na: D i s t r i c t :______________________________________ S t r e e t : ________________________________________ City, State, Phone: 4. Z i p : ____________________________ A re a Cod e ! ) N u m b e r : ______________ Teacher/Consultants N a m e : B u i l d i n g : ______________________________________ Dietr tct:______________________________________ Street i City, Phone: b. State, Z i p : ____________________________ Area C od e ! Teacher/Consultants ) N u m b e r ; ______________ N a m e : __________________ Bui I d ) n g :______________________________________ Di atr i c t :______________________________________ S t r e e t :________________________________________ Cit y, Phone: State, Z i p : ____________________________ Area C o d e ! ) N u m b e r : ______________ 298 APPENDIX D Letter to Teacher/Consultants APPENDIX D Letter to Teacher/Consultants l>tii T e a c h e t / C o n s u l tents ] an c o n d u c t i n g an important s t u d y about Elen.entary T e a c h e r / C o n s u l tent (T/Cl p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n ac a d o c t o r a l st udent In Special E d u c a t i o n at m c n i o o n State U n i v e r s i t y , Your name- and a ddicss w a s r e c e n t l y sent to ms by your Di re c t o r of Sp eci al E d u c a t i o n as a T/C s e r v i n g E l e m e n ­ tary ttudt-r.tr (B-E) and at a possible p a r t 1c i p u n t . A t t a c h e d to t his letter p l e a s e find a short d e s c r i p t i o n of the study. At a T e a c h e r / C o n s u 1 tant your h e l p and i n vol vem ent art c rucial foi it's eurrtsr, Elr st of all) to h e l p me identify1 the names and a d d r e s s e s of the ptr e n i r and regular clar.sic.oir t e a c h e r s of s tud ent s in youi p r o ­ gram. 1 will be s e l e c t i n g one teacher and one parent (at random) as p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a n t E . The r a n d o m s e l e c t i o n is i m p e r a t i v e or 1 w o u l d onl y request the names and a d d r e s s e s of one par e n t and on e te ach er. S e c o n d ! v , 1 n e e d your h e l p as a s ur v e y r e sp ond ent later this w i n t e r , fjeast note, my e s t i m a t e of your total time involv eme nt is b e t w e e n 2C-21 m inu t e s . W h i l e I k n o w y ou are v e r y busy, your p e r c e p t i o n s of the T/C p r o g r a m are vital. Yo u may be w e n d t r i n g if it is l e g a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e to d ivu l g e the n am e s and a d d r e s s e s of the p a r e n t s oi s t u d e n t s . 1 assure yo u that it is p e r m i s s i b l e in this s i t u a t i o n . P are n t s narr.es and a d d r e s s e s are d e ­ fined as " D i r e c t o r y I n f o r m a t i o n " w h i c h m a y be d i s c l o s e d w i t h o u t pr ior consent fcr the p u i p c s e of c o n d u c t i n g s tud i e s about the i m p r o v e m e n t of inst ruction, etc. (Family Bi gh t s and P r i v a c y Act, S e c t i o n P9.31, p a r a g r a p h Ej. I urge you to read tnis s e c t i o n if you h av e fu rth er concerns. 1 ha v e also in clu ded , fcr your optional use, a note that ca n be sent to p a t e n t s . P l e a s e note that all p a r t i c i p a n t s in this stud y will letnein a n o n y m o u s to e ac h other and will not be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n any report. En clo s e d pl e a s e find a s t a m p e d , s o l f - o d d r e s s e c en vel ope and res pon se forms for your ease in s e n d i n g the n a m e s and a d d r e s s e s of youi s t u ­ dents' p a r e n t s and regular c l a s s r o o m t ea che rs. Other f o r m s or lists (e.c., b u i l d i n g d i r e c t o r y } are a l s o a c c e p t a b l e if you w o u l d p l e a s e sign your name at the top. Please i ndi cat e your d es i r e tc h a v e the re s u l t s of the stud y sent to y ou either at the b o t t o m of the e n c l o s e d for m or the list you send. Tncnk you in adv a n c e foi your h e l p f u l n e s s and prompt a t t e n t i o n tc m y request. If y o u have on y q u e s t i o n s , oi w i s h to contact me, p l e a s e call Tony T h a x t o n at (tif-1 15!<-6'i4F, ext. 211. Than k you. 299 APPENDIX E Parent List Form APPENDIX E Parent List Form Patents of T/ C Progtarr S t u d t n t s Diet r ic t ! Teacher/Consultant: Parents: Addt esr t City: Parents: Addtetr: City: ZJ J Patent s : Addt tiEt City: ZIP riF Fat e n t s : Addt e s s : City: ZJF zip Parents: Address: City: Z IP 21T Parent s : Addt ese : City: Z1F ZIP Parents: Address: City: ZIP 211 Patents: Addt e s s ; City: IIP ZIP Far e n t s : Address: City: ZIP Z iF Pat e n t s : Address: City: ;i f ZIP Parents: Addiess: City: z 21 f Patents: Addt e s s : City: zi 21 F Parents: Ad dr e s s : City: zip ZIP Fatents: Address: City: zip Poitnu: Address: City: Pt te n t E : Address: C11y: Far e n t s : Addtess: City: Parents: A d d less: Ci t y : Psrentt: Addiess: City: Parents: Address: City: Parents: Address; City: Pa r e n t s : Addrest; City: PirfMEi Add:“ Et: City: Pa ren ts: Address: Ci ty: P l e a s e c he e k sent to you. h ere if y o u w i s h to have 300 the results :f p of t h e study APPENDIX F Regular Classroom Teacher List Form APPENDIX F Regular Classroom Teacher List Form Ptouler C 1 * £ £ i ot t r T e a c h e r e CiStrleti Teacher/ConsuItant: Teacher: Add)ess: City: T ea c h e r : Add less: City: Teacher: Address: City : Teechei: Addr e s s ; City: Z1F T ea c h t t ; Add:ess: City: :JI Teachtt: Addtess: Cj t y : Teacher: AddresE: City: IIP City: Teacher; Address : City: Teecht r : Address: City: Teacher: Address: City: Teacher; Addr