This article has been retrieved
times since October 12, 1995
Education Policy Analysis Archives
Volume 3 Number 15
October 12, 1995
ISSN 1068-2341
A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU
College of Education
Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411Copyright 1995, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any article provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.
Inclusion in Elementary Schools:
A Survey and Policy AnalysisSusan Allan Galis
Commerce and Jefferson City Schools
Jefferson, GA 30549
sabgalis@eworld.com
C. Kenneth Tanner
Department of Educational Leadership
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
ktanner@moe.coe.uga.eduAbstract:
This study of reform policy focused on inclusive education in the 1990s in the state of Georgia, United States of America. Program modifications including, individualizing instructional methods, adapting the instructional environment, and lowering maximum class size emerged as significant issues. We found that policies related to these areas were compounded by the less experienced educators not readily accepting change strategies for serving students. Apparently younger educators are engrossed in surviving daily routine and have difficulty coping with the complex demands of change. Regular education teachers have difficulty with the idea of inclusion. Legal aspects dealing inclusion need clarification, especially for regular education teachers. Introduction
Recently, concern has emerged regarding whether special education is the master or victim of the never ending waves of school reform. Master or victim, special education is submerged in legal and program issues while the waves of reform continue. One reform issue that is receiving considerable attention in the schools and literature is inclusion. Inclusion focuses on providing services to students in the regular classroom, rather than pulling students out of regular classrooms to receive special services. A primary goal of inclusion is to educate children with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate support in their home school or neighborhood. Presently, there is discussion concerning inclusion vs. full inclusion. Some believe that full inclusion is the appropriate service model, which would mean that all students with disabilities would be served in regular classes. A more moderate view of inclusion is that placement committees should use inclusion as one delivery model for providing the least restrictive environment in continuance of service delivery models. Baker, Wang, and Walberg (1995) traced the recent events surrounding inclusion to a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). The panel of Heller et al. found the classification and placement of children in special education ineffective and discriminatory. The recommendations were that "children be given noninclusive or extra-class placement for special services only if (a) they can be accurately classified, and only if (b) noninclusion demonstrates superior results" (p. 33). Earlier concepts surrounding inclusion go back to 1975. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990 was initially enacted as The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1975. The 1975 law was more often called Public Law 94-142. It mandates processes for children with disabilities, and access to free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), with age-appropriate peers, to the maximum extent appropriate. LRE is the mandate that has brought the issue of inclusion to the forefront. Inclusive education has been the subject of legal cases (See for example McCarthy, 1994), parents, advocates, policy makers, administrators, and educators. In most situations, each group expounding the positive nature of inclusion has been accused of being biased by those who do not support inclusion or full inclusion. As with any educational reform, inclusion has drawn mixed reviews. A comparison of the effects of inclusive versus noninclusive educational practices for special education students was completed by Baker (1994), Carlberg and Kavale (1980), and Wang and Baker (1985). A meta-analyses demonstrated a "small-to- moderate beneficial effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of special needs children" (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995, p. 34). The average effect sizes ranged from 0.08 to 0.44 and all were positive. The average for inclusion effects was 0.195, which was designated as being near the average effect for productive instructional practices. Based on these findings, Baker et al. asserted that the "concern is not whether to provide inclusive education, but how to implement inclusive education in ways that are both feasible and effective in ensuring school success for all children, especially those with special needs" (p. 34). The outcomes for nondisabled students in classes that include peers with disabilities has been identified as a barrier to inclusion. However, available data reveal no statistically significant effects on the academic outcomes of the nondisabled peers (Staub & Peck, 1995). Parents of the peers reported no harm to their children. Instructional time was not lost by nondisabled students when students with disabilities were included in their classrooms. Additionally, nondisabled peers did not pick up undesirable behaviors from their peers with disabilities. Opponents of inclusion emphasized the need to maintain a full continuum of services and argued that those expounding "full" inclusion had overlooked this provision of the IDEA. Vergason and Anderegg (1992, 1993) argued that an inclusive classroom was not in the least restrictive environment interests of most students with disabilities. