Citation
The relationship between educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role

Material Information

Title:
The relationship between educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students
Creator:
Voorneveld, Richard Burke, 1949-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 130 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High school principals -- Attitudes -- Florida ( lcsh )
Mainstreaming in education -- Florida ( lcsh )
Children with disabilities -- Education -- Florida ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 125-129.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard Burke Voorneveld.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029084473 ( ALEPH )
09701164 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF SECONDARY SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR
PERCEIVED ROLE, KNOWLEDGE LEVEL, AND DEGREE OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS
BY
RICHARD BURKE VOORNEVELD
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1982




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of several individuals who took an active interest in the preparation of this study. Sincere thanks are extended to my program commiittee members, Dr. Catherine Morsink and Dr. Edward Turner. Special thanks are expressed to Dr. Bob Algozzine for his assistance above and beyond the call of duty. His humor, professionalism, and friendship proved to be invaluable in the completion of this document.
A very special thank you is extended to my committee chairperson, Dr. Stuart Schwartz. His wit, perseverance, professional
expertise, stamina, friendship, and clear insight into personal goals and objectives have taught me not only what it means to be a quality professional, but also what it means to be a quality human being.
To my friends, Charlie Hughes, Reid Linn, Alice Jones, John and
Sue Beattie, and Lee Clark, a large debt of gratitude is expressed for their support in the completion of this dissertation. Without their friendship and camaraderie my doctoral program would have been missing a very important ingredient.
I would also like to thank Leila Cantara, the person who taught me the true meaning of self-reliance. Her professional assistance, personal advice, optimistic personality, and love for people have
ii




been greatly admired. Her friendship and support throughout my doctoral program have been invaluable.
I would like to thank Or. Cecil Mercer and Or. Bill Reid for the support and encouragement during the many phases of my doctoral program. To my friend Ruth Brightwell, who long ago put me on the right track and kept me on task, I express my sincere thanks.
Special appreciation is expressed to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Albert H. Voorneveld, Sr., for always believing in me and providing the environment which fostered the ability to reach for the stars. Most of all, I thank my wife, Susan, and children, Corrie and Brice, for their love and understanding. Without their support, sacrifices, encouragement, adaptability, independence, and forgiveness for my inattentiveness, I would neve7 have attained my personal goals. Their support was without a doubt t number one contributing factor to the completion of my doctoral pr( jram.
iii




TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........ ....................... ii
ABSTRACT ......... .......................... .vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........ ................... 1
Rationale .......... .......................... 2
Statement of the Problem ........ .................. 6
Questions Under Investigation ....... ................ 6
Definition of Terms ........ ..................... 7
Variables ....... ......................... ..O.10
Assumptions ..................... ............. 11
Purpose ....... ........................... ..11
Delimitations .......... ........................ 12
Limitations ....... ......................... ... 12
Summary ........ .......................... ... 13
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..... .......... 15
Introduction ....... ........................ ... 16
Training of Administrators .... ................. ....17
Inservice Training ........ .................... 18
Preservice Training ........ ................... 21
perceived Role of Administrators .................. ... 23
Administrative Practices .... ................. ... 23
Responsibilities of Administrators ............... ... 27
iv




Administration of Mainstream Programs . . . . . . 33
Concept of Mainstreaming . . . . . . . . 34
Implementation of Mainstreaming . . . . . . . 36
Summary 42
CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . 44
Subjects 44
Subject Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Description of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 47
Instrumentation and Data Collection . . . . . . 48
Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . 52
Design 52
Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . 53
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Summary ... 55
CHAPTER IV RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . 56
Perceived Role Comparisons . . . . . . . . . 58
Comparisons of Knowledge of Handicapped Students . . . 61
Comparisons of Degree of Mainstreaming in the Administrators' Respective School . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Additional Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 65
Summary 66
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . 68
Summary 68
Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . 68
Method 70
Design 71
Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . 72
v




Conclusions . .. . . . .. .. .. ... . 73
Implications ........ ......................... 77
APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND INTERVIEW FORM ... 80
B QUESTIONNAIRE ....... .................. 83
C SUBSKILLS FOR COMPETENCY 24 .... ........... 91
D PUPIL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DATA FORM .......... ..108
E RAW DATA ....... .................... III
F ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS ... ............... ..120
REFERENCES ........ ......................... ..125
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....... ..................... 130
vi




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF SECONDARY SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR PERCEIVED ROLE, KNOWLEDGE LEVEL, AND DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS
By
Richard Burke Voorneveld
December, 1982
Chairperson: Stuart E. Schwartz
Major Department: Special Education
This research was conducted in an effort to describe any relationships among the educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. The subjects in this investigation were
36 secondary school-based administrators who were selected from four categories of administrators, i.e., those who had preservice training in special education, those who had inservice training in special education, those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and those who had neither inservice nor preservice
training in special education. A two-part questionnaire was administered to each subject to determine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. The actual degree of implementation
vii




of mainstream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district.
An ex post facto design was used in this study. Comparisons
were made among the four groups of subjects to describe any relationships which may exist relative to the level of training on the perceived role of the administrator, the knowledge level of the admistrator, and the degree of mainstreaming implemented in each school. Differences among the scores on the four types of administrators were described by a series of one-way ANOVAs.
As a result of this study it can be concluded that the type of training received by secondary school-based administrators in special education was not associated with differences in their perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their schools. Some similarities found among the four groups are discussed in the study. Suggestions for future research are also presented.
viii




CHAPTER
I NTRODUCTION
Among the responsibilities of the secondary school principal
is a mandate for leadership in the area of implementation of special education programs. In order to appropriately serve handicapped secondary students, the principal must have the knowledge base and administrative skill to successfully implement program change (Gage, 1979; Robeson, 1977; Semnel, Gottlieb, & Robinson, 1979). As the ultimate success or failure of mainstreaming is dependent upon the leadership of school administrators, research regarding the education and training in special education received by building principals and the effect of such training on the implementation of mainstreaming programs is essential.
This research was conducted in an effort to describe any relationships that may exist among the educatioral background of
secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. In order to assist schooi administrators in the effective implementation of mainstream programs it is necessary to first determine what ingredients are required for successful programming for handicapped students.
I




2
This research will assist personnel at universities and colleges in the development of preservice and inservice training programs that will prepare school-based administrators who need a foundation of knowledge about exceptional students and mainstreaming in order to meet the mandate of P.L. 94-142 to provide an appropriate education for all students. In addition, information obtained from this study will provide those personnel with needed data to help them develop appropriate inservice and preservice training programs for administrators. Without identifying the role of the administrator in the implementation of mainstream programs it is impossible to expect that special needs students can and will be appropriately mainstreamed.
This chapter presents the framework for this research. The major sections included are (a) rationale, (b) statement of the problem, (c) question under investigation, (d) definitiun of terms,
(e) variables, (f) related questions, (g) assumptions, (h) purpose,
(i) delimitations, (j) limitations, and (k) a summary of the chapter.
Rationale
Concern and controversy have arisen over the concept of the
least restrictive environment since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) in 1975. Placement for many handicapped students in the least restrictive environment is mandated by P.L. 93-380. The question that has emerged from this mandate is not "why" a school should implement these policies, but
"how" to implement these policies. The "why" of mainstreaming has been recognized as




3
(a) providing the most appropriate education for each child in the least restrictive environment;
(b) looking at the educational needs of children instead of clinical or diagnostic labels;
(c) looking for and creating alternatives that will help general educators serve children with learning or behavior problems in the regular setting; and
(d) uniting the skills of general education and special education so that all children may have equal educational opportunity (Council for Exceptional Children, 1975).
The "how" of mainstreaming is a more abstract concept. The
principal is the key to successful implementation of program change and his/her administrative support is necessary for the success of any new process or program (Amos & Moody, 1977). The view of principals as leaders is not inconsistent with studies of effective schools and descriptive studies of principals' behaviors. Effective schools require a sense of purpose and direction provided by well developed and clearly articulated goals (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980). It is the responsibility of the principal to effectively manage goal-setting activities for the school as a whole and to achieve some consensus among the staff about goals and priorities. Successful implementation of such goal setting requires that the principal have the analytic and intellectual skills to provide meaningful and specific operational guidance to the school staff. Also, the knowledge base and managerial skills necessary to resolve conflict and make the planning process work are essential (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980).




4
Several researchers have attempted to determine what issues administrators should be concerned with in order to effectively mainstream handicapped students. Oaks (1979) suggested that administrators should be knowledgeable about handicapping conditions so they can properly program for special needs students. The results of a study by Davis (1981) indicated that principals considered a combination of regular class and part-time resource rowm to be the most effective placement for mildly handicapped students. Davis (1980) suggested that most administrative preservice programs do not address special education issues in their curriculum. However,
empirical data are extremely limited regarding the administrative behaviors of school-based administrators in the support and implementation of mainstreaming programs (Leitz & Kaiser, 1979).
Additional research is essential in order to determine the
roles and responsibilities of administrators in the implementation of mainstreaming programs. This study provides a foundation for the development of effective and efficient inservice and preservice training programs that will appropriately prepare secondary school-based administrators to mainstream programs that serve handicapped students.
Principals surveyed in a study by Davis (1980) indicated that
formal training in special education was important and that their time involvement with special education issues increased as a result of recent legislation. The question arises as to how influential administrators can be regarding mainstream programs if they lack formal training in the area of special education. Educators and




5
administrators are becoming increasingly more concerned about the effects of placement of mildly handicapped students (learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, educable mentally retarded) in mainstream programs. Inappropriate mainstreaming can result
in the most restrictive rather than the least restrictive environment (Hoben, 1980). Several reasons are thought to be contributing to this concern.
1. Regular education teachers and administrators have little or no knowledge about the methodology and theory of special education programs (Middleton, Morsink. & Cohen, 1979).
2. Regular education teachers have poor attitudes toward
students who are labeled as needing special education (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982).
3. Evidence is inconclusive as to whether being given inservice or preservice training relating to special education can affect teachers attitudes toward mainstreaming (McAdams, 1981).
Dozier (1979) indicated that principals who viewed handicapped students in an accepting, positive manner had fewer problems implementing mainstream programs. Gage (1979) suggested that the principal should provide the leadership in planning for the mainstreaming of handicapped students. The principal should inform the faculty about the mainstreaming process prior to implementation in that school.
Although previous research documents the need for the schoolbased administrator to be knowledgeable about special education in order to implement effective mainstream programs, few research studies




6
have addressed the type and/or amount of training received by administrators. The present study attempted to determine the type (inservice or preservice) of training received by administrators selected for the study, the administrator's perceived role in the mainstreaming process, and the degree of mainstreaming conducted. This information will assist researchers, educators, and administrators in the development of mainstream programs that will appropriately serve handicapped students.
Statement of the Problem
The principal is the key to successful implementation of program change and his/her administrative support is necessary for the success of any new program (Amos & Moody, 1977). School administrators receive different types of training. The affect of the differences in their training on their perceived role; knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students; and the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools is unknown.
Questions Under Investigation
1. Is there a difference in perceived role in the mainstreaming process among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservicernor inservice training?




7
2. Is there a difference in knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students among secondary
school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training?
3. Is there a difference in the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both
preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training?
Answers to these questions will provide the groundwork for future research in this area. This information will describe the effect of training on the perceived role, knowledge about mainstreaming, and the degree of mainstreaming implemented by administrators.
Definition of Terms
Educational background-The educational background of a secondary school-based administrator represents the two major modes of administrator training (preservice or inservice) received in special education.
Preservice training reflects the training received prior to becoming an administrator; inservice training reflects the training received while serving as a school administrator.
Preservice-The term preservice training generally means traditional four-year college coursework in special education and student teaching leading to teacher certification or five-year plus coursework leading




8
to administrative licensure (Morsink, 1981). Preservice education is exclusively the province of universities and colleges.
Inservice-Inservice training is defined as workshops, seminars, professional conferences, or institutes related to the education of special needs learners received by an individual while employed as a school administrator. While preservice education is exclusively the province of universities, other agencies, including school districts, professional associations, and state departments of education, as well as universities, provide inservice education for school administrators.
Knowledge-For the purposes of this study, knowledge will be determined by the score received by the secondary school-based administrator on the State of Florida Teacher Certification Test, Subskills for Competency #24. The Subskills for Competency #24 contains six narratives describing hypothetical situations involving handicapped children in public school settings. The questions following each narrative are multiple choice and the total score of correct answers was used to indicate knowledge level of each administrator.
Degree of Mainstreaming-This term refers to the percentage of time that students classified as mildly handicapped (learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, educable mentally retarded) spend in mainstream classrooms in each administrator's school.
Mainstream Classroom-Public school mainstream classrooms are related to variations of four administrative models. These are (a)




9
the resource room model where the child generally leaves the regular class for special instruction over certain periods of time, (b) the partial integration model where the child is assigned to the regular and special class for specific blocks of time, (c) the learning disability model where the child is usually a member of the regular classroom who is provided with additional assistance in the regular classroom, and Md combination class model where handicapped children are placed in small-group regular classrooms with the availability of special materials (Semmel et al., 1979).
Role-A role can be defined as "the actual deeds performed by a person in a position" (Crazo & Yanouzas, 1967, p. 142). For the purposes of this study, the role of the administrator is defined as the actions he/she undertakes in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs.
Perceived Role-Perceived role, as defined for the purposes of this study, reflects the administrator's perception of his/her actual duties and responsibilities in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs. The perceived role of the administrator was obtained from responses to the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire (grouped into three categories-staff, program, and legal issues).
Secondary School-Based Administrators-For the purposes of this study, these individuals are principals and assistant principals of junior and senior high schools, located in a school system in Florida. Each administrator met criteria for inclusion in one of the following four categories:




10
I. Administrators who had preservice training in special
education.
2. Administrators who had inservice training in special
education.
3. Administrators who had neither inservice nor preservice
training in special education.
4. Administrators who had both inservice and preservice
training in special education.
Variables
rn this study one independent variable was addressed. This is the educational background of secondary school-based administrators at four different levels: (a) those who have had preservice training in special education, (b) those who have had inservice training in special education, (c) those who have had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and (d) those who have had neither preservice nor inservice training in special education. The three dependent variables in this study are (1) the secondary school-based
administrators' perceived role in dealing with special education programing, (2) the secondary school-based administrators' level of knowledge regarding special education, and (3) the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the secondary school-based administrators' respective schools.




Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
1. The secondary school-based administrator's knowledge level about special education programs relates to teachers' and students' success with mainstreaming.
2. The secondary school-based administrator is a major impetus to effective mainstreaming programs.
3. rnservice and preservice training (as defined in this study) are appropriate ways of dispensing knowledge about special education/mainstreaming to administrators.
Purpose
The ultimate success of special education programming is highly dependent on the leadership of school principals. Principals provide the leadership which could make mainstreaming a success in their schools. This study attempted to determine whether preservice or inservice training in special education is associated with the principal's perception of his/her role, knowledge level of special education/ mainstreaming, or the degree of mainstream programming in the schools administered by secondary level administrators. The research of Rebore (1980) and Gage (1979) indicated that the leadership of school
administrators is critical if mainstreaming is to become an effective method for meeting the needs of handicapped students. Therefore, it is imperative that research be conducted which will assist administrators in the implementation of mainstream programs in their schools.




12
Delimitations
The subjects in this study were 36 secondary school-based
administrators from a large metropolitan school district in Florida. This school district is located in northeast Florida and has approximately 100 school-based secondary level administrators in the school systen~. Subjects for this study were confined to those selected from the general secondary administrative population of this school district.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the variance in the preservice or inservice training that the administrators received. These training programs may or may not have offered similar course content, and the style of presentation may have been different. A second limitation of this study was the amount of time between the administrators' preservice or inservice training and the present study. A third limitation of the study was the use of perceived role as a dependent variable. This reflects the administrator's own perception of his/her actual job activities and responsibilities in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs. This, therefore, reflects only the individual administrator's
views of his/her role and not how they are viewed by others or their actual roles and responsibilities as outlined on a job description. A fourth limitation of this study was the determination of knowledge
of special education based on the six-item instrument developed from




13
the State of Florida teacher Certification Test, Subskills for
Competency #24. This cannot be inferred as determining total knowledge
of special education, but only as a sampling of knowledge as suggested
by the seven specific items. A final limitation of this study was the
lack of general izabilIity from the target population to the entire
population of secondary school-based administrators.
Suninary
Since the enactmient of The Education for All Handicapped Children
Act in 1975, school administrators have been charged with the responsibility of providing equal educational opportunity for special needs
students in the least restrictive environment. Some competencies
general education administrators must have to implement mainstreaming
programs were identified by Egner (1977) and are as follows:
1. assure due process for handicapped children,
2. resolve conflict among program personnel,
3. cause to establish (in consultation with appropriate
groups) school district policies which lead to educational programs in the least restrictive alternative
for every handicapped child,
4. determine staff functions and qualifications that will
be required to conduct programs for the handicapped,
S. budget time for teachers, support staff, and administrators to create programs for individuals or groups
of children with special needs,
6. design and maintain a student evaluation system that
will reliably show student progress in instructional
programs,
7. show with data that handicapped children are being
educated in the least restrictive environment,
8. assist staff and faculty to redesign their programs
to meet the needs of handicapped children,
9. establish activities for identifying, locating, and
evaluating all children eligible for special education
services,
10. demonstrate that the time handicapped students are
educated with nonhandicapped age mates is well used,




14
11. lead multidisciplinary staffing for handicapped
children. (pp. 82-86)
Special educators, general educators, parents, and children
need principal s/assistant principals who will assume the leadership role in the development and support of mainstream programs. As the ultimate success of mainstreaming programs is dependent on the leadership of school-based administrators, it would appear that research is warranted to study the educational background of these administrators in relation to their perceived roles, knowledge level, and the degree of mainstreaming utilized in their schools.
A comprehensive review of the literature revealed a paucity
of research on the issue of educational background of administrators and effective mainstreaming practices. Mainstreaming as an independent variable has been treated in a very broad sense by investigators, with almost no attention given to specifying the educational planning or programming that defines the process (Semmel et al., 1979). If mainstreaming is to result in improved quality of education for handicapped students, administrators must consider alterations in educational programming in addition to placement of handicapped students with nonhandicapped peers. rhe present study was designed to assist the administrator and researcher in the development of the needed training of administrators.




CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
An extensive review of the literature revealed a paucity of research on the effect of training in special education on the administrator's perceived role, knowledge level of special education, and the degree of implementation of mainstream programs. Administrators are charged with the responsibility of overseeing
the placement and education of handicapped students in the least restrictive environments following the guidelines in Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The present study attempted to determine if preservice or inservice training in special education is associated with several aspects of the role of administrators regarding the mainstreaming of handicapped students.
The major areas reviewed in this chapter are (a) the training of administrators, (b) the perceived role of administrators, and
(c) the implementation of mainstream programs. Information for this chapter was obtained from a review of books, reports, and journal
articles covering topics on the role of the administrator in special education, knowledge of special education, and implementation of mainstreaming programs. The sources utilized were the Education
15




16
Index, the Cumulative Index of Journals in Education, and an ERIC computer search.
The literature review revealed a critical need for research regarding the role of the administrator and the training of the administrator in special education. Research in these areas is needed if administrators are to be provided with the tools they need to develop and implement effective mainstream programs.
Introduction
Leadership from building administrators is critical if least restrictive envirornment/mainstreaming, as mandated by P.L. 94-142, is to become an effective method in meeting individual student needs
(Rebore, 1980). School administrators must have an understanding of the characteristics, needs, and educational provisions appropriate for each exceptional child in order to develop and administer adequate programs for children with special needs. The climate within a school is greatly influenced by the administrators and faculty. Students and parents will not be able to cope with ongoing changes such as mainstreaming if the faculty does not foster a growth producing atmosphere. Therefore, administrative leadership is a necessary ingredient.
The mainstreaming of handicapped students into the regular
classroom is relatively easy; facilitating integration is the more challenging task (Hoben, 1980). Hoben stressed that the appropriately mainstreamed student will be an integral part of the class, acknowledged




17
by peers and teachers and incorporated into classroom activities. Integration rather than maintenance is the desired outcome. The purpose of educating handicapped students in the mainstream is more than having them merely present in regular classes.
Although goals established for handicapped children in mainstreamed environments encompass both academic and social/personal objectives, mainstreaming can be successful only to the extent that it integrates handicapped students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped peers (Dunlop, Stoneman, & Cantrell, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1980). Principals should provide the leadership to make mainstreaming a success in their schools. In order to do so they need to have the skills required to make the concept of mnainstreaming work. Special educators, regular educators, parents, and children need principals who will assume the leadership role in mainstream programs (Gage, 1979).
Training of Administrators
Due to the expanding role of principals regarding special education issues, a legitimate question of training of administrators arises. If the principal should be viewed as the catalyst for effective mainstreaming programs at the building level, this would appear to suggest that he/she should have some training in special education and the problems of educating handicapped children (Davis, 1980). The two major modes by which administrators and educators receive training in special education are (1) inservice and (2) preservice.




18
Inservice Training
Inservice education is the use of specified materials and planned activities to improve the instructional skills of practicing teachers (Schmid & McAdams, in press). "It Is distinguished from preservice education only by time, sequence, and population" (Schmid & McAdams, in press, p. 2). The rationale for inservice education centers on two major points:
1. The preservice preparation of a teacher is an introduction to the world of teaching. Only basic skills and knowledge can be absorbed in the allotted time and limited environment of the college
or university. The "complete teacher" is developed over time and through experience (Schmid & McAdams, in press).
2. The dynamic nature of society and an accelerating acquisition
of knowledge sometimes make today's acceptable teaching practices ineffective or obsolete. This is true of methods, techniques, tools, and substantive knowledge (Schmid & McAdams, in press).
Inservice Training for Administrators. The provision of inservice training for administrators and educators is important to assist the administrator in satisfying the diverse needs of students. The school has evolved in recent years to a point where the need for renewal for service delivery personnel is critical. It is critical in the sense that state and federal mandates required organizational, managerial,
atti tudinal, and behavioral changes throughout the school. Many of the mandates and changes may not have previously been a part of the school's general practices. The traditional school organizational




19
patterns now must accommodate students with special needs in regular classrooms. Haring, Stern, and Cruickshank (1958) asserted that mainstreaming can be acccnplished successfully only if, among other things, the teachers and principals with whom these children come in contact understand and accept them. Enservice training is a step toward accomplishing these goals.
Effects of inservice training. Several researchers have investigated the effects of inservice training on the mainstreaming of handicapped students (Hawasymiw & Home, 1976; Payne & Murray, 1974; Yates, 1973). Hawasymiw and Horne (1976) conducted a study involving three groups of teachers. The groups included (a) teachers who taught in integrated schools (where handicapped students were placed in classes with nonhandicapped students); (b) teachers who completed practica, participated in university conducted workshops and seminars during the academic year; and (c) teachers who neither participated in the training program nor acquired experience in an integrated setting. Hawasymiw and Horne (1976) reported that teachers who taught in integrated schools and teachers who participated in the training program endorsed mainstreaming more than teachers who neither participated in the program nor taught in integrated schools. In this study, however, the effect of inservice training was confounded with that of teaching in an integrated school.
In another study, Payne and Murray (1974) selected 50 urban principals and five suburban principals and solicted information regarding the principals' willingness to integrate handicapped children into their regular education programs. Results indicated




20
that 40.3 percent of the responding urban principals and 71.4 percent of the suburban principals accepted the concept of integration of the handicapped child. Both groups of principals perceived the need for inservice teacher training as the number one need of regular teachers.
Yates (1973), who has also studied inservice training, controlled for educational setting by investigating the effects of such training on teachers in nonintegrated schools. Yates reported gains in factual knowledge and greater willingness by teachers to integrate some categories of exceptional children into the regular classrooms.
Objectives of training. The objective of inservice training for special education personnel is to continually prepare and update with specific knowledge, skills, or the attitudes necessary to perform their roles (Kells, 1981). The inservice education program initiates and supports effective change. Such an approach begins with the "(1) identification of prograrmatic and individual needs; (2) planning, management, an4 implementation of inservice education programs; (3) ongoing evaluation; and (4) continuous needs assessment" (Kells, 1981, p. 117).
Importance of training. Providing inservice training for educators and administrators is important as they are informed about innovative programs which may assist them in meeting the needs of their students. Effectiveness, in the level of performance of educators who teach students exhibiting special needs, is of concern to policymakers, administrators, and parents (Mann, 1981). These educators must continue to improve their expertise as a part of the process of continuous professional self-development.




21
Preservice Training
The term preservice training generally means traditional fouryear college coursework and student teaching leading to teacher certification or five-years plus coursework leading to administrative licensure (Morsink, 1981). All preservice education is exclusively the province of universities, while other agencies, including school districts, professional associations, and state departments of education, as well as universities, provide inservice education for school administrators.
Administrator preparation. Complaints about preservice graduate studies in educational administration are legion among school administrators (Pitner, Riley, & Giduk, 1981). In a survey of 500 school districts, school administrators ranked the usefulness of college and university training low (Pitner, Riley, & Giduk, 1981). Over half indicated that they preferred the services of the state education agency for assistance in professional development.
Thus, it is recognized that changes are needed in initial preparation programs that certify educators and administrators for public school employment. Some of the needed changes result from the need for regular teachers and administrators to educate handicapped children.
Effects of preservice training. Very few studies have investigated the effects of preservice training of regular educators or administrators in special education on the mainstreaming of handicapped students. Naor and Milgram (1980) conducted a study of 80 undergraduate women completing programs in regular education. A one semester preservice




22
training program increased knowledge about exceptional children and improved general attitudes toward them, with the majority of the student teachers acquiring a high level of factual knowledge and displaying positive attitudes toward exceptional children. Preservice training that provides for contact with different kinds of exceptional children as well as for lecture-discuss ions about them was found to have an advantage over training limited to lecturediscussions in the realms of attitudes and behavioral intentions (Naor & Milgram, 1980).
Degree of training. In 1980, Davis investigated the degree of formal special education training of public school principals in Maine. Questionnaires were distributed to 345 public school principals. Three major areas were investigated.
1. The principals' amount of formal training, relative
to special education.
2. The importance of formal training in special education
in university training programs and courses for public
school administrators.
3. The increase in the amount of professional time devoted
to special education issues as a result of special
education legislation requirements.
Results indicated that 95.4 percent of the respondents had no major or minor in special education. Further, 51.9 percent of the respondents had never taken even one course in special education. The data indicated that 58 percent of the respondents considered training in




23
the area of special education to be extremely important. Eighty-six percent of the respondents viewed the increase in time devoted to special education as moderate to extremely difficult.
Need for preservice. Higher education institutions which prepare
educators and administrators for public school employment must keep pace with change. Recent legislation, P.L. 94-142, exerts pressure for changes in preservice education (Morsink, 1981). There is a
need for preservice programs to prepare educators and administrators for responsibilities with handicapped students.
Perceived Role of Administrators
General school administrators responsible for special education programs in local school districts perform one of the most overlooked roles in special education. They are responsible for the placement of and educational planning for handicapped students in the least restrictive environment. Awareness of the operation, organization, and administration of special education programs by general school
administrators has received limited attention from educational researchers (Raske, 1979).
Administrative Practices
Given the central role of the principal, it is important to
determine crucial administrative practices which foster and maintain successful public school mainstream programs. Information obtained through this literature review generated a list of administrative




24
practices that effectively support mainstreaming programs. The review of administrative practices generated 90 articles, nine of which met the following criteria established for this study so that the appropriate literature is reviewed and reported.
1. The selection had to come from professional
literature.
2. The selection had to focus on public school
administrative practices in mainstreaming.
3. If data based, appropriate scientific design and
procedures were needed.
4. The references that the author(s) cited had to
be current.
5. The selections had to deal with public school
administration.
6. The selections had to address the area of exceptional child education.
7. Selectiars published before the passage of P.L.
94-142 (November 1975) were not considered.
Administrative practices which were most frequently mentioned are included in Table 1. It appears there are specific administrative practices which help foster and maintain mainstream programs. The most frequently identified practice was for the principal to foster a "growth providing" atmosphere. This encourages the faculty to work as a team, and encourages team planning between special education and regular education teachers (Amos & Moody, 1977;




25
Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Mergler, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979).
Frequently noted practices. The six most frequently noted administrative practices were
(1) Foster a growth producing atmosphere and encourage the faculty to work as a team and develop a sense of team planning between general and special educators (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979).
(2) Provide for the careful planning and the possession of a
clear conceptualization of mainstreaming (Mergler, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Tarrier, 1978; Thomason & Arkell, 1980).
(3) Provide opportunities for familiarizing yourself and your staff with identification processes for securing special education assistance (Amos & Moody, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Sivage, 1979).
(4) Encourage expansion of activities in the mainstreaming effort, deal with attitudes and educate children about handicaps (Amos & Moody, 1977; Gage, 1979; Thomason & Arkell, 1980).
(5) Provide inservice educational opportunities to regular
classroom teachers and become cognizant of the characteristics of the mildly handicapped and provide ongoing technical assistance (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Oaks, 1979; Sivage, 1979; Thomason & Arkell, 1980).
(6) Use special education teachers as support personnel (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Thomason & Arkell, 1980).




Table 1
Results of Studies Reviewed
Results
Foster a growth producing atmosphere and encourage the faculty to work as a team and dev:loP a sense of team planning between general and special education. Leadersh should be concerned with innovation not maintenance. Careful panning and the possession of a clear conceptualization of mainstreaming. *
Familiarize yourself and your staff with identification processes for securing special education assistance.
Avoid instant expertise. Good leadership does not require superior knowledge of all specialized issues.
Become attuned to teachers anxiety regarding special education students. Encourage expansion of activities in the effort and deal with attitudes to educate children about handicaps. Inservice educational opportunities should be provided to help regular classroom teachers become cognizant of the characteristics of mildly handicapped children and onong technical assistance.
Special education teachers should be utilized as support personnel. *
Community resources Should be utilized in exceptional child education. *
Being aware of structural capabilities of the Individual school building. Planning the scheduling of the handicapped so that they can easily attend mainstream classes.
Selecting staff whose attitudes toward the handicapped and working with them are positive.
Transportation considerations. Parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. The principal should provide additional sources of information on exceptional child education.
The principal should consider alternatives for support. Systemwide approach using the whole school. The principal should allow for Apecial material funds for the regular educator. *
The principal should provide sunort for the exceptional child. *




Administrative concerns. Administrators have specific and distinct concerns regarding special education. The burdens of compliance with the laws and court decisions on education of the handicapped, coordinating staff schedules, finding and allocating funds for special education, and supervising the integration of handicapped children into regular programs are primarily the principal's responsibility (Wendel & Vasa, 1982). Changes in special education have brought considerable adjustment for those who are charged with the responsibility of organizing and administering programs for handicapped students.
Responsibilities of Administrators
According to Pitner, Riley, and Giduk (1981) the major commitments of the principal's time include (a) working with students who are discipline problems and with teachers who have noninstructional needs;
(b) attending to logistics, external requirements, and social pleasantries; and (c) overseeing organizational maintenance, pupil control and extracurricular activities. Recent legislation has impacted on the responsibilities of the building principal. The leadership role which the principal fills places him/her in a key position for the advancement of educational opportunities for the handicapped.
Current practices. An exploratory research case study was used by Raske (1979) to describe current practices at the local school district level with regard to the kinds of tasks that are performed and how much time is expended accomplishing these tasks. The significance of this study lies in the identification of special education




28
administrative responsibilities that are performed by general school administrators. Data were collected through questionnaire
surveys from 29 local school districts within two intermediate school districts located in Michigan. The overall response-return rate for questionnaires was 95.5 percent.
The general school administrators identified 14.6 percent of
their time as being allocated to the performance of special education administrative duties. Major responsibilities indicated by the general education administrators on special education administrative duties included
1. Participating in individual education planning (IEP)
meetings.
2. Filling out special education forms.
3. Reviewing referrals for special education services.
4. Supervising and coordinating the annual review,
individual education plan, and follow-up procedures.
5. Providing special education communications, either in
written form or by telephone.
6. Attending special education staff meetings.
7. Preparing and monitoring special education budget.
Mainstreaming responsibilities. There is little research available
regarding the regular administrator's required specific responsibilities as they relate to mainstreaming of handicapped children. Egner (1977) completed a study on special education competencies required of general education administrators using a combination of goal analysis




29
as applied to Public Law 94-142 and the jury model, using a group of administrators, to generate an initial set of competencies. Competencies were generated by a jury of administrators exemplifying excellent administration of special education within the general education system (as nominated by an advisory committee of persons in leadership positions in special education and educational administration organizations in Vermont). The jury revised competencies generated by the investigator and by the jury members through an analysis of Public Law 94-142. Forty-seven competency statements were subsequently submitted to all superintendents, all assistant superintendents, one principal from each of Vermont's 56 school districts, and faculty members of the special education and educational administration departments at the University of Vermont (Egner, 1977). The major focus of the competencies rated "essential" was advocacy and leadership related to handicapped children; assuring due process, interpreting federal and state mandates, using appropriate leadership styles, showing that records comply with due process and confidentiality, establishing policies to assure least restrictive alternatives, and determining functions/qualifications for personnel involved in educating the handicapped. Specifically, Egner's eight competencies ranked as essential were the following:
1. assure due process for handicapped children.
2. interpret to local district school board so that federal
and state mandates are effectively implemented.
3. use appropriate leadership styles to enable better
communication within various groups.
4. show that student and personnel records comply with
due process and confidentiality requirements.
5. resolve conflict among program personnel.
6. utilize evaluation data to make decisions concerning
needed revisions in program operation.




30
7. cause to establish (in consultation with appropriate
groups) school district policies which lead to educational programs in the least restrictive alternative
for every handicapped child.
8. determine staff functions and qualifications that will
be required to conduct programs for handicapped children.
(Robeson, 1977, p. 80O)
Egner's competencies ranked as "desirable" focused on the following five areas: (1) personnel evaluation, (2) program compliance and assessment, (3) fiscal and accounting procedures, (4) federal guidelines, and (5) the development of individual educational plans.
Mainstreaming considerations. Birch (1975), following analysis of several school systems that were mainstreaming educable mentally handicapped children in the regular classroom, developed the following list of considerations involved in mainstreaming:
1. Regular class and special teacher concerns need consideration.
2. Regular class teachers talk about mainstreaming.
3. Teacher attitudes influence mainstream success.
4. Inservice education is a requirement.
5. Pupil placement calls for sensitive administration.
6. Keep newly identified pupils in regular grades and bring
the support to the child.
7. Emphasize educational assessment and diagnostic teaching.
8. Local school autonomy of operation helps.
9. Line administrative support should be assured.
10. Informed parents can be helpful.
Gage (1979) discussed ways in which adninistrators can facilitate the mainstreaming of handicapped students. Encouraging respect for all




31
children and emphasizing positive self-concepts of the special needs learners were indicated by Gage as imoortant steps in the mainstreaming process. Administrators should familiarize themselves with the identification process for securing special education assistance, encourage expansion of activities within the affective domain, and become attuned to teacher anxiety regarding special education students (Gage, 1979).
Robeson (1977) included the following listing of the responsibilities of a school principal in carrying out the mandates of Public Law 94-142:
Coordinate and administer special education services in
the school.
Supervise educational personnel serving handicapped children
in the school.
Designate and implement educational programs for handicapped children in the school, in accordance with approved policies, procedures, and guidelines of the Local Education Agency and
of the state Department of Education.
Promote attitudes of school personnel and parents that
encourage the acceptance and inclusion of handicapped children
in regular classes and interaction with regular students.
Receive referrals of students with suspected handicapping
conditions from teachers, parents, and others.
Arrange for appropriate evaluation for those students recommended for evaluation as a result of a screening procedure.
Supervise the maintenance of child records at the school level and protect the confidentiality of these records.
Receive teacher requests for assistance and provide or
arrange for specialized assistance.
Implement due process hearings.
Plan for special education programs in the school and make
budget recommendations to the superintendent.
Participate in Local Education Agency plan for special education services. (p. 18)




32
Concept of role. A role can be defined as "the actual deeds performed by a person in a position" (Craze & Yanouzas, 1967, p. 142). When a person carries out the duties or performs the tasks of his/her assigned job, that individual is playing a role. Roles in organizations tend to be highly elaborated, relatively stable, and defined to a considerable extent in explicit and even written terms (March & Simon, 1965). Not only is the role defined for the person who occupies the position, but it is known in detail to others in the organization who deal with the individual.
The first and primary function or goal of any manage in an
educational or business environment is to ensure that the goals of the organization are clearly stated and understood (Crazo & Yanouzas, 1967). "Effective organization is a mark of managerial intelligence and artistry" (Crazo & Yanouzas, 1967, p. 6). Thus the role of
establishing and clarifying goals is seen as critical.
Designing an effective and efficient arrangement of human and material resources constitutes an additional critical aspect of the role of the educational administrator (Bogue & Saunders, 1976). This task includes an obligation to "integrate individuals with organization and to match talent with task so that the most effective mix of individual needs and organizational purpose is achieved" (Bogue &
Saunders, 1976, p. 5). When administrators try to alter behavior they almost instinctively search first for a new structure (Mingo & Burrello, 1982). A return to centralized authority has been prompted by "decreasing resources and requirements for centralized control over issues raised by 94-142 in order to insure program compliance" (Mingo & Burrello, 1982, p. 1).