e s s : City: Teacher: Address; City: 21r Teacher: Addr ess ; City: ZIP ZIP Teache:: Addiess: zir City: ZIP z ir Teacher: Addr ess i City: ZIP Teacher: Add)ess: City: ZIP Teacher: Address: Teacher: Addiess: City: ZIP T eacht r : Addiess: ZIP City: ZJ F T e a c h e :; Addr e s s : ZIP City: ZJP ZIP T ea che t : Addr e s s : City: ZIP ZIP Teechei: Addiess: Ci ty: ZIP ZIP Teacher: Address: City: ZJF ZIP Teacher: Addr e s s : City: ZIP 301 APPENDIX G Parent Permission Notice APPENDIX G Patent Permission Notice Dear hr. A n t h o n y S. T h a x t o n , a d o c t o r a l s tudent at M i c h i g a n S ta t e U n i v e r s i t y , is c o n d u c t i n g a s t u d y of T e a c h e r / C o n s u l tont p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n * He has r e q u e s t e d the names and a d d r e s s e s of the p a r e n t s of s t u d e n t s in try pro gra m. T h o s e parents, w h o s e n a m e s are s u b m i t t e d , m a y be a s k e d to fill out a short q u e s t i o n n a i r e later this w i n t e t . All p a r t i c i p a n t s in thi s s t u d y will rem a i n a n o n y m o u s to e a c h other and will not be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n any pa per or re por t. P l e a s e s e n d m e a note or call m e at by if y o u d o not want your name and a d d r e s s submitted. T h a n k you. Dear Mr, A n t h o n y S. T h a x t o n , a d o c t o r a l s tudent at M i c h i g a n St ate U n i v e r s i t y , is c o n d u c t i n g a s t u d y of T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n . He has r e q u e s t e d the name s and a d d r e s s e s of the p a r e n t s oi s t u d e n t s in m y program,, T h o s e patents, w h o s e na m e s are s u b m i t t e d , m a y be a s k e d to fill out a short q u e s t i o n n a i r e later thi s w i n t e r . All p a r t i c i p a n t s In this s t u d y will rema in a n o n y m o u s to eac h other and will not be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n any papet or report. M e a s e send me a nott or call me at ____________________ by _____________________ if you d o not want your name and a d d r e s s submitted. T h a n k you. 302 APPENDIX H Questionnaire Cover Letter APPENDIX H Questionnaire Cover Letter I m p r o v i n g Sp ec i a l E d u c a t i o n pr ogr a m s arid s e r v i c e s in M i c h i g a n is a goal l'n> sure w e all share. 7t> h e l p a c h i e v e this goal you: o p i n i o n s ate n e e d e d in an important Study about E l e m e n t a r y 7 e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t (7/C) p r o g r a m * . 1 an c o n d u c t i n g this s tu d y as a d o c t o r a l st udent m Special E d u c a t i o n at M i c h i g a n State U n j v t i s i t y . The put pope oi the study it to deterriiine the a c t i v i t i e s and o u t c o m e ! of 7/ C p t o g r a m r that you and ottiei i n t e r e t t e d parties fetl a r e p r i o r i t i e s and i m p o r ­ tant lot p r o g r a m ef J ect i veriest.. You are r e q u e s t e d to r ank-older a v a r i e t y oi f a c t o r s w h i c h have been i d e n t i f i e d , b y other r e s e a r c h st udi es, to be a s s o c i a t e d with e f f e c t i v e T / C p r o g r a m s . riv e g r o u p s oi p e o p l e are p a r t i c i p a t i n g in thi s study. These groups include, D i r e c t o r s of Special E d u c a t i o n , E l e m e n t a r y P i inc ipa lE, T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t s , R egu l a r C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r s , and P a r e n t s of c h i l d r e n in 7/C p r o g r a m s . You have b e e n s e l e c t e d oi one of the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of your gtoup. Your o p i n i o n s are v i t a l l y i m p o r t a n t in tnis r e s e a r c h effort at the i n f o r m a t i o n you p r o v i d e may help i mp r o v e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of T/C p r o g r a m s an d s e r v i c e r to c h i l d r e n in out s c h o o l s . I ait a s k i n g you, as a p a r t i c i p a n t , to c o m p l e t e the a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n ­ naire. S p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s are i n c l u d e d on a s e p a r a t e cover sheet. P l e a s e rea d then c a r e f u l l y . My e s t i m a t e of you r total time involve­ ment is b e t w e e n IP-IE m i n u t e s . It if im por tan t fot you to k n o w that all p a r t i c i p a n t ! in this study will terrain a n o n y m o u s to e a c h other and will not be sp eci f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d u n t i i n any report. Also, the r e s u l t s cf this s t u d y will he sn a r e c wit h all p a r t i c i p a n t s in a s e p a r a t e m ail i n g . The i n f o r m a t i o n y o u p r o v i d e will be useful in i m p r o v i n g T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t p r o g r a m s in M i c h i g a n t h r o u g h better p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t m o d e l s as well as teacher t r a i n i n g progroJtE. It will alEO be s na r e d n a t i o n a l l y ae & mode l for th o s e i n t e r e s t e d in the d e v e l o p m e n t of s u c c e s s f u l m a i n s t r e a m i n g ef fo r t s . and Ple a s e r e t u r n thi s q u e s t i o n n a i r e by F e b r u a r y , 19Ef. A stamped s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e is e n c l o s e c fcr your e a s e in r ep lyi ng. If you hevt any q u e s t i o n s or w i s h tt con t a c t me, ple a s e call Tony 7r.a»!tcn at IfcH; 3 ? £ - E 9 < P or (f>lf: (even ing s). Your c o n t r i b u t i o n is vet y v a l u a b l e to iht- su cc e s s of this s tud y . Thank you Sincerely Anthony for your w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e . yours. 