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) identified The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) as the leader in the reform movement for inclusion. They warned that TASH did not speak for all groups in their desire for full inclusion; but that ". . . their continued provocative rhetoric will polarize a field already agitated .... (p. 305) Several experts say that pullout delivery systems, such as the ones used in special education, are not effective in remediating or habilitating even mild types of disabilities. Further, they contend that teachers in regular classes provide effective instruction that is appropriate for all children and can accommodate individual differences, including students with disabilities (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lilly, 1988; Lipsky & Gartner, 1987; Pugach, 1988; Reschly, 1988a; Reschly, 1988b; Reynolds & Wang, 1983; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Stainback & Stainback, 1985; Stainback & Stainback, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Taylor, 1988; Wang & Birch, 1984; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1986; Will, 1986). Other drawbacks of the resource pull-out program model have been underscored: special education resource rooms often served 12 to 15 diverse students, students brought a variety of needs from several different grade levels, the special education teacher gave very little active instruction, and instruction occurring was skill related and not tied to classroom themes (Yatvin, 1995). Special education teachers did not have the time to link to the regular classroom under the pull-out model and thus, "the phrase quality pull-out program' is a contradiction in terms" (p. 483). Special education teachers were trained less in the academic areas and did not have a holistic approach to teaching and learning. Their focus was on techniques for the unconventional students, behavior management, and diagnosing or remediating deficiencies. Yatvin identified factors that led to the philosophy of inclusion: 1. All children learn best in regular classrooms when there are flexible organizational and instructional patterns in place and human and material supports for those with special needs.2. A child's belief that he or she is entitled to a place in a community of peers is a precondition for learning.
3. Pull-out programs that impose the extra burdens of academic discontinuity, poor-quality instruction, social anxiety, and low status on special-needs children deprive them of the opportunity for the education they are entitled to and thus violate their civil rights. (p. 484)
Van Dyke, Stallings, and Colley (1995) identified three fundamental arguments to support the philosophy of inclusion. The first argument concerned case law to date and the legal claims to an education in the "least restrictive environment." Inherent in this first argument was a civil rights issue. The second basis rested in the literature concerning "best practices" for the education of students with disabilities. The analyses of data on the progress of students served in special education did not show the student achievement growth expected. The third argument centered on the "rightness" of inclusion. Segregating the students classified them, created bias, and made them different. They were apart from the classroom community. In October of l992, the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), released a report calling for an inclusive system of education for all students. The NASBE study group envisions a restructured, inclusive system looking very different from typical schools as they exist today. Students would not progress through the traditional lock-step, age-grade progression, but would be grouped heterogeneously, based on the particular lesson to be taught. This view of inclusion is significant because it comes from regular education, rather than from the special education arena. The argument may be far from over, yet there is a need to involve inclusion in the debate, the development, and implementation of policies related to school reform. Often issues such as inclusion and special education are not considered when reform is discussed or implemented. The issue of inclusive education formed the basis for this study. The focus was on three major areas of concern in the literature: 1. effective strategies for meeting the needs of students, 2. educational change issues regarding inclusion, staff development, collaboration, and communications, and 3. the impacts of implementing inclusive education strategies. Major Areas of Concern
Educational change and strategies for achieving this goal have recently been approached through school-based management. Actions based on decentralization plans have launched school-based management into the forefront of educational change in the 1990s. Presently, well over 3,000 articles, books, and documents have been published on the subjects of school reform, school-based or site-based management, restructuring, and local management of schools. The trend is obvious. A noteworthy amount of the literature deals with school-based management as a vehicle of reform. Representative examples dealing with the reform movement are found in publications by Glickman (1993), Hess (1994), Lane & Epps (1992), Odden & Wohlstetter (1995), Wohlstetter & Odden (1992). Lynn (1994) has reviewed publications on restructuring schools (school reform) and categorized works on curricular and instructional reform, the change process as it relates to reform, methods of grouping students, school governance, and collaboration between schools and the community. Another aspect of the literature deals with the influence of site-based management on instruction. Examples of this may be found in descriptions by English (1988), Walberg & Niemiec (1994), and Wohlstetter & Briggs (1994). The term "inclusion" is not mentioned in the federal law (McCarthy, 1994). However, it has become a key component of current school reform issues for a number of reasons, such as legal mandates, court orders, philosophical beliefs of educators and parents, and decisions made for students with disabilities by committees. At times decisions made regarding inclusion for students with disabilities may appear to conflict with other issues such as raising academic standards for all students or teachers being held accountable for the standardized test scores of the students in their classrooms. These conflicts are all part of the many policy arguments 1,2 surrounding restructuring. There are some commonalities in restructuring practice which appear consistently in the literature. These include: 1. school-based management with an active teacher role,2. shared decision making at the district level,