33
Role of the administrator. The role of the administrator who
is responsible for implementing mainstream programs has been reviewed anid del1"reated by several researchers. However, no studies have focused on the administrator's perceived role regarding mainstreaming, his/her knowledge level of special education, and the degree of implementation of mainstream programs in their schools. Although research has indicated the need for administrators to foster a growth producing atmosphere and to develop a sense of team planning between general and special educators (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979) investigators have not provided information as to whether or not training in special education assists administrators in meeting this responsibility. As the responsibilities of administrators increase in the area of special education services the need for administrators to be knowledgeable about alternative programming for these students increases. If an administrator is to meet the requirements of P.L. 94-142, he/she needs a comprehensive working knowledge of the concept of mainstreaming.
Administration of Mainstream Programs
The specificity of the federal regulations regarding placement of all handicapped children in the least restrictive environment is indicative of the fact that the concept of mai nstreami ng has become a reality (Robeson, 1977). Recently, the concern for mainstreaming has accelerated as a result of the recognition that many of the needs




34
of mildly handicapped students can, indeed, be met within the framework of mainstream education.
Concept of Mainstreaming
The handicapped child is one who deviates from the normal child in mentI characteristics, sensory abilities, neuromuscular or physical characteristics, social or emotional behavior, communication abilities or multiple handicaps such that he/she requires special educational services or modification of school practices in order to maximize growth (Senuiel et al., 1979). The number of children receiving special education services averages about 8.5 percent of the schoolage population (Comptroller General, 1981). Mainstreaming does not mean that all handicapped children will be retained in or returned to regular classrooms, but it does represent one aspect of the general principle of normalization, or the idea that the experiences of handicapped children should be as much like those of normal peers as possible (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982). With the enactment of Public Law 94-142, free, appropriate education became a handicapped individual's right.
Administrative models. The majority of public school "mainstreaming programs" cited in the literature are related to variations of four administrative models (Semmuel et al., 1979). These include
(a) the resource room model where the child generally leaves the regular class for special instruction over a period of time until he/she can return full-time to the regular class, (b) the partial integration model where the child is assigned to the regular and special classes for specific periods of each day, (c) the learning disability model where




35
the child-usually a member of the regular classroom-is provided with additional assistance in the regular classroom, and (d) the combination class model where handicapped children are placed in small-group regular classrooms with the availability of special materials (Seimmel et al., 1979).
Definition of mainstreaming. With the passage of P.L. 94-142, educators are required to implement and evaluate "mainstreaming" programs. However, there appears to be little agreement concerning the salient defining elements for a mainstreaming program. One of the more frequently cited definitions was posited by Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, and Kukic (1975):
Mainstreaming refers to the temporal, instructional
and social integration of eligible exceptional children
with normal peers. It is based on an ongoing individually determined educational needs assessment requiring clarification of responsibility for coordinated planning
and programing by regular and special education administrative, instructional and support personnel. (pp.
40-41)
Mainstreazning has also been referred to as the educational synonym for the legal concept of least restrictive alternative (Seimmel et al., 1979). The term is associated with a continuumn of educational options available to the handicapped child. A realization of the least restrictive enviroment should result in a more appropriate match between the characteristics of the student and the educational environment in which the handicapped child is placed.
In an attempt to clarify issues surrounding the definition of mainstreaming the Council for Exceptional Children (1975) published the following clarifying statements:




36
Mainstreaming is:
- providing the most appropriate education for each
child in the least restrictive setting.
- looking at the educational needs of children instead
of clinical or diagnostic latest such as mentally
handicapped, learning disabled, physically handicapped,
hearing impaired, or gifted.
- looking for and creating alternatives that will help
general educators serve children with learning or adjustment problems in the regular setting. Some
approaches being used to help achieve this are consulting teachers, methods and materials specialists,
itinerant teachers and resource room teachers.
- uniting the skills of general education and special
education so that all children may have equal educati onal opportunity.
Mainstreaming is not:
- wholesale return of all exceptional children in special
classes to regular classes.
- permitting children with special needs to remain in
regular classrooms without the support services that
they need.
- ignoring the need of some children for a more specialized
program than can be provided in the general education
program.
- less costly than serving children in special selfcontained classrooms. (Council for Exceptional Children,
1975, p. 174)
Implementation of Mainstreaming
Mainstreaming is operationalized within the context of a continutim of services such as that described by Deno (1970). Deno's array
of services range from the placement of handicapped children in regular
classes without supportive assistance of any kind through several
descending levels of services each providing additional special




37
education intervention. The cascade is designed to allow for program alternatives for provision of the specific services needed for the handicapped child to be provided an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (see Figure 1).
Reynolds (1962) developed a model of special education programs
based on a hierarchical design (see Figure 2). Services move from serving the mildly handicapped to the most severely handicapped. The movement of a particular individual through the model is recommended to be "only as far as necessary" and to "return as soon as possible" to the lesser restricting programs (Reynolds, 1962). AdditionalIY, Dunn (1973) based his model on those of Deno (1970) and Reynolds (1962). The inverted pyramid model presents 11 administrative plans for special education programming (see Figure 3). These are further subdivided into four divisions as to types of exceptional students served. Dunn (1973) recommended removing a student from the mainstream onty as far as necessary and returning him/her as soon as possible.
Mainstreaming practices Throughout the United States some large
and small communities quietly and effectively merged the education of most children, handicapped and otherwise, years before state and federal courts and legislatures moved the concept into national awareness (Birch, 1975). However, most of the sound practice examples have yet to become widely known. When prototypes of progressive mainstreaming practices are studied, the following conditions that make mainstreaming work emerge (Birch, 1975):




38
Children in regular classes, including those "handicapped" able to get along with regular
Level I class accommodations with or without medical "OUT-PATIENT"
or counseling supportive therapies PROGRAMS
(Assignment of
pupils governed
Regular class attendance plus by the school
Level H1 supplementary instructional system)
~Part-time
/special
Level III special class
Level IV Full-time
special
Level V stations
Level VI H
"IN-PATIENT"
c PROGRAMS
Level VII in ospital o
do ciled setti s (Assignment of
children to
facilities
"Noneducational" governed by
service (medical and health or
welfare care and welfare
supervision) agencies)
Figure 1
Cascade System of Special Education
Adapted from: Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital.
Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 229-237.




39
Hospitals and Treatment Centers Hospital School Residential School
00 V
Special Day School Full-time Special Class
Part-time Special Class Regular Classroom Plus Resource Room Service 0
Regular Classroom With Supplementary Teaching or Treatment I
Q1
Regular Classroom with Consultation
Most Problems HandTed in Regular Classro -Number of Cases "
Figure 2
Special Education Programs
Adapted from: Reynolds, M. C. A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 1962, 28, 367-370.




40
M iTterateW1
Plan 1 Special education instructional materials and equipment onl ; enrolled in a regular day class. Type IPlan 2 Special education instructional materials and equipment
excep-plus special education consultative services to regular teachers only; enrolled in a regular day class. Plan 3 Itinerant or school-based special education tutors; enrolled in a regular day class.
excep-Plan 4 Special education resource room and teacher;
enrolled in a regular day class.
TypeIIIin arglarday class.
Iexception-I
al pupils Plan 7 Combination regular and special
school or residential Type IV facility. Ms
excptiols Plan 10 Hospital Usegregated
puplsinstruction, plans 9, 10,
I and 11
Plan 11 Homebound
instruction.
Figure 3
Inverted Pyramid of Special Education Programs
Adapted from: Dunn, L. M. Exceptional children in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.




41
1 Regular educators receive orientation to what adaptations, if any, the inclusion of handicapped pupils
calls for.
2. All teachers learn to use the specialized instructional
materials exceptional children may need.
3. An overt arrangement lets regular class teachers find
help from special education teachers for pupils
(whether identified as exceptional or not) who have needs beyond those the regular teacher can readily
satisfy.
4. Regular class teachers get immediate assistance, with
no loss of face, if a crisis in class or individual
pupil management problem occurs.
The most commonly advocated model for the delivery of services to mainstreamed children is the resource teacher (MacMillan, Jones, & Meyers, 1976). Considerable faith is placed on the capability of the regular class teacher supported by the resource teacher to provide the needed services which will allow the child to succeed in the regular class. The attitudes of teachers toward mainstreamed children will, in large part, determine the success of any mainstreaming program. There is considerable variability among teachers as to the types and degree of deviance they can and will tolerate in their classrooms.
Concept of least restrictive environment. The full achievement of the concept of least restrictive environment will require




42
fundamental changes in individual and school district practices, including changes in traditional values, organizational structures, personnel roles, and decision-making patterns. The following
statements reflect what must occur in all school districts in the nation (Schipper, 1981, p. 5):
1. Handicapped children must become the responsibility
of all educators, not the sole responsibility of
special educators;
2. Handicapped children must be viewed as individuals
whose differences are enriching;
3. School districts must be organized and structured
to integrate rather than segregate children with
special needs;
4. Collaborative planning and shared decision making
must occur between parents, teachers, and administrators;
5. Separate placement judgments must be made for each
child based on an analysis of that child's individual
needs.
Sunriary
School administrators have new and important roles and
responsibilities for handicapped children as a result of P.L. 94-142. The challenges to be faced in developing responsive and comprehensive special education programs consistent with legal requirements seem overwhelming. It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of nearly eight million handicapped children in the United States will be assigned to regular classroom teachers for at least a portion of the school day if the least restrictive environent requirements of P.L. 94-142 are carried out in all school districts (Jones, 1981).




43
In response to the law some teachers and administrators have developed a positive attitude toward the concept of mainstreaming. Because educators tend to accept new ideas slowly, the full impact of the least restrictive environment mandate of Public Law 94-142 is being felt only gradually.
Most of today's regular school administrators have had little training or experience with the education of handicapped students (Jones, 1981). Comprehensive staff development programs designed to address the needs of achninistrators are probably the best and quickest solution to the problem (Jones, 1981). Few such programs have been planned and financed adequately to date (Jones, 1981).
It is necessary that principals provide the leadership to
make mainstreaming a success in their schools. It has been suggested
in this review of the literature that there are certain administrative practices that foster mainstream programs. It is obvious that specific information and knowledge about handicapped students is necessary for the success of mainstream programs. The ultimate success of mainstream programs is particularly dependent on the leadership of the building principals who are in charge of implementing and fostering growth in these programs.




CHAPTER III
METHOD AND PROCEDURES
The problem addressed in this investigation was to determine if there was a relationship between the type of special education training received by administrators and their perceived role, knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming in their respective schools. This information was obtained through direct telephone interviewing and the completion of a questionnaire by the administrators participating in this study.
In this chapter the method and procedures of this study are
presented. The major sections of this chapter include a description of the (a) subjects, (b) instrumentation and data collection procedures,
(c) experimental design, and (d) data analysis.
Subjects
The subjects in this investigation were principals and viceprincipals who were selected from four categories of secondary school based administrators. In order to qualify for this study the subject met criteria for inclusion in one of the following four categories:
1. Administrators who had preservice training in special
education.
44




45
2. Administrators who had inservice training in special
education.
3. Administrators who had neither inservice nor preservice
training in special education.
4. Administrators who had both inservice and preservice
training in special education.
The 36 subjects were secondary principals and vice-principals
employed by a school system in Florida. A list of all principals and vice-principals employed in the 36 schools in the district was obtained
from the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. The total population of administrators (72) was contacted by telephone to determine whether they qualified for the study by meeting the criteria for one of the four categories stated above.
Subject Selection
An initial telephone interview was utilized to determine subject qualification for this descriptive study. The telephone interview
results established whether or not the administrator met one of the four stated criteria for inclusion in the study. All 72 potential subjects were contacted by telephone. As a "letter of introduction" from the General Director of Research and Evaluation had already been received by the administrators, they were expecting to be contacted by the researcher and knew the purpose of the proposed research (see Appendix A). After identifying himself, the researcher asked each




46
administrator 10 specific questions (see Appendix A for the list of questions used in the interview). Responses to these 10 questions
enabled the researcher to determine (1) whether the administrator met criteria for the study and (2) whether he/she was willing to participate in the research by completing the questionnaire.
During this initial telephone screening three administrators were eliminated from the study because they had direct exposure to handicapped children or adults of a personal rather than professional nature. In addition, two administrators indicated they were not willing to participate in the study and were, therefore, eliminated. The remaining 67 administrators' responses to the 10 item interview were scrutinized to determine the administrators' eligibility for inclusion in one of the four categories related to training (preservice/inservice) in special education. As the intent was to obtain one subject from each of the 36 schools, subjects were eliminated if the other administrator at the same school met inclusion criteria. A total of nine administrators had received preservice training in special education, 10 administrators had received inservice training in special education, and nine administrators had received both inservice and preservice training. In the eight remaining schools, one administrator in each school met criteria for the study by having received neither inservice nor preservice training in special education.




47
Description of Subjects
Of the 36 subjects used in this study, 31 were male (86 percent) and five were female (14 percent). The mean age of the subjects was 45 years. The mean years of experience as a secondary school-based administrator was six years. The subjects in this study
are representative of state and national statistics on secondary administrators (Longstreth, 1982; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1982). The average percent of time the subjects indicated they spent on special education related matters was 11 percent. A breakdown indicating the number of subjects in each of the four categories can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
Breakdown of Subjects by Category
Category Number of Subjects
Administrators who had preservice 9
training in special education Administrators who had inservice 10
training in special education Administrators who had neither
inservice nor preservice training 8
in special education
Administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special 9
education
Total number of subjects 36




48
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A two-part questionnaire was administered to each subject to determine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. The actual degree of implementation of mainstream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district.
The two-part questionnaire was hand delivered by the researcher to each administrator participating in the study (N=36). As the researcher had made an appointment with each administrator for the purpose of delivering the questionnaire, each participant understood the reason for the contact with the investigator. After introductions were made, the researcher thanked the administrator for taking the time to complete the questionnaire and waited in the reception area during the time (average 15 minutes) it took the administrator to complete the questionnaire. At no time did the researcher discuss the questionnaire of the research with the subject.
The first portion of the questionnaire consisted of 23 questions relative to the perceived role of the school-based administrator. The responses were checked on a Likert-type scale with the respondent indicating the most appropriate of six columns ranging from "very important" to "not very important." The second portion of the questionnaire addressed the administrator's level of knowledge of special education with a series of multiple-choice questions.




49
The questions in Part One of this study's Questionnaire were developed from the competency statements delineated by Egner (1977). A major outcome of Egner's study was the identification and prioritization of special education comipetencies required for general education administrators. Egner's 47 competency statements were generated by a jury of administrators exemplifying excellent administration of special education within the general education system. These were subsequently submitted to superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and faculty members of the special education and educational administration departments of a university. These respondents ranked eight competencies as "essential." The major focus of the competencies was advocacy and leadership related to handicapped children. An additional 12 items ranked as "desirable" were also delineated by the respondents. These eight essentiala" items and the 12 "desirable" items were used to develop a 20-item questionnaire. rhe use of Egner's competencies in the development of this portion of the questionnaire was of particular importance as Egner developed these items through an analysis of P.L. 94-142.
Part One of the Questionnaire was validated by a panel of five experts. Members of the panel were representative of both regular and special education administration at the secondary level. They all had other secondary level administrative experience at local education agencies, state departments of education, or in special education. These individuals reviewed the questions to determine




50
the appropriateness of all items. Members of the panel were asked
to respond to the question "Do you think this is a valid instrument to measure the perceived role of secondary school-based administrators regarding mainstreaming handicapped students?" The panel determined that each of Egner's 20 items was valid and added three additional items.
Using a logical approach, items were determined to be dealing with either legal, staff, or program issues. Items 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 19 dealt with legal issues, e.g., assure due process for handicapped children, understand the procedures recommended in your district for staffings, etc. Items 2, 4, 5, 21, 22, and 23 were related to staff issues, e.g., resolve conflict among special and regular education personnel. Items 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 20 addressed program issues, e.g., participate in school district policy making which leads to educational programs in the least restrictive environment for every handicapped child.
Internal consistency reliability estimates were obtained for the total scores on Part One of the Questionnaire and each of the subsections. The subjects' responses to the nine items on the legal issues, the six items on the staff issues, and the eight items on the program issues were all analyzed as separate scales. Internal consistency (i.e., coefficient alpha) was .9 for the total scale, similar high reliabilities were obtained for the legal issues subscale, for the staff issues subscale, and for the program issues subscale (i.e., .8, .7, .8, respectively). Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) indicated




51
that "if test scores are to be used for administrative purposes and are reported for groups, a reliability of .60 should probably be the
minimum" (p. 92). For purposes of this study, the reliability of the scores obtained on Part One of the Questionnaire was judged to be appropriate.
Part Two of the questionnaire was provided by the State of Florida. It consists of six sample test items for Competency #24 on the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. This section contains six narratives describing hypothetical situations involving handicapped children in public school settings. The questions following each narrative are multiple-choice and the total score of correct answers was used to indicate the knowledge level of each administrator. The possible total test score range was from 0-7 points. The Subskills for Competency #24 were developed and validated to meet the requirements of Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. The competency addressed in this section of the Florida Teacher Examination is the following:
The ability to recognize and be aware of the instructional
needs of exceptional students.
The subskills for this competency are the following:
1. Identifies the characteristics of exceptional students
that have implications for modifying the learning
environment.
2. Demonstrates awareness and appropriate use of educational programs, support services, personnel and other
resources available to meet the needs of exceptional
students.
3. Demonstrates the ability to identify and appropriately
refer students who may be in need of exceptional student
education.




52
4. Demonstrates awareness of the roles of the parent,
teacher, and other professional personnel as members
of the educational team responsible for planning,
implementing, and evaluating the exceptional student's
program.
5. Demonstrates the ability to recognize and/or use alternate instructional strategies to implement that portion
of the exceptional student's program for which the
teacher has the responsibility.
6. Identifies and/or selects effective techniques and
strategies for facilitating integration and social
acceptance of exceptional students.
A general description of a classroom situation where the subskill may be utilized and a rationale for each subskill are included in the Subskills for Competency 424 of the Florida Teacher Examination. (See Appendix C for a complete copy of the Subskills for Competency #24.)
The Pupil Accounting Department provided data used to ascertain the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the administrators' respective schools. The data indicated the number of exceptional students being served, in which programs these students were served, and the percentage of time these students attended regular education and special education classes. (See Appendix D for the complete data regarding the degree of mainstreaming achieved.)
Experimental Design
Design
An ex post facto design was used in this descriptive study. This design allowed for an analysis of the differences in perceived role, tested knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming




53
for administrators with different levels of training. The data analyzed were obtained from answers submitted by the subjects in this study on a two-part questionnaire. Additional data were obtained from the Pupil Accounting Departm~ent of the school district.
Independent and Dependent Variables
In this study the effect of one independent variable was addressed. This was the educational background of secondary school-based administrators at four different levels: (a) those who had preservice training in special education, (b) those who had inservice training in special education, (c) those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and (d) those who had neither preservice nor inservice training in special education. The three dependent variables in this study were (1) the administrators' perceived roles in dealing with special education progranning as measured by the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire (grouped into three categoriesstaff, program, and legal issues); (2) the subjects' level of knowledge regarding special education as measured by the total score achieved on Part Two of the Questionnaire (scores ranged from 0-7); and (3) the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the
secondary school-based administrators: respective schools as measured by the actual number of students being served (data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department).




54
Data Analysis
Comparisons were made among the four groups of subjects to determine differences in the perceived role of the administrator, the knowledge level of the administrator, and/or the degree of mainstreaming implemented in each school. Data were tabulated in percentages, means, and standard deviations for the responses to each item on the questionnaire. Scores were available for each of the four categories of administrators (i.e., those with preservice training, those with inservice training, those with neither inservice nor preservice training, those with both inservice and preservice training) and comparisons were drawn among the four groups.
Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators on perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming were analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs. The perceived role items were grouped into three categories; that is, questions regarding staff, questions regarding programming, and legal questions were grouped and analyzed separately. The administrator's knowledge level about the identification, evaluation, and placement of special education students was determined from the total score received on Part Two of the
Questionnaire. The knowledge scores and level of mainstreaming data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department were also subjected to Analysis of Variance procedures to determine differences in knowledge and degree of implementation of mainstream programs in the schools of administrators with different training.