5, T h e * t o n AST Isd Enclosure 303 APPENDIX I Questionnaire APPENDIX I Questionnaire Te ac h e i / C o n s u l t a n t Programs O n u s t ) onus i it !■] RECTI ONE The atteeti^d r e s p o n s e sh e e t s ar« d i v i d e d into two (I) s e c t i o n s . E a c h s e c t i o n is tc be ranked e c p a t t t t l y . S e c t i o n ] is a list ol res t b t c L i d e n t i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s an a s e c t i o n 11 is a list of r e s e a r c h i d e n t i f i e d o u t c o m e s of Teacher / C o n s u l t a n t p r o g r a m s . 01 Plt sst r a n k - o i d e r i m p o r t a n c e t o you, e ach s t a t e m e n t 1. Lef t h a n d Sid^ - How T/C opt ra t i n g today. 2. P l a h t - H a n d S i d e - How T/ C (accor din g to youi d e s i r e to be most effe cti ve. T he s c a l e of ACTIVITIES (Se cti on 1 ■ highest OUTCOMES Note; pingrbms art te its a ctu all y, in r eal ity , is: 1} 16 * lowest priority IP ■ lowest priority 11> prioiity Becogrilling that it is d i f f i c u l t to rani.-oider longer l i s t s of items y o u may w i s h to try the f o l l o w i n g t e c n n i q u e to save time. 1. First, 2. b e g i n by r a n k i n g thcst items you c h o o s e to be at the bottom. Thbt is, the two e x t r e m e s ; (e.g., 1 a n d 16, lb, th e n 3 a nd 14, etc.). 3. han k- o r d e t the the m i d d l e . ••PLEASE YOU. priority p r o g r a m s s h o u 1d be op era t i n g or p r e f e r e n c e } in order for t h e m ptiority ( Sec tio n 1 ■ highest Please priority t w i c e acceitiino carefully R ET U R N read the e n t i r e re mai nin g list ol items. items w h i l e c o n t i n u a l l y THi F Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 304 BY top and t h e n 2 and woiking F E B R U A R Y ______ , ISRt. t owa r d T HA N K SECTION I, Research Identified ACTIVITIES Teacher/Consultant Programs of Preferred R a n k j ng Ac t u a 1 Ranking 1. I n s t r u c t s t u d e n t s in c l a s s t o o m l e a r n i n g s tr ate gie s (e.g., note taking, o u t l i n i n g , m e m o r y techniques, e t c . ). 2. T e a c h s t u d e n t s to use c o m p e n s a t o r y d e v i c e s c a l c u l a t o r s , typ ewr i t e r s , etc.) 3. P r o v i d e tutorial or s u p p o r t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n of c l a s s r o o m c o n t e n t (e.g., review, re-teach, or in a d i f f e r e n t man ner ). 4. P i o v i d e direct i n s t r u c t i o n of c o n t e n t di f fer e n t from re gu l a r c l a s s r o o m c o n t e n t (i.e., retried l a l , c o m p e n s a ­ to r y i nst ru c t i o n ) . 5. C o u n s e l w i t h s t u d e n t s a b o u t feelings or a t t i t u d e s (i.e., s i t u a t i o n a l , s n o r t - t e r m , not p s y c h o - t h e r a p y ) . 6. D i r e c t l y d eve l o p , implement, a n d mo ni t o r beh avi or m a n a g e m e n t / m o d i f i c a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s for s t u d e n t s (e.g., b e h a v i o r a l c o n t r a c t , r e w a r d sy ste m s ) . 7. Conduct par t of initial a. Conduct, s t u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t sp ec i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s m e a s u r e s of a c h i e v e m e n t . 9. Provide problem (e.g., regular teach st u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t (testing) a c t i v i t i e s as a e l i g i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o c e s s (i.e., and 3 year e v a l u a t i o n s ) . (testing) a c t i v i t i e s w i t h in T / C p r o g r a m as ong oin g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a s t u d e n t ' s d i f f i c u l t y or to p a r e n t s and e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l . 10. P i o v i d e and/or d e m o n s t r a t e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n t e c h n i q u e s to p a r e n t s a n d e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l (e.g., n ew b e h a v i o r m a n a g e m e n t or i n s t r u c t i o n te chn iques). u. L i s t e n a n d res p o n d to q u e s t i o n s / c o n c e r n s or e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l . 12. Assist crisis as. P r o v i d e formal i n - s e r v i c e tio nal p e r s o n n e l . training programs 14 . Provide to p a r e n t s . 15. P r o v i d e a nd / o r d e m o n s t r a t e a l t e r n a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s to e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l or p a r e n t s . T e a m - t e a c h w i t h regular c l a s s r o o m teach ers . 16. school p e r s o n n e l s i tua tio ns. immediately training programs 305 of par ent s in behav ior al to e d u c a ­ - 2 - SECTION II. Research Identified OUTCOMES Teacher/Consultant Programs of Actual Rankinq Preferred Ranking Statement ___ 1. I n c r e a s e in a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t E d u c a t i o n stu de n t s . 2. T h e d e g r e e of h e l p f u l n e s s Of th e T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t p e r c e i v e d by the a d u l t r e c e i v i n g T / C servic es. 3, I n c r e a s e in time (i.e.i per w e e k / d a y ) that the stu-_______ _____ de n t s u c c e s s f u l l y spe n d s in the r egu l a r c l a s s r o o m sett m g * 4. I m p r o v e m e n t of the a t t i t u d e of the adul t r e c e i v i n g ________ _____ T/ C s e r v i c e s (e.g.. a c c e p t a n c e of ind iv i d u a l d i f f e r ­ ences. w i l l i n g n e s s to try s o m e t h i n g new). 