3. cooperative relationships between administrators and local teacher associations, and
4. innovative staff development practices (Center for Policy Research in Education, 1989)
While these commonalities of restructuring are not exhaustive, they do provide a consistent foundation upon which to focus. Educational research continues to stress the importance of teachers being more involved in identifying needs and developing the strategies for implementing effective change in our schools (Duttweiler, 1989; Glasser, 1990; Gross, 1985; Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995; Trendall, 1989; Tye & Novotney, 1975). Entrusting teachers with greater power and accountability for school-based changes can have many positive outcomes (Ehrenberg, 1992). First, it can increase the level of participation and support in the development and implementation of innovative reforms (Lieberman, 1990; Nelson, 1989). Second, it has the potential of increasing the sense of efficacy among regular and special education teachers (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Finn, 1986; McDaniel & Dibella-McCarthy, 1989; Shanker, 1986). The new theory, according to Darling-Hammond (1992), "assumes students are not standardized and teaching is not routine . . . effective teaching techniques will vary for students with different learning styles, different developed intelligences, at different stages of cognitive and psychological development, for different subject areas, and for different instructional goals" (p.24). In order for educators to effectively meet the challenge of educating students according to new expectations, it will be necessary for educators to continually learn and adapt to new situations. The approach in the past has been to provide one-shot staff development training sessions on topics determined by school administrators. This has been shown to be ineffective and inefficient. According to Ayres and Meyer (1992), teachers must be empowered and recognized as knowing their students and circumstances better than anyone else. Teachers must have ownership in any innovative programs or model implementation in order for change to occur and be successful. Innovative and effective staff development activities can be implemented to initiate successful school reform. These staff development activities can target teacher attitudes, classroom practices and child outcomes. According to Guskey (1986) there is a temporal sequence to these activities. Staff development activities can provide specific tools for the teachers' use. Staff development activities are most beneficial when teachers ask for the opportunity to be exposed to specific ideas, or teachers can see that training has relevance for them. These new tools can change teachers' classroom practices, which can lead to changes in child outcomes. Improved child outcomes can lead to changes in teachers' beliefs and attitudes. According to the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1994), systematic staff development and flexible planning time for special education and general education teachers to meet and work together contribute to successful inclusive educational programs. Empowering teachers and collaboration between programs improves both the professional teaching environment and the continuity of educational goals and objectives (Gross, 1985; Oakes, 1989; Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989). If educational systems accept the paradigm of inclusive schools for all children, collaboration can successfully occur. There are several factors, however, which must be overcome in order for this successful collaboration to occur. One factor reported by teachers is that they feel isolated and separated from other professionals in their educational setting. The feelings of separation and/or isolation are magnified by the specialization and stratification of teachers and administrators assigned to distinctly separated programs and functions (Duttweiler, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1992; Will, 1986). A second factor that negatively influences successful collaboration among teachers is the lack of efficacy felt by both general and special education teachers (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Meek, 1988). If teachers do not feel competent in their abilities, it is unlikely that they will expend the effort necessary for successful collaboration. In order to support collaborative relationships, it is imperative that teachers' feelings of isolation be addressed. In addition, boundaries between programs and separations between responsibilities must be minimized. Also, administrators must redistribute power and provide opportunities for teachers to provide meaningful information into the operations of the educational setting. As waves of school reform continue, it is increasingly important that "regular educators"and special educators become aware of policy arguments concerning inclusive education, support for educational change, and effective strategies for meeting the needs of students. Furthermore, educators should actively specify their beliefs and attitudes in these significant debates. The things that practitioners know, think, and believe about the policy issues surrounding inclusive education and reform ideas are important because they are the people who deliver the educational programs to the children. Purpose of the Study
Because the outcomes of reform are largely dependent upon those that carry out the policy, it seemed logical for us to focus on responses from the people who do the work. Our purpose was to determine the perceptions and beliefs of regular and special education administrators and teachers regarding the provision of services to students, including at-risk students and students with disabilities. The study targeted the three areas discussed above: 1. Effective strategies for meeting the needs of all students,