55
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine if secondary schoolbased administrators with different training perceived their administrative roles differently; similarly, differences in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions and the actual degree of
implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their respective schools were evaluated. The subjects in this investigation were 36 secondary school-based administrators employed by a large school district in Florida. The subjects were administered a two-part questionnaire designed to determine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of mainstreamed students. Data were
obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department on the actual number of students served in each administrator's respective school.
An ex post facto design was used in this study. This procedure allowed for an analysis of the differences in perceived role, tested knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming for individuals in four different groups based on their training.
Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators were analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs.




CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of mainstreaming of handicapped students for school administrators with different types of training were compared in this descriptive study. Four levels of educational
background of secondary school-based administrators were used to define the independent groups which were investigated; these included
1. those who had preservice training in special education,
2. those who had inservice training in special education,
3. those who had both inservice and preservice training in
special education, and
4. those who had neither preservice nor inservice training
in special education.
Three dependent variables were collected from each type of administrator; these variables were as follows:
1. The secondary school-based administrator's perceived role
in dealing with special education programming as measured
by the 23 items regarding the legal, staff, and programming aspects of school administration.
56




57
2. The secondary school-based administrators' level of
knowledge regarding special education as measured by
seven items dealing with the practice of special
education.
3. The degree of implementation of mainstream programs
achieved in the secondary school-based administrators'
respective schools as measured by the data obtained from
the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district.
A systematic analysis of the data collected from these measures is presented in this chapter.
Three related questions were under investigation in this study.
I. Is there a difference in perceived role in the mainstreaming process among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservicenor i nservice training.
2. Is there a difference in knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice norinservice training.
3. Is there a difference in the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools among secondary school-based administrators
who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training?




58
An analysis of variance was conducted on data related to each of these questions; the type of training of the administrator served as the independent variable for each analysis. Scores for nine administrators who had preservice training in special education, 10 administrators who had inservice training in special education, eight administrators who had neither inservice norpreservice training in special education, and nine administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special education were compared. All tests were completed using the .05 level of confidence.
Perceived Role Comparisons
The differences among responses of the secondary school-based
administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training and their perceived role in the mainstreaming process were investigated. Questions related to role were further grouped into staff, program, and legal considerations. The summary of results is presented in Table 3. Average scores across each subscale of Part One of the Questionnaire for the four types of administrators are presented.
An analysis of these data indicated that the four types of administrators varied less than three-tenths of a point on legal issues, less than four-tenths of a point on staff issues, and less than two-tenths of a point on program issues. The means and standard deviations can be compared by observing that all scores are very




59
similar; none differ by more than a one-half standard deviation. The similarity of these means and standard deviations indicates a high degree of agreement relative to the perceived importance of staff, legal, and program issues to administrators with different training. It is further observed that none of the mean scores are greater than 2.2 suggesting that all questions regarding perceived role were thought to be similarly important.
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Responses to
Administrators' Perceived Role
Type of Role
Type of Legal _Staff Program
Training X S.D. X S.D. X S.D.
Preservice 1.9 .75 1.8 .82 2.0 .85
Inservice 1.7 .68 1.9 .72 2.0 .73
Preservice
and Inservice 1.8 .46 2.2 .66 2.2 .64
Neither Preservice or 2.0 .65 2.1 .71 2.2 .80
Inservice
Note: l=very important, 6=not very important
The analysis of variance summary tables for these data are reported in Tables 4-6. All 36 administrators answered all items regarding legal issues, one administrator failed to answer one item on staff issues,
and one administrator failed to answer one item on program issues. All




60
Table 4
Analysis of Variance Summary Table: Legal Issues
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-Ratio
Between Groups 0.530 3 0.177 0.411
Within Groups 13.753 32 0.430
Table 5
Analysis of Variance Summary Table: Staff Issues
Source Sun of Squares df Mean Square F-Ratio
Between Groups 0.759 3 0.253 0.466
Within Groups 16.824 31 0.543
Table 6
Analysis of Variance Summary Table: Program Issues
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-Ratio
Between Groups 0.254 3 0.085 0.145
Within Groups 18.021 31 0.581




61
statistical comparisons reflect these adjusted samples sizes. No differences were indicated in subjects' responses to the legal aspects of their perceived roles (F=O.411) or their perceived roles relative to staffing (f=0.466) or programming (f=0.145) issues. The results of these analyses suggest that all four types of administrators have a high degree of general agreement as to their perceived role regarding staff, legal, and program issues.
Comparisons of Knowledge of Handicapped Students
Differences in knowledge of the secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training were investigated by a series of questions dealing with identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. A summary of these results is presented in Table 7. The mean knowledge level regarding handicapped students is reflected for the four types of administrators. The scores of the four types of administrators varied less than seven-tenths of a point on their knowledge of handicapped students. An analysis of these data indicated that all scores were very similar; none differed by more than a one-half standard deviation from any others. The similarity of these scores suggests that all four types of administrator demonstrated a similar amount of knowledge about handicapped students. It is further observed that the highest scores were obtained by those administrators who had inservice training only.




62
Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations of Responses on
Administrators' Knowledge Level
Type of Training Mean Standard Deviation
Preservice 4.5 .86
Inservice 5.2 .42
Preservice
and Inservice 4.5 .75
Neither Preservice
nor Inservice 4.9 .78
Note: O=lowest score, 7=highest score
The analysis of variance of the group means reported in Table 8 indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in knowledge about handicapped students for administrators with different training. In general, the administrators' scores were high,
indicating that regardless of type of previous training received by the subjects participating in this study, the administrators all demonstrated an adequate knowledge base about special education students.




63
Table 8
Analysis of Variance Summary Table:
Administrators' Knowledge About Handicapped Students
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F-Ratio
Between Groups 2.511 3 0.837 1.624
Within Groups 16.489 32 0.515
Comparisons of Degree of Mainstreaming in the
Administrators' Respective School
Differences in degrees of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools were compared for the secondary school-based administrators who had received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training. The summary of results, presented in Table 9, reflects the mean percentage of handicapped students mainstreamed in the respective schools of the four groups of administrators. The percentages of students mainstreamed in the four types of administrators' respective schools varied less than 20 percent. The similarity of these means is also evident in the fact that the four types of administrators have mainstreamed more than one-half of their handicapped students.




64
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations of Responses Received
on the Actual Degree of Mainstreaming Implemented in
the Administrators' Respective Schools
Type of Training Mean Standard Deviation
Preservice 70 .11
Inservice 60 .15
Preservice and
Inservice 60 .27
Neither Preservice
or Inservice 50 .13
Note: Means reflect percentages of handicapped students mainstreamed.
The analysis of variance smnmary table for these data is presented in Table 10; no statistically significant difference at the .05 level as a function of the type of training is indicated. It should be pointed out, however, that the highest percentages of mainstreamed students were evident in schools in which the administrators had received preservice training in special education. It is also important to note that the percentage of mainstreamed students is lowest for those administrators who have received neither preservice nor inservice training in special education.




65
Table 10
Analysis of Variance Summary Table: Degree of Mainstreaming
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F-Ratio
Between Groups 0.125 3 0.042 1.309
Within Groups 1.017 32 0.032
Additional Analyses
Raw data can be found in Appendix E; included are (a) sex, (b) years of experience, (c) age, (d) percentage of time spent on special education related matters, (e) type of administrative category, (f) item responses from Part One of the Questionnaire, (g) score on knowledge test, (h) percentage of students mainstreamed, (i) total number of special education students in school, and (j) the average percentage of time in regular education by the special education population. This information reflects the actual responses of the 36 secondary schoolbased administrators participating in this study.
Additional analyses of each perceived role item were completed to determine if there were any significant differences in responses to each item of the questionnaire. Similar results were obtained as concluded in the statistical analysis previously conducted; that is, no differences in responses to any role items were evident when different groups of administrators were compared. Frequency distributions for subjects'




66
responses to each item on Part One of the Questionnaire, means and standard deviations for each item reported by group (by type of training), and correlations among variables are presented in Appendix F. All additional analyses reinforced the similarities previously observed using the statistical procedure of analysis of variance.
Summary
In this study, comparisons of four different groups of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming conducted in their respective schools were analyzed. Analysis of data obtained through completion of a twopart questionnaire by the subjects participating in the study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in perceived role regarding legal, staff, and programming issues in the mainstreaming of handicapped students for administrators with different training. Further, the results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions as reflected by the scores achieved by the administrators completing the questionnaire or in the percentage of students actually mainstreamed in each school.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine if differences in special education training received by secondary school-based administrators relate to their perception of their roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of




67
mainstreaming in their respective schools. Analyses of the results of this study indicated that more similarities than differences existed in responses of the four groups of administrators regarding their perceived role, knowledge of special education, and degree of mainstreaming.




CHAPTER V
SUMMIARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summnary
This research was conducted in an effort to determine if differences exist among administrators with different educational backgrounds relative to perceived role, special education knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. As the school principal must have the knowledge base and administrative skill to successfully implement program change (Gage, 1979; Robeson, 1977; Seninel et al., 1979), research designed to assist administrators in the effective implementation of mainstream programs is needed. This descriptive study was conducted to provide a foundation for the development. of research designed to determine the roles and responsibilities of administrators in the implementation of mainstream Drograms.
Review of the Literature
A review of the literature revealed a paucity of research on the issue of educational background of administrators and effective mainstreaming practices. Leadership from building administrators is critical if least restrictive environment, as mandated by law, is to
68




69
become an effective method in meeting individual student needs (Rebore, 1980). Hoben (1980) stressed that the appropriately mainstreamed student will be an integral part of the class, acknowledged by peers and teachers and incorporated into classroom activities. Although goals established for handicapped children in mainstreamed environments encompass both academic and social/personal objectives, mainstreamning can be successful only to the extent that it integrates handicapped students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped peers (Dunlop et al., 1980).
Awarene~ss of the operation, organization, and administration of special education programs by general school administrators has received limited attention from educational researchers (Raske, 1979). The burdens of compliance with the laws and court decisions on education of the handicapped, coordinating staff schedules, finding and allocating funds for special education, and supervising the integration of handicapped children into regular programs are primarily the principal's responsibility (Wendel & Vasa, 1982). The leadership role which the principal fills places him/her in a key position for the advancement of educational opportunities for the handicapped.
The challenges to be faced in developing responsive and comprehensive special education programs consistent with legal requirements seem overwhelming. It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of nearly eight million handicapped children in the United States will be assigned to regular classroom teachers for at least a portion of the school day if the least restrictive environment requirements of P.L.




70
94-142 are carried out in all school districts (Jones, 1981). Comprehensive staff development programs designed to address the needs of
administrators are probably the best and quickest solution to the problem (Jones, 1981). As the ultimate success of mainstream programs is particularly dependent on the leadership of building principals, research which will provide administrators with knowledge and information necessary for successful implementation of mainstream programs is essential.
Method
The subjects in this investigation were 36 secondary school-based administrators who were selected from four categories of administrators (i.e., those who had preservice training in special education,
those who had inservice training in special education, those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and those who had neither inservice norpreservice training in special education). A two-part questionnaire was administered to the subjects to determine
(1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. The actual degree of implementation of mainstream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district.
The educational background of the secondary school-based administrators was the independent variable in this study. The three dependent variables in this study were (1) the secondary school-based




71
administrators' perceived roles in dealing with special education programming as measured by the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire (grouped into three categories-staff issues, program issues, and legal issues); (2) the secondary school-based administrators' level of knowledge regarding special education as measured by the total score achieved on Part rwo of the Questionnaire (scores ranged from 0-7); and (3) the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the administrators' respective schools. Data in the first two areas were obtained through administration of a questionnaire and actual numbers of students in special programs were obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district.
Design
An ex post facto design was used in this study. Comparisons were made among the four groups of subjects to determine if any conclusions could be drawn regarding the relationship between the administrator's level of training on his/her perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of mainstreamning implemented in his/her school. Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators on the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire were analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs. The ANOVA was used to describe the differences among groups. The administrator's knowledge level about the identification, evaluation, and placement of special education students was determined from the total score received on Part Two of the Questionnaire. Differences among the scores were anlyzed by a one-way ANOVA. The data provided by the Pupil Accounting Office were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA to




72
describe the differences in the degrees of implementation of mainstream programs in each admi ni stra tar's school. Summary of Results
Analysis of data obtained through completion of a two-part
questionnaire by the subjects participating in the study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in perceived role regarding legal, staff, and programming issues in the mainstreaming of handicapped students for administrators with different training. Further, the results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions as reflected by the scores achieved by the administrators completing the questionnaire or in the percentage of students actually mainstreamed in each school.
Results of this study revealed that many similarities existed among the four groups of administrators regardless of the type of training received by the administrator. The similarity of responses by the administrators to the perceived role questions in Part One of the Questionnaire suggests that all questions regarding role were thought to be similarly important by all the administrators. The mean scores obtained by all four groups of administrators on Part Two of the Questionnaire (knowledge of special education) were similar indicating general group similarity in the amount of knowledge all administrators had regarding special education. Analysis of the data obtained on the degree of mainstreaming implemented in the administrators' schools was similar for all four groups. Although it was observed




73
that the highest percentage of mainstreamed students was obtained by those administrators who had received preservice training in special education, the degree that the percentages differed was not statistically significant.
Conclusions
As a result of this study it can be concluded that the type of training received by secondary school-based administrators in special education was not associated with differences in their perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and
actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their schools. Although the data obtained indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the type of training received by the secondary school-based administrators participating in this study and their perceived role regarding legal, staff, and programming issues in the mainstreaming of handicapped students, several individual items in Part One of the Questionnaire received
very strong support from the respondents. Five questions on the questionnaire were ranked very important ("l") by 100 percent of the administrators participating in the study. These items were the following:
13. have knowledge of due process as it relates to the
exceptional student program. (legal issue)
14. understand federal, state, and county regulations
as they relate to exceptional student program.
(legal issue)




74
15. have knowledge of the definition of each of the areas
of exceptionality. (program issue)
16. understand the procedures involved in a referral.
(program issue)
17. understand the procedures recommended in your
district for staffing. (legal issue)
The similarity of responses by all four groups of administrators to
Part One of the Questionnaire was reflected in a high degree of agreement relative to the importance of staff, legal, and program issues.
The spread of responses by all groups of administrators to all sections of Part One was from 1.7 to 2.2 (1=very important, 6=not very important) indicating strong support for the 23 items in this section. These data strongly suggest that all administrators in this study had a high degree of general agreement relative to the importance of certain
areas of their perceived roles regardless of their training in special education.
As a limitation of this study was the use of perceived role as a dependent variable, caution should be taken when reviewing the data
obtained from Section of the Questionnaire. The 23 items selected for this portion of the Questionnaire may reflect only a portion of the areas involved in the role and responsibilities of an administrator regarding mainstreaming. Thus, it is possible that an administrator may respond differently to an expanded questionnaire that contained many more areas of concern. Also, as the questions were designed to
determine the administrator's perception of his/her role, the responses reflect only his/her views of the role and not how they are viewed by significant others or as required by a job description. Without actual




75
observation of the day-to-day activities of the school administrator, it is not possible to determine if the perceived role reflects the actual role of the administrator.
There was no statistically significant difference in knowledge about handicapped students for administrators with different training
as measured by the scores obtained by the administrators on Part Two of the Questionnaire. The mean test scores of the four groups ranged from 4.5 to 5.1 (O=lowest, 7=highest score) indicating that all four groups of administrators had a similar knowledge level of special education. The six items on Part Two of the Questionnaire can not, however, be viewed as addressing knowledge of the identification,
evaluation, and placement of handicapped students by the administrators in the study without the realization that six items can only sample these information areas. Further, Part Two of the Questionnaire (Subskills for Competency #24) was originally developed to measure teachers' knowledge about special education matters. Although all
administrators were first certified as classroom teachers, their knowledge of special education issues may only be suggested by the use of an instrument initially developed for testing of teachers.
The percentages of students mainstreamed in the four types of administrators' respective schools varied less than 20 percent. The highest percentage of mainstreamed students (70 percent) was found in schools where administrators had received preservice training in special education although the degree to which this percent varied
from the others was not statistically significant. It should be noted




76
that there appeared to be a trend indicating that preservice training in special education may be indicative of a higher degree of mainstreaming. Results indicated that the lowest percentage of students mainstreamed were those in schools where the administrators had received neither inservice nor preservice training (50 percent). Thus, the data suggests that a lower level of mnainstreaming may be related to a lack of administrators' training. Those administrators receiving both preservice and inservice training and those administrators receiving inservice training only mainstreamed 60 percent of their handicapped students.
Although this research indicated no significant differences
between the type of training received by the administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming, it can be noted that more similarities than differences existed in the responses of the four groups of administrators. Results of this study imply directionality of percent of time students are mainstreamed and the type of training administrators receive. However, true experimental research needs to be conducted in order to infer causality. The information obtained in this study should be utilized in the development of future research studies designed to investigate the role of the school administrator in the implementation of mainstream programs for handicapped students.




77
Implications
This research was conducted in an effort to determine if any relationships exist between the educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. Analyses of the results of this study indicated that more similarities than differences existed in responses of the four groups of administrators participating in the study regarding their perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming. Future research investigating the role of the school administrator and the implementation of mainstream programs for handicapped students is warranted.
Recommendations for future research based on the results of this study include the following:
1. A replication of this study should be conducted with modifications to the instruments used in this investigation. As the Questionnaire only sampled knowledge level in particular areas of special education, it would be appropriate to develop (or adopt) an instrument that would more fully assess actual knowledge of handicapping conditions. Also, an instrument should be developed that would require the administrator or his/her supervisor to document actual responsibilities and activities regarding mainstreaming as opposed to the instrument in this study that addressed the "perceived" role of the administrator. Revisions in the instrumentation of this study should provide data that could more clearly demonstrate a relationship between type of training and degree of mainstreaming of handicapped students.




78
2. Ethnographic research on mainstreaming within the school
needs to be conducted. Observations need to be conducted within the school setting to determine the actual degree of integration of handicapped students into the regular education program. This type of research would yield information indicating actual integration of handicapped students in classroom situations as opposed to percentages of time as documented by school administrators. Information an actual integration of handicapped students may be used as one measure of "successful" mainstreaming practices in the schools. Once this is determined, an investigation delineating variables involved in "successful" mainstreaming needs to be completed.
3. Research should be conducted to investigate the importance
of the variables of perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming to the mainstreaming process. If these variables are not found to be pertinent to the role of the administrator, their importance to the significant others in the school system or district level personnel for effective mainstreaming needs to be considered.
4. Ethnographic research needs to be conducted with administrators to determine if what the administrator perceives as his/her actual duties are, in fact, the duties he/she is carrying out. This research should also address the specific amount of time administrators actually spend involved in mainstreaming issues. This type of observational study should reveal any differences among school administrators' actual responsibilities and whether or not these differences relate to the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools.