5. Imp r o v e the s c h o o l - r e l a t e d c a t i o n stu dent. G. I n c r e a s e in general e d u c a t i o n t eac h e r i n i t i a t e d c o l l a b ^____ o r a t i v e a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h the T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t (i.e.. ' informal c o n t a c t to add r e s s q u e s t i o n s / c o n c e r n s initi ate d by the c l a s s r o o m t eac h e r ) . 7, I n c r e a s e in the k n o w l e d g e of the a d u l t r e c e i v i n g T / C ______ _____ s e r v i c e s (e.g.. u n d e r s t a n d i n g l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s or a w a r e n e s s of new te ach i n g t e c h n i q u e ) . 8. I m p r o v e m e n t of Sp e c i a l or s e l f - e s t e e m . 9, Inc rea se in the s ki l l s of the a d u l t r e c e i v i n g T/ C s e r v _____ ices (e.g.. a b i l i t y to us e a ne w i n s t r u c t i o n or beh avi or management technique). IP. For behaviot Education Rep o r t s of s t u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t in oral or w r i t t e n form. Statistical Cod i n g : j I [ levels I 306 of ! the S pec i a l students (testing) I of S p e c i a l j I as Edu- sell-concept results either ___ __ ^ ___ _____ APPENDIX J Demographic/Input Information Sheets APPENDIX J Demographic/Input Information Sheets Demographic information - TEACHEK/CONSULtAHTE 1. How m a n y y e a r s h a v e yo u w o r k e d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y in e d u c a t i o n ? 2 . How many of these y e a r s did yo u w ork as a special e d u c a t i o n classroom t eac her ? 3. How m a n y y e a r s have you Consultant 7 4. Wha t is circle) the hi g h e s t d e g r e e you h a v e e a r n e d ? BA / B S 5. been working as a Te a c h e r / HA/MS [please Specialists PhD Ho w m a n y s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s d o y o u s e r v e Consultant? 6 . Wha t is the total number of the b u i l d i n g [ s i y o u s e r v e ? as a T e a c h e r / regular c l a s s r o o m te ach e r s (approx.) in 7. H o w m a n y s t u d e n t s are c u r r e n t l y on your c a s e l o a d ? B. Do you als o f u n c t i o n p a r t - t i m e as a s pec i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s r o o m or r e s o u r c e r o o m p r o g r a m ? yes no (please circle) If yes, a p p r o x i m a t e l y what p e r c e n t a g e of your time do you f u n c t i o n as a T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t ? 9. W h a t Sp ec i a l E d u c a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t i o n s do you h a v e ? (please circle) PP1 10 . LD Ml VI K h a r g r a d e levels ar e i n v o l v e d serve? (ple ase circle) Pr e K 11. El K 1 2 3 4 5 pla c e d 6 in y o u r p r o g r a m or and/or HI in 7 endorsements POHI the b u i l d i n g s 8 9 ho yo u work d i r e c t l y wit h s t u d e n t s activities? yes no 10 other 11 tha n 12 A1 (s) you a)) te sti ng 12 . A p p r o x i m a t e l y what p e r c e n t a g e d i r e c t l y with s t u d e n t s ? time is spe nt w o r k i n g 13. A p p r o x i m a t e l y what p e r c e n t a g e of you r time d i r e c t l y w i t h r egular c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s ? is spent w o r k i n g of y our (please c o m p l e t e 307 r e v e r s e side) 14. Wha t is y o u r ge neral .attitude toward m a i n s t r e a m i n g as d e f i n e d by: the t e m p o r a l , i n s t r u c t i o n a l , a nd social i n t e g r a t i o n of e l i g i b l e exc ep t i o n a l c h i l d r e n w i t h normal peers on an ongoing, i n d i v i d u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and p r o g r a m m i n g p r o c e s s an d r equ ire s c l a r i f i c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a m o n g regular and sp ecial e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , in s t r u c t i o n a l , and s u p p o r t i v e p e r s o n n e l [Kaufman, G o t t l i e b , Agotd, and Kucia, 1975, p. 41, 1 negative 15. W h a t is y o u r pr ogr a m s ? 1 negative 2 ge neral 2 3 4 5 positive- a t t i t u d e t owa r d T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t 3 4 5 positive 16. What, in y o u r opinion, is the most Teacher/Consultant programs? positive a sp e c t of 17. What, in you r op in i o n , is the mo s t Teacher/Consultant programs? negative aspect of 16, On the q u e s t i o n n a i r e y o u wer e a s k e d to i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n actual and p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s and o u t c o m e s . If you p e r c e i v e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the actual an d p r e f e r r e d , to wha t d o y o u a t t r i b u t e th e s e d i f f e r e n c e s ? 308 Demographic Information - CLASSROOM TEACHERS 1. How m a n y y e a r s 2. What grade 3. What is the hig h e s t d e g r e e y o u hav e BA/BS have you w o r k e d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y level d o you p r e s e n t l y MA / M E teach? earned? Specialists s t u d e n t s d o yo u h ave in e d u c a t i o n ? 4. How m a n y 5. Of t h e s e ( h o w man y a r e c u r r e n t l y r e c e i v i n g s om e type of special e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m or s e r v i c e ether than s p e e c h therapy7 C. How m a n y are in T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t p r o g r a m s or Teacher/Consultant services? 7, How w o u l d y ou rate your d e g r e e Teacher/Consultant programs? 