2. The support in their district for educational change, and
3. Inclusive education.
We compared responses of the implementers to determine if differences existed regarding these three policy areas. Other factors used for comparison included the total number of years in education and the educational position of the responder. We refer to these factors as independent variables. However, since they could not be manipulated, they are also defined as moderator variables. These two variables were of interest to us because our professional roles involve training and administration. It was our assumption that if differences were evident, emphasis could be placed on solutions through the literature and our actions as educational leaders. We wanted to know how our clients viewed inclusive education. We assumed that the dependent variables would be influenced by the moderator variables. In particular, we suspected that time in service and the position that the responder held in the school organization would be key influences in their acceptance or rejection of educational reform issues involving inclusion. Dependent variables are shown in Table 3. Instrumentation Method
A questionnaire was developed with emphasis on the three areas reviewed above. In addition to requesting demographic information, 24 statements representing dependent variables were to be rated according to a six-point Likert scale (The scale ranged from 1 "strongly disagree" to 6 "strongly agree."). Validity. Initially, the questionnaire was reviewed by a panel of eight experts to establish face and content validity. The panel of experts represented educators at the state, university, and local levels who had particular types of expertise that related to this study (Nationally known experts in school reform and special education served on the panel). Recommendations from the panel were consistent in suggesting the changing of wording on specific items, the rationale for specific items and concern about the length of the instrument. Recommendations were incorporated into the survey instrument and the final draft of the instrument was prepared for distribution. Reliability. Reliability was determined in two phases. In phase I reliability of the instrument was estimated before disseminating it to the random sample of 126 school systems. A pilot study was conducted with 20 educators who were similar to the sample group. They were asked to respond to the instrument. Three weeks later the same 20 educators were asked to respond again. Each item was examined by using the repeated measure design. The t-test for correlated sample means was used to test for significant differences between the first and second response. Items that exceeded the critical t value of 2.093 were removed from the instrument (Alpha = .05, df = 19). Two items were removed as a result of this analysis. Phase II of the reliability check involved applying Chronbach's Alpha to data from each section in the final study. According to de Vaus (1986), this test for unidimensionality is used to determine the correlation coefficient between a response and the responses to the other items in the subset. Any response with the item-to-scale coefficient less than .30 was dropped from the data. An alpha coefficient on each subset of .70 was desirable according to de Vaus. Furthermore, any item whose omission would increase the subset alpha to .70 or higher was dropped. The reliability coefficients for the three sections were as follows: Inclusive education (.81), effective strategies (.76), and support for change (.74). Research Design
A random sample with an error range of 5% was determined according to the sampling formula for surveys suggested by Nunnery and Kimbrough (1971). A total of 126 school districts was selected out of a population of 187 school systems in the state of Georgia. A table of random numbers was used to determine which of the 187 school systems would be selected. After randomly choosing the 126 systems, the following sets of surveys were sent to the selected school systems:
Special Education directors 126 surveys Elementary School Principals 126 surveys Regular education teachers 252 surveys Special education teachers 252 surveys
The first elementary school listed in each of the 126 systems' roster was chosen (Elementary schools that served seventh grade students or higher were not included). Names and addresses were obtained from the Georgia Department of Education (1994). The special education directors were sent questionnaire packets. Additionally, five survey packets were mailed to the selected elementary principals in the 126 school systems. The principals were given directions for completing one questionnaire and distributing the other four to the first two regular education teachers on their roster and the first two special education teachers on their roster. Data Collection
Each packet included a cover letter explaining the need for the study and its purpose, a questionnaire (postage stamp and return address provided), and a postal card to return indicating participation. The postal card was also used as a way of offering a copy of the summary of the results to the responders. To preserve anonymity, each responder had the opportunity to return an inscribed postal card separately. No phone calls were made to nonresponders, nor were additional reminders distributed. Dependent Variables and Issues
Three dependent variables emerged from the issues in the literature (See Table 1). Each dependent variable contained a cluster of statements in the questionnaire. Questions deleted through the reliability analysis are indicated in Table 1. Table 1
Cluster of Questions per Area (Dependent Variable) (Part II of Questionnaire)
Area Cluster of Questions 1. Effective Strategies for
Meeting Students' Needs1,2,*6,*7,*8,*13,15,18,*20,24 2. Support for Educational
Change3,5,10,12,17,21 3. Inclusive Education 4,9,*11,*14,*16,19,22,23
1. effective strategies for meeting students' needs,
2. support for educational change, and
3. inclusive education?