79
S. Research should be conducted to determine how administrators are gaining knowledge about exceptional student education, e.g., through district procedures and federal regulations, through information provided by special education teachers. Determination of the source from which administrators draw to keep informed regarding the evaluation and placement of special education students could aid in the training or retraining of administrators who do not have successful mainstream programs in their schools.
Continued research efforts designed to determine what issues
administrators should be concerned with in order to effectively mainstream handicapped students is essential. If mainstreaming is to
result in improved quality of education for handicapped students, administrators must consider alterations in educational programing and placement of handicapped students with nonhandicapped peers. As the ultimate success or failure of this effort is dependent on the school administrator, it is imperative that information and assistance be provided to the administrator to assist him/her in the development of successful mainstream programs.




APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND INTERVIEW FORM
TO: Secondary School Principals and Vice-Principals
FROM: John 0. Gillespie, General Director
Research and Evaluation
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESEARCH BY RICHARD B. VOORNEVELD
DATE: August 24, 1982
This letter is to introduce Richard B. Voorneveld, doctoral
candidate at the University of Florida, who wishes your cooperation in this research project.
Mr. Voorneveld will be contacting you during the week of August 30th to assist him by completing a questionnaire. Your responses will indicate your perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students.
All information collected is to be kept anonymous and confidential.
He will be responsible for absorbing any and all costs pertaining to this data collection.
Your assistance in this study is voluntary.
80




81
Initial Telephone Interview With Administrators
Administrator's Name:
School:
Address:
Phone Number: DOB Sex
Questions:
1. Prior to becoming a principal, had you had any coursework dealing
with special education, handicapping conditions, or Public Law
94-142? Yes No
2. If yes, how many courses (write actual number of credit hours)?
3. How long have you been in your current position?
4. Since you have become a principal have you attended any inservice
programs dealing with special education, handicapping conditions,
or Public Law 94-142? Yes No
5. If yes, where (i.e., conferences, workshops, etc.)?
6. How many sessions (hours)?
7. What special education populations do you serve in your school
(e.g., LD, ED, MR, Gifted, Speech, etc.)?
8. What percent of your time would you estimate you spend on special
education matters? %
9. Would you be willing to participate in a study that would require
you to complete a short questionnaire in the area of special
education? Yes No




82
10. Have you had any personal contact with the handicapped, i.e.,
member of family, taught handicapped students, etc.?
Yes No
Populations
Preservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Question #1.
Inservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Question #4. Preservice and Inservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Questions #1 and #4.
Neither Preservice or Inservice: Administrators who have answered NO to Questions #1 and #4.




APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
Part One
Please check the most appropriate Very Not Very
response. Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
As a general education administrator, you perceive your role as part of the mainstreaming process to:
1. assure due process for handicapped
children.
2. resolve conflict among special and
regular education personnel.
3. participate in school district policy
making which leads to educational programs in the least restrictive environment for every handicapped
child.
4. detennine staff functions and
qualifications that will be
required to conduct programs for
the handicapped.
5. budget time for teachers, support
staff, and administrators to create
programs for individuals or groups
of students with Special needs.
6. design and maintain a student evaluation system that will reliably show
student progress in instructional
programs.
7. show with data that handicapped
children are being educated in the
least restrictive environment.
33




84
Very Not Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. assist staff and faculty to redesign
their programs to meet the needs of
handicapped students.
9. establish activities for identifying,
locating, and evaluating all children
eligible for special education services.
10. demonstrate that the time handicapped
students are educated with nonhandicapped age mates are well used.
11. lead multidisciplinary staffing
for handicapped children.
12. understand school law as it relates
to locating, identifying, and evaluating exceptional students.
13. have knowledge of due process as it
relates to the exceptional student
program.
14. understand federal, state, and
county regulations as they relate
to exceptional student program.
15. have knowledge of the definition of
each of the areas of exceptionality.
16. understand the procedures involved
in a referral.
17. understand the procedures recommended
in your district for staffings.
18. be aware of or know the least
restrictive environments that can
help the exceptional student.
19. know the requirements involved in
providing an individual education
plan.
20. maintain current knowledge of trends
in curricula and management strategies
appropriate for use with the various
exceptional ities.




85
Very Not Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6
21. promote positive attitudes of school
and community for special programs
and mainstreaming.
22. encourage active involvement of
special teachers in programs or
activities with regular students.
23. budget time for ongoing inservice
related to mainstreaming for regular
and special teachers.
Adapted from: Egner, A. Special education competencies required of general education administrators in Vermont school districts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38, 3170A-71A. (University Microfilms No. 7726-141T-




86
Part Two
Please read each narrative carefully and check the most appropriate response.
1. Mr. Brown has observed that Dana, a new student in his class, often
seems to drop her books and pencils. Her written work is always
sloppy. When Dana is asked to work in one of the activity lab
centers in the classroom, she often bumps other students' desks,
sending their books and papers to the floor. Sometimes desks are
pushed out of place or a student is jostled. These incidents
usually are followed by an outburst from an irate classmate.
Dana always seems to be extremely embarrassed, quickly apologizes, and tries to rearrange things. The first few times she attempted to use the slide viewer in one of the centers, she needed help to
set it up, even though the directions were presented clearly.
Select the option that best describes which of Dana's behaviors or characteristics indicates a need to modify the learning environment.
A. Dana's poor motor coordination.
B. Dana's physical aggression.
C. Dana's inability to follow directions.
0. Dana's extreme embarrassment.
Select the commendation which is most appropriate.
A. Mr. Brown should use an appropriate technique to modify
Dana's aggressive behavior.
B. Mr. Brown should not require Dana to work independently
in the activity lab centers.
C. Mr. Brown should ensure that' Dana receives special training
in motor skills.
0. Mr. Brown should not change anything about the learning
environment.




87
2. Mr. Carson, the sixth-grade teacher, is notified during the second
week of school that he and his class will be receiving a new
student on Monday of the following week. The notification indicates that Paul, the new student, is orthopedically handicapped, confined to a wheelchair, and has minor convulsive seizures once
or twice each week. Paul's academic achievement records
indicate that he is performing at or above the sixth grade
level in all areas. Mr. Carson wants to influence classroom
acceptance and adjustment to Paul in a positive manner.
Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Carson to take.
A. He should tell the class immediately that a handicapped
student in a wheelchair is coming. Then he and the
class should work together to rearrange the classroom
environment and design a carrel or cubicle area for
Paul.
B. He should talk with Bill and Marie, two students who
seem to be the most popular, describe Paul's characteristics, and enlist their support. Then he should
share information with the rest of the class, focusing
on some of Paul's strengths and limitations.
C. He should confirm receipt of the notification with the
principal. Then he should plan to implement an interaction strategy on Tuesday of the following week, after
Paul's arrival, in an effort not to prejudice or
frighten the class.
0. He should immediately describe to the class Paul's
physical disability and the consequences of his convulsive seizures. Then he should have the students work
together to make a "Welcome, Paul" banner.




88
3. Mrs. Collins, the second-grade teacher, noted during the second
week of class that Jake, a seven-year-old boy, was repeatedly disrupting other classmates during writing, spelling. and artrelated activities. His behavior during these activities
included temper tantrums and destruction of school property.
Further classroom observation and review of Jake's cumulative
folder noted that his intelligence quotient was low average
when he was tested in first grade. It was also noted that he
has missed nine weeks of school because of a variety of
illnesses. Mrs. Collins is meeting with the Special Services
Team to discuss appropriate placement and services for Jake.
Select the recommendation below which is most appropriate for Mrs. Collins to support on the basis of her knowledge of Jake.
A. Jake should be placed in another second-grade class,
and should return to first grade each day for writing,
spelling, and art-related activities.
B. Jake should be sent to the district's special school
for the rest of the semester, and then returned to
Mrs. Collins' class for the second semester.
C. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, since there
are no programs for students like him, and maturation
will take care of his problems.
D. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, but receive
daily (20-30 minute) resource room assistance in the
appropriate social and academic areas.




89
4. Mr. Banner has observed that Leslie doesn't pay attention during
class discussions and often seems to be staring into space. Most of the time, instructions must be repeated for her, or Mr. Banner
sometimes has to write them out. All of her written work is excellent, but when she reads aloud, she frequently stumnbles
over or mispronounces words. When she is working independently,
she attends well and stays on task until she completes the assignment. In fact, it is very difficult to distract her.
Mr. Banner has called her name several tines, and finally has
had to get her attention, which seemed to startle her.
Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Banner to take.
___A. He should alert the guidance counselor that Leslie's
behavior indicates emotional problems.
___B. He should have a talk with Leslie about trying harder
and paying attenticn in class.
___C. He should refer Leslie for evaluation for the district's
learning disabilities program.
___0. He should use an informal hearing screening technique
before he refers Leslie for further evaluation.
5. Natasha, a sixth-grader, has been identified as learning disabled
(LO) and a special program has been designed for her. She receives
reading instruction from the LO resource teacher. Classroom
activities involving reading have been modified for her. She also
is receiving counseling to improve her poor self-concept. Natasha's
parents recently have separated. Lately, she has been complaining of headaches and stomach aches only during P.E. class and asking to
be excused from P.E. activities. Other students have begun to report that Natasha has been taking their things without permission.
Select the most appropriate course of action related to Natasha's
recent behavior.
___A. The school principal should take disciplinary action to
deal with Natasha's stealing behaviors.
___B. Natasha's counselor should work with her to reduce her
attention-getting behavior and determine underlying problems.
___C. The school nurse should recommend to Natasha's parent(s)
that Natasha have a physical examination.
D__ rhe LO resource teacher should work with Natasha to reduce
her attention-getting behavior and determine underlying
problems.




90
6. During the period set aside for her fifth-grade class to read
the assigned social studies chapter, Ms. Grant notices that
Pat is consistently off-task and disruptive. Upon further
investigation, she realizes that the text selected is too difficult for Pat, who has a learning disability, to read
independently. His reading skills are approximately two years
below grade level.
Select the most appropriate alternative for Ms. Grant to use
with Pat.
A. Have Pat read a social studies book that covers similar
material on a lower reading level during that period.
B. Tell Pat to try his best to read the material during
that period and that she will review it with him during
recess time.
C. Allow Pat to work on an art project related to the social
studies topic.
0. Give Pat more time to read the assigned social studies
chapter.




APPENDIX C
SUBSKILLS FOR COMPETENCY 24
Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the Instructional
Needs of Exceptional Students.
Subskill: Identifies the characteristics of exceptional students that
have implications for modifying the learning environment.
General Description: Given a description of a student that includes physical, cognitive, sensory, and/or social /emotional characteristics and information concerning the physical and educational environment, the examinee will identify either: (a) those characteristics of the student described which imply a need to modify the learning environment, or (b) aspects of the learning environment which are inappropriate for the student described.
Rationale: In order for learning to take place, the learning environment must be appropriate to the needs of the learner. Teacher candidates must be able to determine objectively the limitations of an exceptionality and assess incongruities between various aspects of the learning environment and student characteristics
Stimulus Attributes
A. Format
1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a
statement setting the task.
2. The scenario may contain up to 100 words.
B. Content
1. The scenario will include a description of the elements of the
learning environment including: physical environment, aspects of the curriculum, instructional objective, characteristics of
media/materials available and used, and/or instructional procedures used.
2. The scenario will include a description of physical, cognitive,
sensory, or social /emotional behavior(s) and/or characteristic(s)
of a student. At least one behavior/characteri stic which does
not represent a significant departure from the norm must be
included.
91




92
3. The scenario will not name a classification or category of
student exceptional ity.
4. The scenario may include description of student behavior(s)
or characteristic(s) that may be culturally based.
5. At least one aspect of the learning environment will be inappropri ate to at least one of the student characteristics
described.
6. The scenario may be specific to a particular age and/or grade
level. If so, the age and/or grade level will be specified
in the scenario.
7. General information about the class/school/conmmunity population
may be provided in the scenario.
8. The stern for Itemi Type A will direct the examinee to select
the option which best describes the student behavior(s) or
characteristic(s) that indicate a need to modify the learning
environment. The stern for Item Type 8 will direct the
examninee to select the reconnendation that is most appropriate
on the basis of the information presented in the passage.
Response Attributes
A. Format-The response options will be four: (a) descriptions of
student behavior(s) and/or characteristic(s) (Item Type A), or (b)
recommendations related to modifying the learning environment
(Item Type B).
B. Options
Thecorect option will describe at least one student behavior/
characteristic which implies a need to modify at least one aspect
of the learning environment.
2. Each incorrect option will describe at least one student behavior
or characteristic which:
a. may be culturally based; and/or
b. may indicate a mere lack of adequate experience with some
aspect of the learning environment; and/or
c. is based on an improper or inappropriate inference from at
least one behavior/characteristic described in the stimulus
scenario or
d. does not represent a significant departure from the norm.
Item Type B
1. The correct option will be a recommendation to modify the aspect(s)
of the learning environment which is (are) inappropriate to the
student behaviors/characteristics described in the stimulus
scenario.
2. Each incorrect option will be a statement that recommnends:
a. modifying at least one aspect of the learning environment
which is appropriate to all student characteristics described;
and/or
b. modifying at least one aspect of the learning environment in
an appropriate manner; or
c. that no modifications of the learning environment be made.




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF SECONDARY SCHOOL-BASED ACJ,1INISTRATORS ANO THEIR PERCEIVED ROLE, KNOWLEOOE LEVEL, AND DEGREE OF If1PL81ENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS BY RICHARD BURKE VOORNEVELD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMEMTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1982

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLECXiEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the assistance of several individuals who took an active interest in the preparation of this study. Sincere thanks are extended to my program corrmittee members, Or. Catherine Morsink and Dr. Edward Turner. Special thanks are expressed to Or. Bob Algozzine for his assistance above and beyond the call of duty. His humor, professionalism, and friendship proved to be invaluable in the completion of this document. A very special thank you is extended to my co1T111ittee chair per$Jn, Or. Stuart Schwartz. His wit, perseverance, professional expertise, stamina, friendship, and clear insight into personal goals and objectives have taught me not only what it means to be a quality professional, but also what it means to be a quality human being. To my friends, Charlie Hughes, Reid Linn, Alice Jones, John and Sue Beattie, and Lee Clark, a large debt of gratitude is expressed for their support in the completion of this dissertation. Without their friendship and camaraderie my doctoral program would have been missing a very important ingredient. I would also like to thank Leila Cantara, the person who taught me the true meaning of self-reliance. Her professional assistance, personal advice, optimistic personality, and love for people have ii

PAGE 3

been greatly admired Her friendship and support throughout my doctoral program have been invaluable. I would like to thank Dr. Cec i l Mercer and Dr Bill Reid for the support and encouragement during the many phases of my doctoral program. To my friend Ruth Brightwell, who long ago put me on the right track and kept me on task, I express my sincere thanks. Special appreciation is expressed to my parents, Mr and Hrs. Albert H Voorneveld, Sr., for always believing i n me and providing the environment which fostered the ability to reach for the stars. Most of all, [ thank my wife, Susan, and children, Corrie and Brice, for the i r love and understanding. Without their support, sacrifices, encouragement, adaptability, i n dependence, and forgiveness for my inattentiveness, I would ne,e h ave attained my personal goals. Their support was without a doubt t ~ number one contributing factor to the completfo!'l of my doctoral p rr J ram. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Rationale Statement of the Problem Questions Under Investigation Definition of Terms Variables Assumptions Purpose Del imitations Limitations Slfllllary CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Training of Administrators Inservice Training Preservice Training :-erceived Role of A
PAGE 5

Administration of Mainstream Programs Concept of Mainstreaming lmplementation of ~1ainstreaming Sunmary 33 34 36 42 CHAPTER l I l METHOD AND PROCEDURES 44 Subjects 44 Subject Selection 45 Description of Subjects 47 lnstrumentation and Data Collection 48 Experi men ta 1 Design 52 Design 52 Independent and Dependent Variables 53 Data Analysis 54 Summary 55 CHAPTER rv RESULTS 56 Perceived Role Comparisons 58 Comparisons of Knowledge of Handicapped Students 61 Comparisons of Degree of Mainstreaming in the Aaninistrators' Res pee ti ve Schoo 1 63 Additional Analyses 65 Sllll!lary CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary Review of the Literature Method Design SlR!TI1ary of Results V 66 68 68 68 70 71 72

PAGE 6

Conclusions [mpl ications APPENDIX A LffiER OF [NTRODUCTION AND [NTERVIEW FORM B QUESTIONNAIRE ...... C SUBSKILLS FOR COMPETENCY 24 D PUPIL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DATA FORM E RAW DATA F ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi 73 77 80 83 91 108 111 120 125 130

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Fartial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE RELATIDNS~IP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF SECONDARY SCHOOL-BASED AC11INISTRATORS AND THEIR PERCEIVED ROLE, KNOWLEDGE LEVEL, AND DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS By Richard Burke Voorneveld December, 1982 Chairperson: Stuart E. Schwartz Maj~r Department: Special Education This research was conducted in an effort to describe any rela tionships among the educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implenentation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. The subjects in this investigation were 36 secondary school-based administrators who ~ere selected from four categories of administrators, i.e., those who had preservice train ing in special education, those who had inservice training in special education, those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and those who had neither inservice nor preservice training in special education. A two-part questionnaire was admin istered to each subject to determine (1) the perceived role of the ad~inistrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and place ment of mainstreamed students. The actual degree of implementation vii

PAGE 8

of mainstream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. An ex post facto design was used in this study. Comparisons were made among the four groups of subjects to describe any relation ships l'lhich may exist relative to the level of training nn the per ceived role of the administrator, the knowledge level of the admistrator, and the degree of mainstreaming implemented in each school. Differ ences among the scores on the four types of administrators were described by a series of one-way ANOVAs. As a result of this study it can be concluded that the type of training received by secondary school-based administrators in special education was not associated with differences in their perceived admin istrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their schools. Some similarities found among the four groups are discussed in the study. Suggestions for future research are also presented. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Among the responsibilities of the secondary school principal is a mandate for leadership in the area of implementation of special education programs. In order to appropriately serve handicapped secondary students, the principal must have the knowledge base and administrative sk i ll to successfully implement program change (Gage, 1979; Robeson, 1977; Serrmel, Gottlieb, & Robinson, 1979). As the ultimate success or failure of mainstreaming is dependent upon the leadership of school aaninistrators, research regarding the education and training in special education received by building principais and the effect of such training on the implementation of mainstreaming programs is essential. This research was conducted in an effort to describe any rela tionships that may exist among the educatior.al background of secondary school-based amninistrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. In order to assist schooi administrators in the effective implementation of main stream programs it is necessary to first detennine what ingredients are required for successful prograrrming for handicapped students.