1 unfamiliar G. 10. 11, 3 of classroom? 2 re cei ve f a m i l i a r i t y with 4 very What is y o u r general d e f i m t o n on back) 1 negative 9. 2 in your PhD 5 familiar a t t i t u d e to w a r d m o i n s t r e a m i n g 7 3 4 (see 5 positive What, in your opinion, is the m o s t p o s i t i v e as p e c t of Teacher/Consultant programs? What, in your opinion, is the m o s t n e g a t i v e T e u c h e c / C o n s u 1tant p r o g r a m s ? aspect of O n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e y o u were aske d to i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e n a c t u a l and p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s and o utc ome s. If you p e r c e i v e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the ac tua l and p ref e i e d , to w h a t do you a t t r i b u t e these d i f f e r e n c e s ? (please answ er on back) 309 Demographic 1. Are yo u a. 2. Information the s tud ent s' mother or (please circle) or ag e gro up! less ____ 35 - 39 3. 4. What 25 - 29 years is the level of y our U.S. B.A./B.E. M.A./M.S. Ph.D./M.D. 3 2 (please circle) Assoc. years Degree/2 college or e q u i v a l e n t familiarity with 4 very W h a t is yo u r general d e f i n i t i o n on back) 1 negative education? Diploma/G.E.b. how w o u l d you rate y our d e g r e e of Teacher/Consultant programs? 2 20 -34 or ab o v e formal grade 1 unfamiliar 5. PARENTS father P l e a s e check your 24 y ea r s - 5 familiar a t t i t u d e to w a r d m a i n s t r e a m i n g ? 3 4 (see 5 p osi t i v e 6. Ho w has the T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t you r chi ld? P r o g r a m b een mos t 7. Ho w c o u l d B. O n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e you w e r e ask e d to i ndi cat e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n actu al and p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s a nd o utc ome s. If you p e r c e i v e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the actual a n d p r e f e r r e d , to wha t do yo u a t t r i b u t e these d i f f e r e n c e s ? (please answer on back) the T e a c h e r / C o n s u l t a n t 310 he lpful to P r o g r a m be m o r e h e l p f u ! 7 Demographic Information - P H 1N C 1 PA L 1. How many years have you worked professionally 2. How m a n y y ea r s n a v e you 3. W h a t is the h i g h e s t ci r c l e ) DA/BE been For ho w m a n y s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s 5. How m a n y for? b, Khat grade levels? (pl eas e c ircle) Pit’ K 1 4 K 2 special education 3 7. H ow m a n y B. Ho w m a n y d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g (s)7 9, How would you programs? 5 6 7 11. d e g r e e of 3 is your the p r i n c i p a l ? are you responsible IP 12 or Teacher/Consultants 2 general attitude 1 2 negative resource ro oms ? serve your 5 familiar tow a r d m a i n s t r e a m i n g ? 4 (see 5 positive t owa r d T / C p r o g r a m s ? 3 12. What, in your op inion, is the mo s t Teacher/Consultant programs? 13. What, in your op in i o n , is the m o s t Teacher/Consultant programs? 311 all f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h T/C 4 3 attitudt 11 regularly ve r y Khat is your general d e f i n i t i o n on back) What 9 education classrooms rate you r 1 negative B (please Phi* are y o u classrooms 1 2 unfa m i l i a r 10. earned? Specialists 4. regular education? a principal? d e g r e e yo u have MA/MS in 4 5 positive p o s i t i v e asp e c t n e g a t i v e aspect of of Demographic Information - DIRECTORS 1. How m a n y y e a r s hav e you w o r k e d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y 2. H ow m a n y y e a r s have yo u w o r k e d as a Spe cia l Admi m s t r a t o r 7 3. W h a t is ci tele) the hi gh e s t BA/ BS d e g r e e yo u h a v e e a r n e d ? MA/MS Specialjsts 4. How m a n y local Director ? school districts 5. How many Special E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s r e s p o n s i b l e for as D i r e c t o r ? 6. H ow m a n y T e a c h e r / C o n s u I t ant 7. Who provides self 9. 9. for their S pecial Ed. Supervisor 2 What is your programs? general ar e y o u or s e r v i c e s as are you hav e ? (please circle) to w a r d m a i n s t r e a m i n g ? 4 5 po sitive attitude toward Teacher/Consultant 3 H o w w o u l d yo u rate youi d e g r e e of Teacher/Consultani programs? 1 unfamiliar r e s p o n s i b l e for supervision? 3 1 2 negative 10, (please Building P r i n c i p a l s ____ o t h e r ____________ W hat is your g eneral a t t i t u d e (see d e f i n i t i o n on back) 1 negative Edu ca t i o n PhD p r o g r a m s d o you direct in e d u c a t i o n ? 2 3 4 5 positive f a m i l i a r i t y with 4 very 5 familiar 11. What, in your op ini on, is the m ost Teacher/Consultant programs? p osi t i v e 12. What, in youi opinion, is the m o s t Teacher/Consultant programs? n e g a t i v e aupect 312 aspect of of 13. On the q u e s t i o n n a i r e you w e r e a s k e d to i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n act ual a n d p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s and out com es. If you p e r c e i v e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the actual and p r e f e r r e d , to w h a t d o y o u a t t r i b u t e these d i f f e r e n c e s ? (please an swe r on back) 313 APPENDIX K Endorsement Letter APPENDIX K Endorsement Letter ST Alt OI MlCHi&fch DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION mTt ■«« 01 ******* WIUUF^r' < ■BJfr L.n«s M«ne»' »H » n rw'l ' Ii W T * >•*►***. tr m *<*nr m Im ''al" rt I ttuft 9 hftkl llli U i i / l V hltlltll r u n l i t I *1 S k i . ' “ I* ■ ■ '."