| Job Title | Number
Returned | Number
Sent | Percentage Returned |
| Sp. Ed. Teachers | 142 | 252 | 56% |
| Reg. Ed. Teachers | 129 | 252 | 51% |
| Principals | 86 | 126 | 68% |
| Sp. Ed. Directors | 103 | 126 | 82% |
| TOTALS | 460 | 756 | 64% |
| Statement | N | Mean | S.D. | |
|
1*. It is important to
make modifications for
students who need adaptations to benefit from a particular instructional environment. | 459 | 5.6 | .86 | |
|
2*. Students' progress should be graded according to ability rather than only with standardized measures. | 452 | 5.2 | 1.10 | |
|
3**. Our school/school district has a broad continuum of services for meeting the needs of all students. | 460 | 4.5 | 1.10 | |
|
4***.Inclusion of students with mild disabilities into regular classes is generally an effective strategy. | 449 | 4.5 | 1.10 | |
|
5**. I have input into the program of students with disabilities who are placed in the regular classroom. | 448 | 4.6 | 1.41 | |
|
6*. Programs like Chapter 1 are effective. | 448 | 4.4 | 1.27 | |
|
7*. Keeping academic expectations consistent for all students is important. | 446 | 2.3 | 1.60 | |
|
8*. Maximum class size should be lowered when including students with disabilities. | 451 | 5.2 | 1.18 | |
|
9***.The inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular classroom can be beneficial to the other students in the class. | 451 | 4.4 | 1.32 | |
|
10**. I have support from my supervisor(s) to try new ideas and implement creative strategies. | 448 | 5.1 | 1.23 | |
|
11***. Students should be served in regular classes regardless of disability. | 451 | 2.7 | 1.43 | |
|
12**. I have opportunities to talk and plan with my colleagues on a regular basis. | 447 | 4.0 | 1.62 | |
|
13*. It is important to keep to keep behavioral expectations the same for all students. | 451 | 3.7 | 1.76 | |
|
14***. My school/district is a strong supporter of inclusive education. | 443 | 3.8 | 1.34 | |
|
15*. Special education provides a valuable service for students with disabilities. | 454 | 5.4 | 1.02 | |
|
16***. Regular teachers must spend a great deal of time with students with disabilities. | 450 | 3.4 | 1.49 | |
|
17**. Efforts are made to provide opportunities for mutual planning and collaboration among personnel in my school/district. | 453 | 3.7 | 1.47 | |
|
18*. Students should be grouped in ways which allow a wide variety of abilities in each class. | 448 | 4.4 | 1.42 | |
|
19***. All students should be included in regular environments to the greatest extent possible. | 454 | 4.9 | 1.33 | |
|
20*. Slow learners should receive special help outside the regular classroom. | 444 | 3.9 | 1.62 | |
|
21**. Opportunities for staff development are provided by my school district which meet my needs for professional growth. | 453 | 4.7 | 1.36 | |
|
22***. Inclusion in the regular classroom will hurt the educational progress of the student with a disability. | 449 | 2.7 | 1.40 | |
|
23***. Placement of a student with a disability into a regular classroom is disruptive to students without disabilities. | 449 | 3.1 | 1.48 | |
|
24*. In most cases, students should be grouped by ability. | 451 | 2.8 | 1.58 | |
* Items used for effective strategies variable.