PAGE 10

2 This research will assist personnel at universities and colleges in the development of preservice and inservice training programs that will prepare school-based aaninistrators who need a foundation of knowledge about exceptional students and mainstreaming in order to meet the mandate of P.L. 94-142 to provide an appropriate education for all students. In addition, infonnation obtained from this study 1til1 provide those personnel with needed data to help them develop appropriate inservice and preservice training programs for administra tors. Without identifying the role of the administrator in the implementation of mainstream programs it is impossible to expect that special needs students can and will be appropriately mainstreamed. This chapter presents the framework for this research. The major sections included are (a) rationale, (b) statement of the problem, (c) question under investigation, (d) definitiun of tenns, (e) variables, (f) related questions, (g) assumptions, (h) purpose, (i) delimitations, (j) limitations, and (k) a s1JJT111ary of the chapter. R~tionale Concern and controversy have arisen over the concept of the least restrictive enviro1111ent since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) in 1975. Placement for many handicapped students in the least restrictive enviro1111ent is mandated by P.L. 93-380. The question that has emerged from this mandate is not "why" a school should implement these policies, but "how" to implement these policies. The "why" of mainstreaming has been recognized as

PAGE 11

(a) providing the most appropriate education for each child in the least restrictive environment; (b) looking at the educational needs of children instead of clinical or diagnostic labels; 3 (c) looking for and creating alternatives that will help general educators serve children with learning or behavior problens in the regular setting; and (d) uniting the skills of general education and special education so that all children may have equal educational opportunity (Council for Exceptional Children, 1975). The "how" of mainstreaming is a more abstract concept. The principal is the key to successful implementation of program change and his/her administrative support is necessary for the success of any new process or program (Amos & Moody, 1977). The view of principals as leaders is not inconsistent with studies of effective schools and descriptive studies of principals' behaviors. Effective schools require a sense of purpose and direction provided by well developed and clearly articulated goals (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980). It is the responsibility of the principal to effectively manage goal-setting activities for the school as a whole and to achieve some consensus among the staff about goals and priorities. Successful implementation of such goal setting requires that the principal have the analytic and intellectual skills to provide meaningful and specific operational guidance to the school staff. Also, the knowledge base and managerial skills necessary to resolve conflict and make the planning process work are essential (Blt.anberg & Greenfield, 1980).

PAGE 12

4 Several researchers have attempted to detennine what issues administrators should be concerned with in order to effectively mainstream handicapped students. Oaks (1979) suggested that admin istrators should be knowledgeable about handicapping conditions so they can properly program for special needs students. The results of a study by Davis (1981) indicated that principals considered a combination of regular class and part-time resource room to be the most effective placement for mildly handicapped students. Davis (1980) suggested that most administrative preservice programs do not address special education issues in their curriculun. However, empirical data are extremely limited regarding the administrative behaviors of school-based administrators in the support and imple mentation of mainstreaming programs (Leitz & Kaiser, 1979). Additional research is essential in order to detennine the roles and responsibilities of administrators in the implementation of mainstreaming programs. This study provides a foundation for the development of effective and efficient inservice and preservice train ing programs that will appropriately prepare secondary school-based administrators to mainstream programs that serve handicapped students. Principals surveyed in a study by Davis (1980) indicated that formal training in special education was important and that their time involvement with special education issues increased as a result of recent legislation. The question arises as to how influential a
PAGE 13

administrators are becoming increasingly more concerned about the effects of placement of mildly handicapped students (learning disa~1ed, e!!!Otionally handicapped, educable mentally retarded) in mainstream programs. Inappropriate mainstreaming can result in the most restrictive rather than the least restrictive environ ment (Hoben, 1980). Several reasons are thought to be contributing to this concern. l. Regular education teachers and aaninistrators have little or no knowledge about the methodology and theory of special educa tion programs (Middleton, Morsjnk, & Cohen, 1979). 2. Regular edL,cation teachers haie poor attitudes toward students who are labeled as needing special education (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982). 5 J. Evidence is inconclusive as to whether being given inservice or preservice training relating to special education can affect teachers attitudes toward mainstreaming (McAdams, 1981). Dozier (1979) indicated that principals who viewed handicapped students in an accepting, positive manner had fewer problens imple menting mainstream programs. Gage (1979) suggested that the principal should provide the leadership in planning for the mainstreaming of handicapped students. The principal should infonn the faculty about the mainstreaming process prior to implementation in that school. Although previous research documents the need for the school based administrator to be knowledgeable about special education in order to implenent effective mainstream programs, few research studies

PAGE 14

have addressed the type and/or amount ot training received by administrators. The present study attempted to determine the type (inservice or preservice) of training received by administra tors selected for the study, the administrator's perceived role in the mainstreaming process, and the degree of mainstreaming con ducted. This information will assist researchers, educators, and administrators in the development of mainstream programs that will appropriately serve handicapped students. Statement of the Problem 6 The principal is the key to successful implementation of program change and his/her administrative support is necessary for the success of any new program (Amos & Moody, 1977). School administrators receive different types of training. The affect of the differences in their training on their perceived role; knowledge of the identifica tion, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students; and the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools is unknown. Questions Under Investigation 1. Is there a difference in perceived role in the mainstreaming process among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservice narinservice training?

PAGE 15

2. Is there a difference in knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students among secondary school-based ad.~inistrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training? 7 3. Is there a difference in the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools among secondary school-based administra tors who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training? Answers to these questions will provide the groundwork for future research in this area. This infonnation will describe the effect of training on the perceived role, ~nowledge about mainstream ing, and the degree of mainstreaming implemented by administrators. Definition of Tenns Educational background-The educational background of a secondary school-based a
PAGE 16

to administrative licensure (Morsink, 1981). Preservice education is exclusively the province of universities and colleges. 8 Inservice-Inservice training is defined as workshops, seminars, professional conferences, or institutes related to the education of special needs learners received by an individual while employed as a school administrator. While preservice education is exclusively the province of universities, other agencies, including school districts, professional associations, and state departments of education, as well as universities, provide inservice education for school admin istrators Knowledge-For the purposes of this study, knowledge will be determined by the score received by the secondary school-based administrator on the State of Florida Teacher Certification Test, Subskills for Competency 124. The Subskills for Competency contains six narratives describing hypothetical situations involving handicapped children in public school settings. The questions follow ing each narrative are multiple choice and the total score of correct answers was used to indicate knowledge level of each administrator. Degree of Mainstreaming-This tenn refers to the percentage of time that students classified as mildly handicapped (learning dis abled, emotionally handicapped, educable mentally retarded) spend in mainstream classrooms in each administrator's school. Mainstream Classroom-Public school mainstream classrooms are related to variations of four administrative models. These are (a)

PAGE 17

9 the resource room model where the child generally leaves the regular class for special instruction over certain periods of time, (b) the partial integr3tion model where the child is assigned to the regular and special class for specific blocks of time, (c} the learning disability model where the child is usually a member of the regular classroom who is provided with additional assistance in the regular classroom, and (d) combination class model where handicapped children are placed in small-group regular classrooms with the availability of special materials (Serrrnel et al 1979). Role-A role can be defined as "the actual deeds performed by a person in a position" (Craze & Yanouzas, 1967, p. 142). For the purposes of this study, the role of the administrator is defined as the actions he/she undertakes in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs. Perceived Role-Perceived role, as defined for the purposes of this study, reflects the administrator s perception of his/her actual duties and responsibilities in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs. The perceived role of the administrator was obtained from res~onses to the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire (grouped into three categories-staff, program, and legal issues} Secondary School-Based Administrators-For the purposes of this study, these individuals are principals and assistant principals of junior and senior high schools, located in a school system in Florida. Each administrator met criteria for inclusion in one of the following four categories:

PAGE 18

l. Administrators who had preservice training in special education. 2. Administrators who had inservice training in special education. 3. Administrators who had neither inservice nor preservice training in special education. 4. Administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special education. Variables 10 In this study one independent variable was addressed. This is the educational background of secondary school-based administrators at four different levels: (a) those who have had preservice training in special education, (b) those who have had inservice training in special education, (c) those who have had both inservice and preservice train ing in special education, and (d) those who have had neither pre service nor inservice training in special education. The three dependent varia61es in this study are (1) the secondary school-based aaninistrators' perceived role in dealing with special education prograllflling, (2) the secondary school-based administrators' level of knowledge regarding special education, and (3) the degree of imple mentation of mainstream prograr.is achieved in the secondary school-based aaninistrators' respective schools.

PAGE 19

11 Assumptions The following assumptions are made in this study: l. The secondary school-based administrator's knowledge level about special education programs relates to teachers' and students' success with mainstreaming. 2. The secondary school-based administrator is a major impetus to effective mainstreaming programs. 3. Inservice and preservice training (as defined in this study} are appropriate ways of dispensing knowledge about special educa tion/mainstreaming to administrators. Purpose The ultimate success of special education prograllllling is highly dependent on the leadership of school principals. Principals provide the leadership which could make mainstreaming a success in their schools. This study attempted to determine whether preservice or inservice training in special education is associated with the princi pal 's perception of his/her role, knowledge level of special education/ mainstreaming, or the degree of mainstream progra111T1ing in the schools administered by secondary level administrators. The research of Reoore (1980) and Gage (1979) indicated that the leadership of school administrators is critical if mainstreaming is to become an effective method for meeting the needs of handicapped students. Therefore, it is imperative that research be conducted which will assist administra tors in the implementation of mainstream programs in their schools.

PAGE 20

12 Oeiimitat1ons The subjects in this study were 36 secondary school-based administrators from a large metropolitan school district in Florida. This school district is located in northeast Florida and has approxi mately 100 school-based secondary level administrators in the school syster.i. Subjects for this study were confined to those selected from the general secondary administrative population of this school district. Limitations One limitation of this study was the variance in the preservice or inservice training that the ~dministrators received. These train ing programs may or may not have offered similar course content, and the style of presentation may have been different. A second limita tion of this study was the amount of time between the administrators' preservice or inservice training and the present study. A third limitation of the study was the use of perceived role as a dependent variable. This reflects the administrator's own perception of his/her actual job activities and responsibilities in the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students into mainstream programs. This, therefore, reflects only the individual administrator's views of his/her role and not how they are viewed by others or their actual roles and responsibilities as outlined on a job description. A fourth limitation of this study was the detennination of knowledge of special education based on the six-item instrument developed from

PAGE 21

13 the State of Florida Teacher Certification Test. Subskills for Competency #24. This cannot be inferred as determining total knowledge of special education, but only as a sampling of knowledge as suggested by the seven specific items. A final limitation of this study was the lack of generalizability from the target population to the entire population of secondary school-based administrators. Sunmary Since the enactment of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, school administrators have been charged with the respon sibility of providing equal educational opportunity for special needs students in the least restrictive environnent. Some competencies general education administrators must have to implement mainstreaming programs were identified by Egner (1977) and are as follows: 1. assure due process for handicapped children, 2. resolve conflict among program personnel. 3. cause to establish (in consultation with appropriate groups) school district policies which lead to educa tional progr;mis in the least restrictive alternative for every handicapped child, 4. determine staff functions and quali~ications that will be required to conduct programs for the handicapped, 5. budget time for teachers, support staff, and adminis trators to create programs for individuals or groups of children with special needs, 6. design and maintain a student evaluation system that will reliably show student progress in instructional programs, 7. show with data that handicapped children are being educated in the least restrictive environment, 8. assist staff and faculty to redesign their programs to meet the needs of handicapped children, 9. establish activities for identifying, locating, and evaluating all children eligible for special education services, 10. demonstrate that the time handicapped students are educated ~,ith nonhandicapped age mates is well used,

PAGE 22

11. lead multidisciplinary staffing for handicapped children. (pp. 82-86) Special educators, general educators, parents, and children 14 need principals/assistant principals who will assume the leadership role in the development and support of mainstream programs. As the ultimate success of mainstreaming programs is dependent on the leader ship of school-based aaninistrators, it would appear that research is warranted to study the educational background of these administrators in relation to their perceived roles, knowledge level, and the degree of mainstreaming utilized in their schools. A comprehensive review of the literature revealed a paucity of research on the issue of educational background of administrators and effective mainstreaming practices. Mainstreaming as an independent variable has been treated in a very broad sense by investigators, with almost no attention given to specirying the educational planning or progra111ning that defines the process (Semnel et al., 1979). [f mainstreaming is to result in improved quality of education for handi capped students, administrators must consider alterations in educa tional progranming in addition to placement of handicapped students with nonhandicapped peers. The present study was designed to assist the administrator and researcher in the development of the needed training of administrators.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE An extensive review of the literature revealed a paucity of research on the effect of training in special education on the administrator's perceived role, knowledge level of special educa tion, and the degree of implementation of mainstream programs. Administrators are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the placement and education of handicapped students in the least restrictive envirorment following the guidelines in Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The present study attempted to determine if preservice or inservice training in special education is associated with several aspects of the role of administrators regarding the mainstreaming of handicapped students. The major areas reviewed in this chapter are (a) the training of administrators, (b) the perceived role of administrators, and (c) the implementation of mainstream programs. Infonnation for this chapter was obtained from a review of books, reports, and journal articles covering topics on the role of the administrator in special education, knowledge of special education, and implementation of mdinstreaming programs. The sources ut i lize~ were the Education 15

PAGE 24

Index, the Cumulative Index of Journals in Education, and an ERIC computer search. The literature review revealed a critical need for research regarding the role of the administrator and the training of the administrator in special education. Research in these areas is needed if administrators are to be provided with the tools they need to develop and implement effective mainstream programs. Introduction Leadership from building administrators is critical if least restrictive environment/mainstreaming, as mandated by P L. 94-142, 16 is to become an effective method in meeting individual student needs (Rebore, 1980). School administrators must have an understanding of the characteristics, needs, and educational provisions appropriate for each exceptional child in order to develop and administer adequate programs for children with special needs. The climate within a school is greatly influenced by the administrators and faculty. Students and parents will not be able to cope with ongoing changes such as mainstreaming if the faculty does not foster a growth producing atmosphere. Therefore, administrative leadership is a necessary ingredient. The mainstreaming of handicapped students into the regular classroom is relatively easy; facilitating integration is the more challenging task (Hoben, 1980). Hoben stressed that the appropriately mainstreamed student will be an integral part of the class, acknowledged

PAGE 25

17 by peers and teachers and incorporated into classroom activities Integration rather than maintenance is the desired outcome. The purpose of eriucating handicapped students in the mainstream is more than having them merely present in regular classes. Although goals established for handicapped children in main streamed environments encompass both academic and social/personal objectives, mainstreaming can be successful only to the extent that it integrates handicapped students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped peers (Dunlop, Stoneman, & Cantrell, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1980). Principals should provide the leadership to make mainstreaming a success in their schools. In order to do so they need to have the skills required to make the concept of mainstreaming work. Special educators, regular educators, parents, and children need principals who will assll!le the leadership role in mainstream programs (Gage, 1979). Training of Administrators Due to the expanding role of principals regarding special educa tion issues, a legitimate question of training of administrators arises. If the principal should be viewed as the catalyst for effective mainstreaming programs at the building level, this would appear to suggest that he/she should have some training in special education and the problems of educating handicapped children (Davis, 1980). The two major modes by which administrators and educators receive training in special education are (1) inservice and (2) preservice.

PAGE 26

18 [nservice Training [nservice education is the use of specified materials and planned activities to improve the instructional skills of practicing teachers (Schmid & McAdams, in press). "[tis distinguished from preservice education only by time, sequence, and population" (Schmid & McAdams, in press, p. 2). The rationale for inservice education centers on two major points: 1. The preservice preparation of a teacher is an introduction to the world of teaching. Only basic skills and knowledge can be absorbed in the allotted time and limited environment of the college or university. The "complete teacher" is developed over time and through experience (Schmid & McAdams, in press). 2. The dynamic nature of society and an accelerating acquisition of knowledge some.times rr.ake today's acceptable teaching practices in effective or obsolete. This is true of methods, techniques, tools, and substantive knowledge (Schmid & McAdams, in press). [nservice Training for Administrators. The provision of inservice training for administrators and educators is important to assist the administrator in satisfying the diverse needs of students. The school has evolved in recent years to a point where the need for renewal for service delivery personnel is critical. [tis critical in the sense that state and federal mandates required organizational, managerial, attitudinal, and behavioral changes throughout the school. Many of the mandates and changes may not have previously been a part of the school's general practices. The t~~ditional school organizational

PAGE 27

19 patterns now must accorrrnodate students with special ~eeds in regular classrooms. Haring, Stern, and Cruickshank (1958) asserted that mainstreaming can be accc.nplished successfully only if, among other things, the teachers and principals with whom these children come in contact understand and accept them. Inservice training is a step toward accomp1ishing these goals. Effects of inservice training. Several researchers have investi gated the effects of inservice training on the mainstreaming of handi capped students (Hawasymiw & Horne, 1976; Payne & Murray, 1974; Yates, 1973). Hawasymiw and Horne (1976) conducted a study involving three groups of teachers. The groups included (a) teachers who taught in integrated schools (where handicapped students were placed in classes with nonhandicapped students); (b) teachers who completed practica, participated in university conducted workshops and seminars during the academic year; and (c) teachers who neither participated in the training program nor acquired experience in an integrated setting. Hawasymiw and Horne (1976) reported that teachers who taught in inte grated schools and teachers who participated in the training program endorsed mainstreaming more than teachers who neither participated in the program nor taught in integrated schools. In this study, however, the effect of inservice training was confounded with that of teaching in an integrated school. In another study, Payne and Murray (1974) selected 50 urban principa1s and five suburban principals and solicted information regarding the principals' willingness to integrate handicapped children into their regular educati~n programs. Results indicated

PAGE 28

20 that 40.3 percent of the responding urban principals and 71.4 per cent of the suburban principals accepted the concept of integration of the randicapped child. Both groups of principals perceived the need for inservice teacher training as the nll!lber one need of regular teachers. Yates (1973), who has also studied inservice training, controlled for educational setting by investigating the effects of such training on teachers in nonintegrated schools. Yates reported gains in factual knowledge and greater willingness by teachers to integrate some categories of exceptional children into the regular classrooms. Objectives of training. The objective of inservice training for special education personnel is to continually prepare and update with specific k~owledge, skills, or the attitudes necessary to perform their roles (Kells, 1981). The inservice education program initiates and supports effective change. Such an approach begins with the "(1) identification of prograr.matic and individual needs; (2) planning, management, and implemen~tion of inservice education programs; (3) ongoing evaluation; and (4) continuous needs assessment" (Kells, 1981, p. 117). Importance of training. Providing inservice training fo~ educators and administrators is important as they are informed about innovative programs which may assist them in meeting the needs of their students. Effectiveness, in the level of performance of educators who teach students exhibiting special needs, is of concern to policymakers, administrators, and parents (Mann, 1981). These educators must con tinue to improve their expertise as a part of the process of continuous professional self-development.