*'0' r p lr*v^ m t i (tn s 'itH l f w ii» r " \[', i f4LM»i i f l i l U v *w prji S l'tM c u o il i i w t E i m t A .itj1' H1tins m JM <*P *m u * ir► tins nvti' ie;4^'hoj Licar h t s i a r c h f a r t I c l p B i . i ; 7 n t r o l t o f the t t a c h t r c o n t u t t a n t ii. K i e h i f f h a t b t t r a su t yt t ct of tr uth d l s c u t t i o n and I n i t r t - M . Tht s t u d y b t i m c o n d u c t s c by l o r y Thatttot. v i l l p r o v i o t u s t f u j i n l et - t e s t i e r . t e f t T d i n f t h t p t r c i p t l o n t of t h a t t o l t . I t i t itLfiertar.t to t h f t s t u d y , and t h t i n f o n i a t J o r . f t p t c r l s t t t o p i r v J d t , tc Levt a t i t t . i l y and p o j f t f v i taspenst . J t i i t o u r a p t you t o t a t c a l e v i i o r . t r t i i r l e t p o n d t c t ht t r . t i vc tLsy h f v t i t . ■ b e n e f i t of t t . i t s t u d ' . s u r v t y sc Slbtet t t y, ^ /£ & /''ftt.tJXiAji. f ) tovard L. l i t cV. /l'i rt c t rt Spt tl a; Le vc a t i d . S t r v i c n Ei.Llc.dc 314 j BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abeson, A., Bolick, N ., and Haas, J. A Primer on Due Process .. Reston, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1975. Abramson, M. "Implications of Mainstreaming A Challenge for Special Education." In L. Mann and D.A. Sabatino (Eds.), The Fourth Review of Special Education,, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1980. Ainsworth, S.J. "An Exploratory Study of Education, Social, and Emotional Factors in the Education of Educable Mentally Retarded Children in Georgia Public Schools." U.S. Office of Educa­ tion, Coopertive Research Program, Project Numer 171, Athens, Georgia, University of Georgia, 1959. Bagley, M.T. "New Perspectives on Supportive Services for Children Having Learning Problems in the Regular Classroom: The Teacher Consultant Mo del— An Approach to Consider." Bethesda, Maryland, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 125 188, 1976. Bagley, M.T., and Larsen, S.C. "The Effects of a Teacher/ Consultant Model on Learning Disabled Children." Unpublished Manuscript, B O C E S , Learning Resources Center, Ardsley, New York, 1976. Barber, T.X., and Silver, M.J. "Fact, Fiction, and the Experimenter Bias Effect." Psychological B ullet in, 1968, 70, 1-29 (a). Barber, T.X., and Silver, M.J. "Pitfalls in Data Analysis and Interpretation: A Reply to Rosenthal." Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 48-62 (b). Basso, P., and Rabinowitz, A. "The Effects of a Teacher/ Consultant Model on Teachers." Unpublished Manu­ script, BOCES, Learning Resources Center, Ardsley, New York, 1976. 315 316 Bennett, A. A Comparative Study of Sub-Normal Children in the Elementary Grades, New York, Teachers Collect, Columbia University, 1932* Bickle, W.E., and Bickle, D.D. "Effective Schools, Class­ rooms, and Instruction: Implications for Special Education." Exceptional Children, 1986, 52, 489-500. Birch, J.W. "Mainstreaming: Educable Mentally Retarded Children in Regular Classes." Minneapolis, Minnesota, Leadership Training Institute/Special Education, University of Minnesota, 1974. Birch, J.W. "Mainstreaming: Definition, Development, and Characteristics." In J.B. Jordan (Ed.), Teacher, Please Don't Close the Door, Reston, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1976. Blatt, B. "The Physical, Personality, and Academic Status of Children who are Mentally Retarded Attending Special Classes as Compared with Children who are Mentally Retarded Attending Regular Classes." American Journal of Mental Deficiency,, 1958, 62, 810-818. Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483, 1954. Buffmire, J.A. "The Stratistician Model." In E.N. Deno (Ed.), Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children, Arlington, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 3-10. Cantrell, R.P., and Cantrell, M.L. "Preventative Mainstreaming: Impact of a Supportive Services Pro­ gram on Pupils." Exceptional Children,, 1976, 42 (7), 381-386. Cassidy, V., and Stanton, J. "An Investigation of Factors Involved in the Educational Placement of Mentally Retarded Children," U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Program, Project Number 43, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1959. Cegelka, W.J. and Typer, J. "The Efficacy of Special Class Placement for the Mentally Retarded in Proper Perspective." Training School Bulletin, 1970, 6 6 , 33-66. Cohen, J.H. Handbook of Resource Room Teaching. Rockville, Maryland, Aspen, 1982. 317 Corman, L., and Gottlieb, J. "Mainstreaming Mentally Retarded Children: A Review of Research." In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), International Review of Research in Mental Re tardation,. (Vol. 9), New York, Academic Press, 1978. D'Alonzo, B.J., and Wiseman, D.E. "Actual and Desired Roles of the High School Learning Disability Resource Teacher." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11 (6 ), 63-70. Deno, E.N. "Special Education as Developmental Capital." Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 229-237. Deno, E.N. Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children. Arlington, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1973. Diana v. State Board of Education. C-7037RFP, District Court of Norther California, 1970. Dunn, L.M. "Special Education for the Mildly Retarded— Is Much of it Justifiable?" Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 5-22. Evans, S. "The Consultant Role of the Resource Teacher." Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 402-405. Elenbogen, M.L. "A Comparative Study of Some Aspects of Academic and Social Adjustment of Two Groups of Mentally Retarded Children in Special Classes and Regular Classes." Dissertation Abstracts, 1957, 17, 2496. Flanders, N.A. Interaction Analysis in the Classroom: A Manual for Observers. Ann Arbor, Michigan, School of Education, University of Michigan, 1966. Fleming, E.S., and Anttonen, R.G. "Teacher Expectancy as Related to the Academic and personal Growth of Primary-Age Children." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1971, 36, Service Number 145. Foster, G.G., and Salvia, J. "Teacher Response to the Label Learning Disabled as a Function of Demand Characteristics." Exceptional Children, 1977, 43, 533-534. Foster, G.G., Schmidt, C.R., and Sabatino, D. "Teacher Expectancies and the Label 'Learning Disabili­ ties'." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9 (2), 58-61. 318 Fox, W . , Egner, A., Parlucci-Whitcomb, P., Perelman, P., McKenzie, H.S., and Garvin, J. "An Introduction to a Regular Classroom Approach to Special Educa­ tion." In E.N. Deno (Ed.) Instructional Alterna­ tives for Exceptional Children, Arlington, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1973. Frampton, M.E., and Rowell, H.G. Education of the Handicapped. Volume 2, Yonkers, New York, World Book, 1940. Gickling, E.E., Murphy, L.C., and Mallory, D.W. "Teacher Preferences for Resource Services." Exceptional Children, 1979, March, 442-449. Gillring, T.B., and Rucker, C.N. "Labels and Teacher Expectations." Exceptional Children, 1977, 43 (7), 464-465. Gliedman, J., and Roth, W. The Unexpected Minority. York, Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich, 1980. New Goldstein, H., Moss, J.W. and Jordan, L.J. "The Efficacy of Special Class Training on the Development of Mentally Retarded Children." U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Project Number 619, Utbana, Illinois, University of Illinois, 1965. Grahm, S. Burdg, N.B., Hudson, F., and Carpenter, D. "Educational Personnel's Perceptions of Mainstreaming and Resource Room Effectiveness." Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 17, 128-134. Guskin, S., and Spicker, H. "Educational Research in Mental Retardation." In N.O. Ellis (Ed.), Inter­ national Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Volume 3, New York, Academic Press, 1968. Haight, S.L. "Special Education Teacher Consultant: Idealism Versus Realism." Exceptional Children, 1984, 50 (6 ), 507-515. Haight, S.L., and Molitor, D.I. "A Survey of Special Education Teacher Consultants," Exceptional Children, 1983, 49 (6 ), 507-515. Hallahan, D.P., and Kaufman, J.M. Exceptional Children: Introduction to Special Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice, Hall, 1982. 319 Hobbs, N. "The Process of Re-Education." Paper presented at First Annual Re-ED Workshop, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, September, 1963. Hobson v. Hansen: 269 F. Supp. 401, 1967. Hudson, F., Graham. S., and Warner, M. "Mainstreaming: An Examination of the Attitudes and Needs of Regular Classroom Teachers." Learning Disabil­ ities Quarterly, 1979. Idol-Maestas, L. Special Educators Consultation Han d­ book . Rockvilie, Maryland, Aspen, 1983. Idol-Maestas, L. "A Teacher Training Model: The Resource/ Consulting Teacher." Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6 (2 ), 108-121. Idol-Maestas, L., Lloyd, S. and Lilly, M.S. "Implemen­ tation of a Non-Categorical Approach to Direct Service and Teacher Education." Exceptional Children, 1976, September, 21-29. Kaufman, M.E., and Alberto, P.A. "Research on Efficacy of Special Education for Mentally Retarded." In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Vol. 8 , New York, Academic Press, 1976. Kaufman, M.J., Gottlieb, J., Agord, J.A., and Kukic, M.B. "Mainstreaming: Toward an Explication of the Construct." Focus on Exceptional Children, 1975, 7, 1-12. Koegh, B.K., and Levitt, M.L. "Special Education in the Mainstream: A Confrontation of Limitations?" Focus on Exceptional Children, 1976, 8 , 1-11. Kirk, S.A. "Research in Education." In H.A. Stevens and R. Heber (Eds.), Mental Retardation, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 1964. Knight, M.F., Meyers, H.W., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Hasazi, S.E., and Nevin, A. "A Four-Year Evaluation of Consulting Teacher Service." Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6 (2), 92-100, Lilly, M.S. "A Training Based Model for Special Education." Exceptional Children, 1971, 37, 745-749. Lilly, M.S., and Givens-Ogle, L.B. "Teacher Consultation: Present, Past, and Future." Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6 (2), 73-77. 320 Little, T.L. The Consultation Process in Special Educa­ tion; T r a i n e r ’s Program Manual. Cedar Falls, Iowa, Division of Special Education, University of Northern Iowa, 1975. MacMillan, D.L., and Becker, L.D. "Mainstreaming the Mildly Handicapped Learner." In R.D. Kneedler and S.G. Tarver (Eds.), Changing Perspectives in Special Education, Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill, 1977. MacMillan, D.L., Jones, R.J., and Aloia, G.F. "The Mentally Retarded Label: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Research." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 79, 241-261. McGlothlin, J.E. "The School Consultation Committee: An Approach to Implementing a Teacher Consultation Model." Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6 (2), 101-107. McKenzie, H.S. "Special Education and the Consulting Teacher." In F.W. Clark D.R. Evans, and L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Implementing Behavior Programs for Schools and Clinics, Champaign, Illinois, Research Press, 1972. Meyers, J.A. "A Consultation Model for School Psycho­ logical Services." Journal of School Psychology. 1973, 11, 5-15. Meyers, E.C., MacMillan, D.L., and Yoshida, R.K. "Regular Class Education of EMR Students from Efficacy to Mainstreaming: A Review of Issues and Research." In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Educating Mentally Retarded •Persons in the Mainstream, Baltimore, Maryland, University Park Press, 1979. Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Gui d e . . Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Education Directory, Inc., 1983. Miller, T.L., and Sabatino, P.A. "An Evaluation of the Teacher Consultant Model as an Approach to Main streaming." Exceptional Children, 1978, 45(2), 86-91. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 8 6 6 , 1972. 321 Mullen, F., and Itkin, W. "The Value of Special Classes foe the Mentally Handicapped." Chicago Schools Journal, 1961, 42, 353-363. Nelson, C.M., and Stevens, K.B. "An Accountable Model for Mainstreaming Behaviorally Disordered Children, Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6(2), 82-91. Newcommer, P. "Special Education for the Mildly Handi­ capped: Beyond a Diagnostic and Remedial Model." Journal of Special Education, 1977, 11(2), 153-165. Nie, N., and others Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Second Edition, New York, McGraw Hill, 1975. Parten, M. Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Proce­ dures. New York, Cooper Square Publishers, 1966. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Common­ wealth of Pennsylvania. 334 F. Supp. 1257, 1971. Pertsch, C.F. A Comparative Study of the Progress of Sub­ normal Pupils in the Grades and in Special Classes. Bound Manuscript, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. Prouty, R., and Prillaman, D. "Educational Diagnosis: In Clinic or Classroom." Virginia Journal of Educa­ tion , November, 1967. Prouty, R.W., and McGarry, F.M. "The Diagnostic/Prescrip­ tive Teacher." In E. Deno (Ed.), Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children, Arlington, Virginia, The Council for ExceptionalChildren, 1973, 47-58. Quay, B.C. "Academic Skills." In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of Mental Deficiency, New York, McGrawHill, 1963, 664-690. Reynolds, M.C., and Birch, J.W. Teaching Exceptional Children in All America's Schools. Reston, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1977. Robinson, N.M., and Robinson, H.B. The Mentally Retarded Child. Second Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1976. 322 Rosenthal, R . , and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Class­ room. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Salend, S.J., and Salend, S. "Consulting with the Regular Teacher: Guidelines for Special Educators." The Pointer, 1984, 28(3), 25-28. Sargent, J.V. An Easier Way: A Handbook for the Elderly and Handicapped. A m e s , Iowa, Iowa State University Press, 1981. Scandary, J. "The Teacher Consultant Program." Unpub­ lished paper submitted to the Michigan Department of Education, 1979. Semmel, M.I., Gottlieb, J., and Robinson, N.M. "Mainstreaming: Perspectives on Educating Handicapped Children in the Public School." In D.C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Volume 7, Washington, D.C., American Education Research Association, 1979. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956. Sindelar, P.T., and Deno, S.L. "The Effectiveness of Resource Programming." Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12(1), 17-28. Snow, R.E. "Unfinished Pygmalion." Contemporary Psychol o g y , 1969, 14, 197-199. Thorndike, R.L. "Review of Pygmalion in the Classroom." American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 5, 708-711. U.S. Congress, Section 504, Public Law 93-112, "Nondis­ crimination on Basis of Handicap." Federal Register, 1973, 42(86), 22675-22702. U.S. Congress, Public Law 93-380, "The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act." Federal Re gister,, 1974. U.S. Congress, Public Law 94-142, "Education of All Handicapped Children." Federal Register, 1975, 42(163), 42495-42517. VanEtten, G., and Adamson, G. "The Fail-Save Program: A Special Education Service Continuum." In E. Deno (Ed.), Instructional Alternative for Excep­ tional Children, Arlington, Virginia, The Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 157-165. 323 Westland, D.L., Koorland, M.A., and Rose, T,L. "Characacteristics of Superior and Average Special Educa­ tion Teachers.1' Exceptional Children, 1981, 47(5), 357-363. Wiederholt, J.L., Hammill, D.D., and Brown, V.B. The Resource Teacher: A Guide to Effective Practices. A u s t i n ™ Texasj Pro-Ed, 19 83. Wixson, S.E. "Two Resource Room Models for Serving Learn­ ing and Behavior Disordered Pupils." Behavioral Disorders, 1980, 5(2), 116-125. Wrightstone, J . W . , Forlano, G., Lepkowski, J.R. Sontag, M., and Edelstein, J.D. "A Comparison of Educa­ tional Outcomes Under Single-Track and Two-Track Plans for Rducable Mentally Retarded Children." U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Program, Project Number 144, New York City Board of Education, 1959. Zettel, J.L., and Weintraub, F.J. "PL94-142: It's Oriqins and Implications." The National Elementary Principal, 1978, 58(1), 10-13.