** Items used for support for change variable.
*** Items used for inclusive education variable.NOTE: The number of responders varies because of missing cases (Not all people responded to every item)
| Source | D.F. | Sum of
Squares |
Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 5.5 | 1.83 | 2.98 | .03 |
| Within Groups | 432 | 265.88 | .62 | ||
| TOTAL | 435 | 266.76 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
|
Grp 1 (1 - 9 years) | 101 | 4.80 | .752 | .075 | |
|
Grp 2 (10 - 16 years) | 117 | 4.95 | .814 | .075 | |
|
Grp 3 (17 - 21 years) | 103 | 5.12 | .826 | .072 | |
|
Grp 4 (22 - 38 years) | 115 | 4.95 | .790 | .077 | |
| Source | D.F. | Sum
of Squares | Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 17.08 | 5.69 | 9.67 | .01 |
| Within Groups | 432 | 254.30 | .589 | ||
| TOTAL | 435 | 271.38 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
| SE Teach | 135 | 5.05 | .777 | .067 | |
| RE Teach | 125 | 4.65 | .820 | .073 | |
| Principal | 79 | 5.07 | .682 | .077 | |
| SE Direct | 97 | 5.14 | .749 | .076 | |
| Source | D.F. | Sum of
Squares |
Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 17.15 | 5.717 | 7.26 | .01 |
| Within Groups | 431 | 339.42 | .788 | ||
| TOTAL | 434 | 356.57 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
|
Grp 1 (1 - 9 years) | 98 | 4.24 | .900 | .090 | |
|
Grp 2 (10 - 16 years) | 112 | 4.18 | .950 | .090 | |
|
Grp 3 (17 - 21 years) | 108 | 4.54 | .794 | .076 | |
|
Grp 4 (22 - 38 years) | 117 | 4.65 | .900 | .083 | |
| Source | D.F. | Sum
of Squares | Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 18.99 | 6.330 | 8.08 | .01 |
| Within Groups | 431 | 337.58 | .783 | ||
| TOTAL | 434 | 356.57 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
| SE Teach | 136 | 4.17 | .820 | .070 | |
| RE Teach | 121 | 4.33 | 1.040 | .095 | |
| Principal | 79 | 4.61 | .766 | .086 | |
| SE Direct | 99 | 4.68 | .854 | .086 | |
| Source | D.F. | Sum of
Squares |
Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 10.82 | 3.610 | 3.94 | .01 |
| Within Groups | 435 | 398.20 | .915 | ||
| TOTAL | 438 | 409.02 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
|
Grp 1 (1 - 9 years) | 97 | 4.11 | 1.030 | .104 | |
|
Grp 2 (10 - 16 years) | 113 | 4.16 | 1.010 | .095 | |
|
Grp 3 (17 - 21 years) | 111 | 4.52 | .842 | .080 | |
|
Grp 4 (22 - 38 years) | 118 | 4.30 | .941 | .087 | |
| Source | D.F. | Sum of
Squares |
Mean Squares | F Ratio | F Prob. |
| Between Groups | 3 | 67.26 | 22.420 | 28.54 | .01 |
| Within Groups | 435 | 341.76 | .786 | ||
| TOTAL | 438 | 409.02 | |||
| Group | Count | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |
|
Grp 1 (1 - 9 years) | 139 | 4.48 | .925 | .078 | |
|
Grp 2 (10 - 16 years) | 122 | 3.71 | .983 | .089 | |
|
Grp 3 (17 - 21 years) | 80 | 4.21 | .824 | .092 | |
|
Grp 4 (22 - 38 years) | 98 | 4.75 | .966 | .075 | |
1. It is important to make modifications for students who need adaptations to benefit from a particular instructional environment (mean = 5.6).
2. Special education provides a valuable service for students with disabilities (mean = 5.4).
3. Students' progress should be graded according to ability rather than only with standardized measures (mean = 5.2).
4. Maximum class size should be reduced when students with disabilities are placed in regular classrooms (mean = 5.2).
End Notes
1. Our thinking regarding policy is strongly influenced by
Anderson (1979), Dye (1995), and Jones (1984).
2. We accept Dye's (1995) definition: ". . . public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do." (p. 4)
Anderson, J. A. (1979). Public Policy-Making. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Ashton, P. A., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Ayres, B. & Meyer, L. (1992, February). Helping teachers manage the inclusive classroom. The School Administrator, 30-37.
Baker, E. T. (1994). Meta-analytic evidence for non- inclusive educational practices: Does educational research support current practice for special-needs students? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia: Temple University.
Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership,42(4), 33-35.
Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta- analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1992, November). Reframing the school reform agenda. The School Administrator, (22-27).
de Vaus, D. A. (1986). Surveys in social research (Contemporary social research series; II). London: George Allen & Unwin Publishers Ltd.
Diebold, M. H., & Trentham, L. L. (1987). Special educator predictions of regular class teacher attitudes concerning mainstreaming. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10(1), 19- 25.
Duttweiler, P. C. (1989). Changing the old ways. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 64-66.
Dye, T. R. (1995). Understanding Public Policy (Eighth Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
English, F. (1988). School-Based Management: A Strategy for Better Learning. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Ehrenberg, C. G. (1992). Beliefs of Regular and Special Education Teachers Regarding Students At-risk: A Qualitative Case Study of Issues and Professional Roles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.