PAGE 29

21 Preservice Training The term preservice training generally means traditional four year colll>
PAGE 30

training program increased knowledge about exceptional children and improved general attitudes toward them, with the majority of the student teachers acquiring a high level of factual knowledge and displaying positive attitudes toward exceptional children Pre service training that provides for contact with different kinds of exceptional children as well as for lecture-discussions about them was found to have an advantage over training limited to lecture discussions in the realms of attitudes and behavioral intentions (Naor & Milgram, 1980). Degree of training. In 1980, Davis investigated the degree of fonnal special education training of public ~~hool principals in 22 Maine. Questionnaires were distributed to 345 public school principals. Three major areas were investigated. 1. The principals' amount of fonnal training, relative to special education. 2. The importance of formal trainin9 in special education in university training programs and courses for public school administrators. 3. The increase in the amount of professional time devoted to special education issues as a result of special education legislation requirements. Results indicated that 95.4 percent of the respondents had no major or minor in special education. Further, 51.9 percent of the respondents had never taken even one course in special education. The data indicated that 58 percent of the respondents considered training in

PAGE 31

the area of special education to be extremely important. Eighty-six percent of the respondents viewed the increase in time devoted to special education as moderate to extremely difficult. 23 Need for preservice. P.igher education institutions which prepare educators and administrators for public school employment must keep pace with change. Recent legislation, P.L. 94-142, exerts pressure for changes in preservice education (Morsink, 1981) There is a need for preservice programs to prepare educators and administrators for responsibilities with handicapped students. Perceived Role of Administrators General school adm i nistrators responsible for special education programs in local school districts perform one of the most overlooked roles in specia l education. They are responsible for the placement of and educational planning for handicapped students in the least restrictive environment. Awareness of the operation, organization, and aaninistration of special education programs by general school administrators has received limited attent i on from educational researchers (Raske, 1979). Administrative Practices Given the central role of the principal, it is important to d~termine crucial administrative practices which foster and maintain successful public school mainstream programs. rnformation obtained through this literature review generated a list of administrative

PAGE 32

24 practices that effectively support mainstreaming programs. The review of administrative practices generated 90 articles, nine of which met the following criteria established for this study so that the appropriate litera!ure is reviewed and reported. 1. The selection had to come from professional 1 iterature. 2. The selection had to focus on public school acministrative practices in mainstreaming. 3. [f data based, appropriate scientific design and procedures were needed. 4. The references that the author(s) cited had to be current. 5. The selections had to deal with public school administration. 6. The selections had to address the area of excep tional child education. 7. Select,~r.s published before the passage of P.L. 94-142 (November 1975) were not considered. Acministrative practices which were most frequently mentioned are included in Table 1. It appears there are specific administra tive practices which help foster and maintain mainstream programs. The most frequently identified practice was for the principal to foster a "growth providing" atmosphere. This encourages the faculty to work as a team, and encourages team planning between special education and regular education teachers (Mlos & Moody, 1977;

PAGE 33

Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Mergler, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979). Frequently noted practices. The six most frequently noted aaninistrative practices were (1) Foster a growth producing atmosphere and encourage the faculty to work as a team and develop a sense of team planning between general and special educators (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979). 25 (2) Provide for the careful planning and the possession of a clear conceptualization of mainstreaming (Mergler, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Tarrier, 1978; Thomason & Arkell, 1980). (3) Provide opportunities for familiarizing yourself and your staff with identification processes for securing special education assistance (Amos & Moody, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Sivage, 1979). (4) Encourage expansion of activities in the mainstreaming effort, deal with attitudes and educate children about handicaps (Plnos & Moody, 1977; Gage, 1979; Thomason & Arkell, 1980). (5) Provide inservice educational opportunities to regular classroom teachers and become cognizant of the characteristics of the mildly handicapped and provide ongoing technical assistance (Amos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Oaks, 1979; Sivage, 1979; Thomason & Arkell, 1980). (6) Use special education teachers as support personnel (Pmos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Thomason & Arkell, 1980).

PAGE 34

Table l Ruults of Studies Reviewed "' "'

PAGE 35

Administrative concerns. Administrators have specific and dis tinct concerns regarding special education. The burdens of compliance ~1th the laws and court decisions on education of the handicapped, coordinating staff schedules, finding and allocating funds for special education, and supervising the integration of handicapped children into regular programs are primarily the principal's responsibility {Wendel & Vasa, 1982). Changes in special education have brought considerable adjustment for those who are charged with the responsibility of organizing and administering programs for handicapped students. Responsibilities of Administrators According to Pitner, Riley, and Giduk (1981) the major corrmitments of the principal 's time include (a) working with students who are discipline problems and with teachers who have noninstructional needs; (b) attending to logistics, external requirements, and social pleasantries; and (cl overseeing organizational maintenance, pupil control, and extracurricular activities. Recent legislation has impacted on the responsibilities of the building principal. The leadership role which the principal fills places him/her in a key position for the advancement of educational opportunities for the handicapped. Current practices. An exploratory research case study was used by Raske ( 1 979) to describe current practices at the local school district level with regard to the kinds of tasks that are perfonned and how much time is expended accomplishing these tasks. The signifi cance of this study lies in the identification of special education

PAGE 36

28 administrative responsibilities that are perfonned by general school administrators. Data were collected through questionnaire surveys from 29 local school districts within two intermediate school districts located in Michigan. The overall response-return rate for questionnaires was 95.5 percent. The general school administrators identified 14.6 percent of their time as being allocated to the perfonnance of special education administrative duties. Major responsibilities indicated by the general education administrators on special education administrative duties included 1 Participating in individual education planning (IEP) meetings. 2. Filling out special education forms. 3. Reviewing referrals for special education services. 4. Supervising and coordinating the annual review, individual education plan, and follow-up procedures. S. Providing special education coomunications, either in written fonn or by telephone. 6. Attending special education staff meetings. 7. Preparing and monitoring special education budget. Mainstreaming responsibilities. There is little research availa6le regarding the regular administrator's required specific responsibilities as they relate to mainstreaming of handicapped children. Egner (1977) completed a study on special education competencies required of general education administrators using a combination of goal analysis

PAGE 37

29 as applied to Public Law 94-142 and the jury model. using a group of administrators, to generate an initial set of competencies. Competencies were generated by a jury of administrators exemplifying excellent administration of special education within the general education system (as nominated by an advisory conmittee of persons in leadership positions in special education and educational admin istration organizations in Vennont). The jury revised competencies generated by the investigator and by the jury members through an analysis of Public Law 94-142. Forty-seven competency statements were subsequently submitted to all superintendents, all assistant superintendents, one principal from each of Vennont's 56 school dis tricts. and faculty members of the special education and educational administration departments at the University of Vermont (Egner, 1977). The major focus of the competencies rated "essentia 1" was advocacy and leadership related to handicapped children; assuring due process, interpreting federal and state mandates, using appropriate leadership styles. showing that records comply with due process and confidentiality, establishing policies to assure least restrictive alternatives, and detennining functions/qualifications for personnel involved in educat ing the handicapped. Specifically, Egner's eight competencies ranked as essential were the following: 1. assure due process for handicapped children. 2. interpret to local district school board so that federal and state mandates are effectively implemented. 3. use appropriate leadership styles to enable better communication within various groups. 4. show that student and personnel records comply with due process and confidentiality requirements. 5. resolve conflict among program personnel. 6. utilize evaluation data to make decisions concerning needed revisions in program operation.

PAGE 38

7. cause to establish (in consultation with appropriate groups} school district policies which lead to educa tional programs in the least restrictive alternative for every handicapped child. 8. determine staff functions and qualifications that will be required to conduct programs for handicapped children. (Robeson, 1977, p. 13ui 30 Egner's competencies ranked as "desirable" focused on the following five areas: (1) personnel evaluation, (2) program compliance and assessment, (3) fiscal and accounting procedures, (4) federal guide lines, and (5) the development of individual educational plans. Mainstreaming considerations. Birch (1~75), following analysis of several school systems that were mainstreaming educable mentally handicapped children in the regular classroom, developed the following list of considerations involved in mainstreaming: l. Regular class and special teacher concerns need consideration. 2. Regular class teachers talk about mainstreaming. 3. Teacher attitudes influence mainstream success. 4. Inservice education is a requirement. 5. Pupil placement calls for sensitive administration. 6. Keep newly identified pupils in regular grades and bring the support to the child. 7. Emphasize educational assessment and diagnostic teaching. 8. Local school autonomy of operation helps. 9. Line administrative support should be assured. 10. Informed parents can be helpful. Gage (1979) discussed ways in which actninistrators can facilitate the mainstreaming of handicapped students. Encouraging respect for all

PAGE 39

31 children and emphasizing positive self-concepts of the special needs learners were indicated by Gage as imoGrtant steps in the mainstream ing process. Administrators should familiarize thems~lves with the identification process for securing special education assistance, encourage expansion of activities within the affective domain, and becane attuned to teacher anxiety regarding special education students (Gage, 1979). Robeson (1977) included the following listing of the responsi bilities of a school principal in carrying out the mandates of Public Law 94-142: Coordinate and aaninister special education services in the school. Supervise educational personnel serving handicapped children in the school. Designate and implement educational programs for handicapped children in the school, in accordance with approved policies, procedures, and guidelines of the Local Education Agency and of the state Department of Education. Promote attitudes of school personnel and parents that encourage the acceptance and inclusion of handicapped children in regular classes and interaction with regular students. Receive referrals of students with suspected handicapping conditions from teachers, parents, and others. Arrange for appropriate evaluation for those students recom mended for evaluation as a result of a screening procedure. Supervise the maintenance of child records at the school level and protect the confidentiality of these records. Receive teacher requests for assistance and provide or arrange for specialized assistance. Implement due process hearings. Plan for special education programs in the school and make budget recommendations to the superintendent. Participate in Local Education Agency plan for special educa tion services. (p. 18)

PAGE 40

Concept of role. A role can be defined as "the actual deeds performed by a person in a position" (Craze & Yanouzas, 1967, p. 142). When a person carries out the duties or perfonns the tasks of his/her assigned job, that individual is playing a role ~oles in organizations tend to be highly elaborated, relatively stable, and defined to a considerable extent in explicit and even written tenns (March & Simon, 1965). Not only is the role defined for the person who occupies the position, but it is known in detail to others in the organization who deal w i th the individual. 32 The first and primary function or goa 1 of any manager ; n an educational or business environment is to ensure that the goals of the organization are clearly stated and understood (Crazo & Yanouzas, 1967). "Effective organization is a mark of manageri a 1 intelligence and artistry" (Crazo & Yanouzas, 1967, p 6). Thus the role of establishing and clarifying goals is seen as critical Designing an effective and efficient arrangement of human and material resources constitutes an additional critical aspect of the role of the educational administrator (Bogue & Saunders, 1976). This task includes an obligation to "integrate individuals with organiza tion and to match talent with task so that the most effective mix of i ndi vi dua 1 needs and organizationa 1 purpose i s achieved" ( Bogue & Saunders, 1976, p. 5) When administrators try to alter behavior they alroost i nstinctively search first for a new structure (Mingo & Burrello, 1982). A return to centralized authority has been prompted by "decreasing resources and requirements for centra 1 i zed c ontra 1 over issues raised by 94-142 in order to insure program compliance" (Mingo & Burrello, 1982, p. l).

PAGE 41

33 Role of the administrator. The role of the administrator who is responsible for implementing mainstream programs has been reviewed and ~c11"cated by several researchers. However, no studies h~ve focused on the administrator's perceived role regarding mainstreaming, his/her knowledge level of special education, and the degree of implementation of mainstream programs in their schools. Although research has indicated the need for administrators to foster a growth producing atmosphere and to develop a sense of team planning between general and special educators (Jlroos & Moody, 1977; Cochrane & Westling, 1977; Gage, 1979; Oaks, 1979; Rebore, 1979; Sivage, 1979) investigators have not provided information as to whether or not training in special education assists administrators in meeting this responsibility. As the responsibilities of administrators increase in the area of special education services the need for administrators to be knowledgeable about alternative prograrrrning for these students increases. If an administrator is to meet the requirements of P.L. 94-142, he/she needs a comprehensive working knowledge of the concept of mainstreaming. Administration of Mainstream Programs The specificity of the federal regulations regarding placement of all handicapped children in the least restrictive environment is indicative of the fact that the concept of mainstreaming has become a reality (Robeson, 1977). Recently, the concern for mainstreaming has accelerated as a result of the recognition that many of the needs

PAGE 42

34 of mildly handicapped students can, indeed, be met within the frame work of mainstream education. Concept of Mainstreaming The handicapped child is one who dev~ates from the nonnal child in ment~1 characteristics, sensory abilities, neuromuscular or physical characteristics, social or emotional behavior, corrrnunication abilities or multiple handicaps such that he/she requires special educational services or modification of school practices in order to maximize growth ( Serrrne 1 et a 1. 1979}. The number of chi 1 dren recei vi ng special education services averages about 8.5 percent of the school age population (Comptroller General, 1981}. Mainstreaming does not mean that all handicapped children will be retained in or returned to regular classrooms, but it does represent one aspect of the general principle of normalization, or the idea that the experiences of handi capped children should be as much like those of nonnal peers as possible (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982}. With the enactment of Public Law 94-142, free, appropriate education became a handicapped inrjivid~~!'s right. Administrative models. The majority of public school "main streaming programs" cited in the literature are related to variations of four administrative models (Se!11llel et al., 1979). These include (a} the resource room model where the child generally leaves the regular class for special instruction over a period of time until he/she can return full-time to the regular class, (b} the partial integration model where the child is assigned to the regular and special classes for specific periods of each day, (c) the learning disability model where

PAGE 43

the child-usually a member of the regular classroom-is provided with additional assistance in the regular classroom, and {d) the combination class model where handicapped children are placed in small-group regular classrooms with the availability of special materials (Semmel et al., 1979). 35 Definition of mainstreaming. With the passage of P.L. 94-142, educators are required to implement and evaluate "mainstreaming" programs. However, there appears to be little agreement concerning the salient defining elements for a mainstreaming program. One of the more frequently cjted definitions was posited by Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, and Kukic (1975): Mainstreaming refers to the temporal, instructional and social integration of eligible exceptional children with normal peers. It is based on an ongoing indivi dually determined educational needs assessment requiring clarification of responsibility for coordinated planning and programming by regular and special education admin istrative, instructional and support personnel. (pp. 40-41) Mainstreaming has also been referred to as the educational synonym for the legal concept of least restrictive alternative (Ser.mel et al., 1979). The term is associated with a continu1J11 of educational options available to the handicapped child. A realization of the least restrictive environment should result in a more appropriate match between the characteristics of the student and the educational environment in which the handicapped child is placed. In an attempt to clarify issues surrounding the definition of mainstreaming the Council for Exceptional Children (1975) published the following clarifying statements:

PAGE 44

Mainstreaming is: providing the most appropriate education for each child in the least restrictive setting. looking at the educational needs of children instead of clinical or diagnostic la~e~~ such JS mentally handicapped, learning disabled, physically handicapped, hearing impaired, or gifted. looking for and creating alternatives that will help general educators serve children with learning or adjustment problems in the regular setting. Some approaches being used to help achieve this are consult ing teachers, methods and materials specialists, itinerant teachers and resource room teachers. uniting the skills of general education and special education so that all children may have equal educa tional opportunity. Mainstreaming is not: wholesale return of all exceptional children in special classes to regular classes. permitting children with special needs to remain in regular classrooms without the support services that they need. ignoring the need of some children for a more specialized program than can be provided in the general education program. less costly than serving children in special self contained classrooms. (Council for Exceptional Children, 1975, p. 174) Implementation of Mainstreaming 36 Mainstreaming is operationalized within the context of a con tinuum of services such as that described by Deno (1970). Dena's array of services range from the placement of handicapped children in regular classes without supportive assistance of any kind through several descending levels of services each providing additional special

PAGE 45

31 education intervention. The cascade is designed to allow for program alternatives for provision of the specific services needed for the handica~ii,:d child to be provided an appropriate education in the least restrictive envirorment (see Figure 1). Reynolds (1962) developed a model of special education programs based on a hierarchical design (see Figure 2). Services move from serving the mildly handicapped to the most severely handicapped. The movement of a particular individual through the model is recOlllllended to be "only as far as necessary" and to "return as soon as possible" to the lesser restricting programs (Reynolds, 1962). Additionally, Dunn (1973) based his model on those of Deno (1970) and Reynolds (1962). The inverted pyramid model presents 11 administrative plans for special education programming (see Figure 3). These are further subdivided into four divisions as to types of exceptional students served. Dunn (1973) recorrmended removing a student from the mainstream on1y as far as necessary and returning him/her as soon as possible. Mainstreaming practices. Throughout the United States some large and small comnunities quietly and effectively merged the education of most children, handicapped and otherwise, years before state and federal courts and legislatures moved the concept into national awareness (Birch, 1975). However, most of the sound practice examples have yet to become widely known. When prototypes of progressive mainstreaming practices are studied, the following conditions that make mainstreaming work emerge (Birch, 1975):

PAGE 46

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Level VI Level VII Children in regular classes, including those "handicapped" able to get along with regular class acconrnodations with or without medical or counseling supportive therapies Regular class attendance plus supplementary instructional services Part-time special class Full-time special class "Noneducational" ervice (medical and welfare care and supervision) Figure l Cascade System of Special Education 38 "OUT-PATIENT" PROGRAMS (Assi grment of pupils governed by the schoo 1 system) II IN-PATIENT" PROGRAMS (Assigrvnent of children to facilities governed by health or welfare agencies) Adapted from: Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 229-237.

PAGE 47

Hospitals and Treatment Centers Hos pi ta 1 Schoo 1 Residential School Special Day School Full-time Special Class Part-time Special Class Regular Classroom Plus Resource Room Service .... Cll 3: ""0 CII < \II ell ::s 0 Cll :,. g \II \II"' CII \II "" '< Regular Classroom With Supplementary Teaching or Treatment Regular Classroom with Consultation Most Problens Handled in Regular Classro ----Number of Cases ---- Figure 2 Special Education Programs Adapted from: Reynolds, M. C. A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 1962, 28, 367-370. 39

PAGE 48

Type I excep tional s Type I I excep tional Type III exception al pupils Type IV exceptiona 1 pupils 40 Special education instructional materials and equipment ; enrolled in a re ular day class. Plan 2 Special education instructional materials and equipment plus special education consultative services w regular teachers only; enrolled in a regular day class. Plan 3 [tinerant or school-based special education tutors; enrolled in a regular day class. Plan 4 Special education resource room and teacher; enrolled in a regular day class. Plan 5 Part-time special day class where enrolled; receives some academic instruction in a regular day class. Plan 6 Self-contained special day class where enrolled; receives no academic instruction in a regular day class. Plan 7 Combination regular and special day school; receives no academic instruction in a regular day class. Plan 8 Special day school. Plan 9 Special boarding school or residential facility. Plan 10 Hospital instruction. Plan 11 Homebound instruction. Figure 3 Inverted Pyramid of Special Education Programs Most segregated plans 9, 10, and 11 Adapted from: Dunn, L. M. Exceptional children in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

PAGE 49

1. Regular educators receive orientation to what adapta tions, if any, the inclusion of handicapped pupils calls for. 2. All teachers learn to u~e the specialized instructional materials exceptional children may need. 3. An overt arrangement lets regular class teachers find help from special education teachers for pupils (whether identified as exceptional or not) who have needs beyond those the regular teacher can readily satisfy. 4. Regular class teachers get inmediate assistance, with no loss of face, if a crisis in class or individual pupil management problem occurs. The most co11111only advocated model for the delivery of services 41 to mainstreamed children is the resource teacher (MacMillan, Jones, & Meyers, 1976). Considerable faith is placed on the capability of the regular class teacher supported by the resource teacher to pro vide the needed services which will allow the child to succeed in the regular class. The attitudes of teachers toward mainstreamed children will, in large part, determine the success of any mainstream ing program. There is considerable variability among teachers as to the types and degree of deviance they can and will tolerate in their classrooms. Concept of least restrictive environnent. The full achievement of the concept of least restrictive environment will require

PAGE 50

42 fundamental changes in individual and school district practices, including changes in traditional values, organizational structures, personnel roles, !:'!ct d~cision-making patterns. The following statements reflect what must occur in all school districts in the nation (Schipper, 1981, p. 5): 1. Handicapped children must become the responsibility of all educators, not the sole responsibility of special educators; 2. Handicapped children must be viewed as individuals whose differences are enriching; 3. School districts must be organized and structured to integrate rather than segregate children with special needs; 4. Collaborative planning and shared decision making must occur between parents, teachers, and adminis trators; 5. Separate placement judgments must be made for each child based on an analysis of that child's individual needs. SUJTmary School administrators have new and important roles and responsibilities for handicapped children as a result of P L. 94-142. The challenges to be faced in developing responsive and comprehensive special education programs consistent with legal requirements seem overwhelming. rt is estimated that approximately 30 percent of nearly eight million handicapped children in the United States will be assigned to regular classroom teachers for at least a portion of the school day if the least restrictive enviro1111ent requirements of P.L. 94-142 are carried out in all school districts (Jones, 1981).