Finn, C. E. J. (1986). We can shape our destiny. Educational Leadership, 44(1), 4-6.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive school movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-309.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-385.
Georgia Department of Education (1994). 1994 Georgia Public Education Directory. Atlanta, Georgia.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. Phi delta Kappan, 71, 425-435.
Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gross, S. J. (1985). Personal power and empowerment. Contemporary Education, 56(3), 137-143.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing children in special education: a strategy for equity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press.
Hess, G. A. (Jr.) (1994). School-based management as a vehicle for school reform. Education and Urban Society, 26 (3), 203-219.
Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press.
Jones, C. O. (1984). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lane, J. J., & Epps, E. G. (Eds.) (1992). Restructuring the schools: Problems and prospects. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Lieberman, A. (1990). Navigating the four C's: Building a bridge over troubled waters. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(7), 531-533.
Lilly, M. S. (1988). The regular education initiative: A force for change in general and special education. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 253-260.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1987). Capable of achievement and worthy of respect: Education for handicapped students as if they were full-fledged human beings. Exceptional Children, 54, 69-74.
Lynn, L. (1994). Bibliography on School Restructuring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
McDaniel, E., & Dibella-McCarthy, H. (1989). Enhancing teacher efficacy in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(4), 34-38.
McCarthy, M. M. (1994). Inclusion and the law: Recent judicial developments. Research Bulletin, 13, 1-4.
Meek, A. (1988). On teaching as a profession: A conversation with Linda Darling-Hammond. Educational Leadership, 46, 11-17.
National Association of State Boards of Education (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, Virginia.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1994). National Survey on Inclusive Education (Number 1). Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York.
Nelson, R. C. (19 Robins' eggs, teachers and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 632-638.
Nunnery, M. Y., & Kimbrough, R. B. (1971). Power, Polls, and School Elections. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Oakes, J. (1989). What educational indicators? The case for assessing the school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 181-199.
Odden, E. R., & Wohlsetter, P. (1995). Making school-based management work. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 32-36.
Pugach, M. (1988). Special education as a constraint on teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 52-59.
Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553-576.
Reschly, D. J. (1988a). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459-475.
Reschly, D. J. (1988b). Obstacles, starting points, and doldrums not withstanding: Reform/revolution from outcomes criteria. School Psychology Review, 17, 495-501.
Reynolds, M., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.
Reynolds, M., & Wang, M. C. (1983). Restructuring "special"school programs: A position paper. Policy Studies Review, 2, 189-212.
Rose, D. F., & Smith, B. J. (1993). Preschool mainstreaming: Attitude barriers and strategies for addressing them. Young Children, 48(4), 59-62.
Sergiovanni, T., & Moore, J. (1989). Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: general classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18 - 27.
Shanker, A. (1986). Teachers must take charge. Educational Leadership, 44(1).
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1985). The merger of special and regular education: can it be done? A response to Lieberman and Mesinger. Exceptional Children, 51, 517-521.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1987). Integration versus cooperation: A commentary on "Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility." Exceptional Children, 54, 66- 68.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1989). No more teachers of students with severe handicaps. TASH Newsletter, 15, 9.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 50, 102-111.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling: Interdependent Integrated Education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-41.
Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with severe Handicaps, 13, 41-53.
Trendall, C. (1989). Stress in teaching and teacher effectiveness: A study of teachers across mainstream and special education. Educational Research, 31(1), 52-58.
U. S. Congress (1990). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Van Dyke, R., Stallings, M. A., & Colley, K. (1995). How to build an inclusive school community: A success story. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(6), 475-479.
Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1992). Preserving the least restrictive environment. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1993). Beyond the regular education initiative/inclusion and the resource room controversy. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Educating students with mild disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Walberg, H. J., & Niemiec, R. P. (1994). Is Chicago school reform working? Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 713-715.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems - a shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 411-415.
Wang, M. C., & Baker, E. T. (1985-86). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 503-521.
Wang, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1984). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 50, 391-397.
Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Rethinking special education. Educational Leadership, 44, 26-31.
Wohlstetter, P., & Briggs, K. L. (1994). The principal's role in school-based management. Principal, 74 (2) 14, 16-17.
Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (4), 529-549.
Yatvin, J. (1995). Flawed assumptions. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(6), 482-484.