PAGE 51

In response to the law some teachers and a
PAGE 52

CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURES The problem addressed in this investigation was to detennine if there was a relationship between the type of special education train ing received by administrators and their perceived role, knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming in their respective schools. This information was obtained through direct telephone interviewing and the completion of a questionnaire by the administrators participating in this study. In this chapter the method and procedures of this study are presented. The major sections of this chapter include a description of the(~) subjects, (b) instrumentation and data co:1ection procedures, (c) experimental design, and (d) data analysis. Subjects The subjects in this investigation were principals and vice principals who were selected from four categories of secondary school based administrators. In order to qualify for this study the subject met criteria for inclusion in one of the following four categories: 1. Administrators who had preservice training in special education. 44

PAGE 53

2. Administrators who had inservice training in special education. 3 Administrators who had neither inservice nor preservice training in special education. 4. Administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special education. 45 The 36 subjects were secondary principals and vice-principals employed by a school system in Florida. A list of all principals and vice-principals employed in the 36 schools in the district was obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. The total population of administrators (72) was contacted by telephone to determine whether they qualified for the study by meeting the criteria for one of the four categories stated above. Subject Selection An initial telephone interview was utilized to detennine subject qualification for this descriptive study. The telephone interview results established whether or not the administrator met one of the four stated criteria for inclusion in the study. All 72 potential subjects were contacted by telephone. As a "letter of introduction" from the General Director of Research and Evaluation had already been received by the administrators, they were expecting to be contacted by the researcher and knew the purpose of the proposed research (see Appendix A). After identifying himself, the researcher asked each

PAGE 54

46 administrator 10 specific questions (see Appendix A for the list of questions used in the interview). R~sponses to th~se 10 questions enabled the researcher to determine (1) whether the administrator met criteria for the study and (2) whether he/she was willing to partici pate in the research by completing the questionnaire. During this initial telephone screening three administrators were eliminated from the study because they had direct exposure to handicapped children or adults of a personal rather than professional nature. In addition, two administrators indicated they were not willing to participate in the study and were, therefore, eliminated. The remaining 67 administrators' responses to the 10 item interview were scrutinized to determine the administrators' eligibility for inclusion in one of the four categories related to training (preservice/inservice) in special education. As the intent was to obtain one subject from each of the 36 schools, subjects were eliminated if the other adminis trator at the same school met inclusion criteria. A total of nine aaninistrators had received preservice training in special education, 10 aaninistrators had received inservice training in special education, and nine administrators had received both inservice and preservice training. In the eight remaining schools, one aaninistrator in each school met criteria for the study by having received neither inservice nor preservice training in special education.

PAGE 55

47 Description of Subjects Of the 36 subjects used in this study, 31 were male (86 per cent) and five were female (14 percent). The mean age of the subjects was 45 years. The mean years of experience as a secondary school-based administrator was six years. The subjects in this study are representative of state and national statistics on secondary aaninistrators (Longstreth, 1982; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1982). The average percent of time the subjects indicated they spent on special education related matters was 11 per cent. A breakdown indicating the number of subjects in each of the four categories can be found in Table 2. Table 2 Breakdown of Subjects by Category Category Administrators who had preservice training in special education Aaninistrators who had inservice training in special education Administrators who had neither inservice nor preservice training in special education Administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special education Total nllllber of subjects Number of Subjects 9 10 8 9 36

PAGE 56

Instrumentation and Data Collection A two-part questionnaire was administered to each subject to determine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the main streaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and placement of main streamed students. The actual degree of implementation of main stream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. 48 The two-part questionnaire was hand delivered by the researcher to each administrator participating in the study (N=36}. As the researcher had made an appointment with each administrator for the purpose of delivering the questionnaire, each participant understood the reason for the contact with the investigator. After introductions were made, the researcher thanked the administrator for taking the time to canplete the questionnaire and waited in the reception area during the time (average 15 minutes} it took the administrator to complete the questionnaire. At no time did the researcher discuss the questionnaire of the research with the subject. The first portion of the questionnaire consisted of 23 questions relative to the perceived role of the school-based administrator. The responses were checked on a Likert-type scale with the respondent indicating the most appropriate of six columns ranging from "very important" to "not very important." The second portion of the questionnaire addressed the administrator's level of knowledge of special education with a series of multiple-choice questions.

PAGE 57

The questions in Part One of this study's Questionnaire were developed from the competency stater.ients delineated by Egner (1977). A major outcome of Egner's study was the identification 49 and prioritization of special education competencies required for general education administrators. Egner's 47 competency statements were generated by a jury of administrators exemplifying excellent administration of special education within the general education system. These were subsequently submitted to superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and faculty members of the special education and educational administration departments of a university. These respondents ranked eight competencies as "essenti a 1 The major focus of the canpetencies was advocacy and leadership re lated to handicapped children. An additional 12 items ranked as "desirable" were also delineated by the respondents. These eight "essential" items and the 12 "desirable" items were used to develoo a 20-item questionnaire. The use of Egner's competencies in the development of this portion of the questionnaire was of particular importance as Egner developed these items through an analysis of P.L. 94-142. Part One of the Questionnaire was validated by a panel of five experts. Members of the panel were representative of both regular and special education administration at the ~eco~dary level. They all had othe; secondary level aoninistrative experience at local education agencies, state departments of education, or in special education. These individuals reviewed the questions to determine

PAGE 58

50 the appropriateness of all items. Members of the panel were asked to respond to the question "Do you think this is~ valid instrument to measure the perceived role of secondary school-based administra tors regarding mainstreaming handicapped students?" The panel determined that each of Egner's 20 items was valid and added three additional items. Using a logical approach, items were determined to be dealing with either legal, staff, or program issues. Items l, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 19 dealt with legal issues, e.g., assure due process for handicapped children, understand the procedures rec0f1Jl1ended in your district for staffings, etc. Items 2, 4, 5, 21, 22, and 23 were re lated to staff issues, e.g., resolve conflict among special and regular education personnel. Items 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 20 addressed program issues, e.g., participate in school district policy making which leads to educational programs in the least re strictive environment for every handicapped child. Internal consistency reliability estimates were obtained for the total scores on Part One of the Questionnaire and each of the sub sections. The subjects' responses to the nine items on the legal issues, the six items on the staff issues, and the eight items on the program issues were all analyzed as separate scales. Internal con sistency (i.e., coefficient alpha) was .9 for the total scale, similar high reliabilities were obtained for the legal issues subscale, for the staff issues subscale, and for the program issues subscale (i.e., .8, .7, .8, respectively). Salvia and Ysseldyke (1978) indicated

PAGE 59

51 that "if test scores are to be used for administrative purposes and are reported for groups, a reliability of .60 should probably be the minimtan" (p. 92). For purposes of this study, the reliability of the scores obtained on Part One of the Questionnaire was judged to be appropriate. Part Two of the Questionnaire was provided by the State of Florida. It consists of six sample test items for Competency #24 on the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. This section con tains six narratives describing hypothetical situations involving handicapped children in public school settings. The questions following each narrative are multiple-choice and the total score of correct answers was used to indicate the knowledge level of each adninistrator. The possible total test score range was from 0-7 points. The Subskills for Competency #24 were developed and validated to meet the requirements of Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. The competency addressed in this section of the Florida Teacher Examina tion is the following: The ability to recognize and be aware of the instructional needs of exceptional students. The subskills for this competency are the following: 1. Identifies the characteristics of exceptional students that have implications for modifying the learning environment. 2. Demonstrates awareness and appropriate use of educa tional programs, support services, personnel and other resources available to meet the needs of exceptional students. 3. Demonstrates the ability to identify and appropriately refer students who may be in need of exceptional student education.

PAGE 60

4. Demonstrates awareness of the roles of the parent, teacher, and other professional personnel as members of the educational team responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating the exceptional student's program. 5. Demonstrates the ability to recognize and/or use alter nate instructional strategies to implement that portion of the exceptional student's program for which the teacher has the responsibility. 6. Identifies and/or selects effective techniques and stratP.gies for facilitating integration and social acceptance of exceptional students. 52 A general description of a classroom situation where the subskill may be utilized and a rationale for each subski11 are included in the Subskills for Competency #24 of the Florida Teacher Examination. (See Appendix C for a complete copy of the Subskills for Competency #24.) The Pupil Accounting Department provided data used to ascertain the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the administrators' respective schools. The data indicated the number of exceptional students being served, in which programs these students were served, and the percentage of time these students attended regular education and special education classes. (See Appendix D for the complete data regarding the degree of mainstreaming achieved.) Experimental Design Design An ex post facto design was used in this descriptive study. This design allowed for an analysis of the differences in perceived role, tested knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming

PAGE 61

for administrators with different levels of training. The data analyzed were obtained from answers sul:mitted by the subjects in 53 this study on a two-part questionna i re. Additional data were obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. Independent and Dependent Variables In this study the effect of one independent variable was addressed. This was the educational background of secondary school-based adminis trators at four different levels: (a) those who had preservice train ing in special education, (b) those who had inservice training in special education, (c) those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and (d) those who had neither preservice nor inservice training in special education The three dependent variables in this study were (1) the administrators' perceived roles in dealing with special education progranming as measured by the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire (grouped into three categories staff, program. and legal issues); (2) the subjects' level of knowledge regarding special education as measured by the total score achieved on Part Two of the Questionnaire (scores ranged from 0-7); and (3) the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the secondary school-based administrators respect i ve schools as measured by the actual number of students being served (data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department).

PAGE 62

54 Data Analysis Comparisons were made among the four groups of subjects to deter mine differences in the perceived role of the administrator, the knowledge level of the administrator, and/or the degree of r:,ainstream ing implemented in each school. Data were tabulated in percentages, means, and standard deviations for the responses to each item on the questionnaire. Scores were available for each of the four categories of administrators (i.e., those with preservice training, those with inservice training, those with neither inservice nor preservice train ing, those with both inservice and preservice training} and comparisons were drawn among the four groups. Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators on perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming were analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs. The perceived role items were grouped into three categories; that is, questions regarding staff, questions regarding prograrrrning, and legal questions were grouped and analyzed separately. The administrator's knowledge level about the identification, evaluation, and placement of special education students was determined from the total score received on Part Two of the Questionnaire. The knowledge scores and level of mainstreaming data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department were also subjected to Analysis of Variance procedures to determine differences in knowledge and degree of implementation of mainstream programs in the schools of aaninistrators with different training.

PAGE 63

55 Sunmary The purpose of this study was to detennine if secondary school based aaninistrators with different training perceived their admin istrative roles differently; similarly, differences in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions and the actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their re spective schools were evaluated. The subjects in this investigation were 36 secondary school-based aaninistrators employed by a large school district in Florida. The subjects were administered a two-part questionnaire designed to detennine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administra tor's tested knowledge level of mainstreamed students. Data were obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department on the actuai numb~r of students served in each administrator's respective school. An ex post facto design was used in this study. This procedure allowed for an analysis of the differences in perceived role, tested knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming for individuals in four different groups based on their training. Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators were analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs.

PAGE 64

CHAPTER IV RESULTS The perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handi capping conditions, and actual degree of mainstreaming of handicapped students for school administrators with different types of training were compared in this descriptive study. Four levels of educational background of secondary school-based acninistrators were used to define the independent groups which were investigated; these included 1. those who had preservice training in special education, 2. those who had inservice training in special education, 3. those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and 4. those who had neither preservice nor inservice training in special education. Three dependent variables were collected from each type of administra tor; these variables were as follows: 1. The secondary school-based administrator's perceived role in dealing with special education prograllllling as measured by the 23 items regarding the legal, staff, and program ming aspects of school administration. 56

PAGE 65

2. The secondary school-based administrators' level of knowledge regarding special education as measured by seven items dealing with the practice of special education. 3. The degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the secondary school-based administrators' respective schools as measured by the data obtained from the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. 57 A systematic analysis of the data collected from these measures is pre sented in this chapter. Three related questions were under investigation in this study. 1. Is there a difference in perceived role in the mainstreaming process among secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice or inservice training, or neither preservi ce nor i nservi ce training. 2. Is there a difference in knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed stud~nts among s~-:ondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservi ce nor inservice training. 3. Is there a difference in the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools amng secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice training, both pre service and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training?

PAGE 66

58 An analysis of variance was conducted on data related to each of these questions; the type of training of the administrator served as the independent variable for each analysis. Scores for nine adminis trators who had preservice training in special education, 10 adminis trators who had inservice training in special education, eight administrators who had neither inservice norpreservice training in special education, and nine administrators who had both inservice and preservice training in special education were compared. All tests were completed using the .OS level of confidence. Perceived Role Comparisons The differences among responses of the secondary school-based administrators who have received either preservice or inservice train ing, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training and their perceived role in the mainstreaming process were investigated. Questions related to role were further grouped into staff, program, and legal considerations. The s1J1'111ary of results is presentec in Table 3. Average scores across each sub scale of Part One of the Questionnaire for the four types of adminis trators are presented. An analysis of these data indicated that the four types of acininistrators varied less than three-tenths of a point on legal issues, less than four-tenths of a point on staff issues, and less than two-tenths of a point on program issues. The means and standard deviations can be compared by observing that all scores are very

PAGE 67

similar; none differ by more than a one-half standard deviation. The similarity of these means and standard deviations indicates a high degree of agreement relative to the perceived importance of staff, legal, and program issues to administrators with different training. [tis further observed that none of the mean scores are greater than 2.2 suggesting that all questions regarding perceived role were thought to be similarly important. Type of Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Responses to Administrators' Perceived Role Type of Role Legal Staff _Program 59 Training X s.o. x s.o. X s.o. Preservice 1.9 .75 1.8 .82 2.0 .85 Inservice 1. 7 .68 1.9 .72 2.0 .73 Preservice and Inservice 1.8 .46 2.2 .66 2.2 .64 Neither Preservice or 2.0 .65 2.1 71 2.2 .80 Inservice Note: l=very important, 6=not very important The analysis of variance sunmary tables for these data are reported in Tables 4-6. All 36 administrators answered all items regarding legal issues, one administrator failed to answer one item on staff issues, and one administrator failed to answer one item on program issues. All

PAGE 68

Source Between Groups Within Groups Source Between Groups Within Groups Source Bet.,een Groups Within Groups Table 4 Analysis of Variance Sunmary Table: Lega 1 Issues SlJTI of Squares 0.530 13.753 Table 5 df 3 32 Mean Square 0.177 0.430 Analysis of Variance Sunmary Table: Staff Issues SlJTI of Squares 0.759 16.824 Table 6 df 3 31 Mean Square 0.253 0.543 Analysis of Variance Slll'lllary Table: Program Issues SlJTI of Squares 0.254 lll.021 df 3 31 Mean Square 0.085 0.581 60 F-Ratio 0 411 F-Ratio 0.466 F-Ratio 0.145

PAGE 69

61 statistical comparisons reflect these adjusted samples sizes. No differences were indicated in subjects' responses to the legal aspects of their perceived roles (f.=0.411) or their perceived roles relative to staffing (.=0.466) or progranming (=0.145) issues. The results of these analyses suggest that all four types of administrators have a high degree of general agreement as to their perceived role regard ing staff, legal, and program issues. Comparisons of Knowledge of Handicapped Students Differences in knowledge of the secondary school-based administra tors who have received either preservice or inservice training, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservicenor inservice training were investigated by a series of questions dealing with identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. A sunmary of these results is presented in Table 7. The mean knowledge level regarding handicapped students is reflected for the four types of administrators. The scores of the four types of administrators varied less than seven-tenths of a point on their knowledge of handicapped students. An analysis of these data indicated that all scores were very similar; none differed by more than a one-half standard deviation from any others. The similarity of these scores suggests that all four types of administrator demonstrated a similar amount of knowledge about handicapped students. It is further observed that the highest scores were obtained by those administrators who had inservice training only.

PAGE 70

Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations of Responses on Administrators' Knowledge Level Type of Training Mean Standard Deviation Preservice 4.5 .86 Inservice 5.2 .42 Preservice and Inservi ce 4.5 .75 Neither Preservice nor Inservi ce 4.9 .78 Note: O=lowest score, ?=highest score 62 The analysis of variance of the group means reported in Table 8 indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in knowledge about handicapped students for administrators with differ ent training. In general, the administrators' scores were high, indicating that regardless of type of previous training received by the subjects participating in this study, the aaninistrators all demonstrated an adequate knowledge base about special education students.

PAGE 71

Table 8 Analysis of Variance Surnnary Table: Administrators' Knowledge About Handicapped Students Source Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Squares 2.511 16.489 df 3 32 Mean Squares 0.837 0 515 COl!lparisons of Degree of Mainstreaming in the Aaninistrators' Respective School 63 F-Ratio 1.624 Differences in degrees of mainstreaming achieved in their respec tive schools were compared for the secondary school-based administra tors who had received either preservi ce or i nservi ce tra i ni ng, both preservice and inservice training, or neither preservice nor inservice training. The summary of results, presented in Table 9, reflects the mean percentage of handicapped students mainstreamed in the respective schools of the four groups of administrators. The percentages of students mainstreamed in the four types of administrators' respective schools varied less than 20 percent. The similarity of these means is also evident in the fact that the four types of administrators have mainstreamed more than one-half of their handicapped students.

PAGE 72

Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations of Responses Received on the Actual Degree of Mainstreaming Implemented in the Acininistrators Respective Schools 64 Type of Training Mean Standard Deviation Preservice 70 .11 Inservice 60 .15 Preservice and Inservice 60 27 Neither Preservice or Inservice 50 13 Note: Means reflect percentages of handicapped students mainstreamed. The analysis of variance summary table for these data is presented in Table 10; no statistically significant difference at the .05 level as a function of the type of training is indicated. It should be pointed out, however that the highest percentages of mainstreamed students were evident in schools in which the adm i nistrators had re ceived preservice training in special education. It is also important to note that the percentage of mainstreamed students is lowest for those administrators who have received neither preservi ce nor i nservi ce training i n special education.

PAGE 73

Source Between Groups Within Groups Table 10 Analysis of Variance SlJ!'lllary Table: Degree of Mainstreaming Sum of Squares 0.125 1.017 df 3 32 Additional Analyses Mean Squares 0.042 0.032 65 F-Ratio 1.309 Raw data can be found in Appendix E; included are (a) sex, (b) years of experience, (cl age, (d) percentage of time spent on special education related matters, (e) type of administrative category, (f) item responses from Part One of the Questionnaire, (g) score on knowledge test, (h) percentage of students mainstreamed, (i) total nianber of special education students in school, and (j) the average percentage of time in regular education by the special education population. This information reflects the actual responses of the 36 secondary school based a~inistrators participating in this study. Additional analyses of each perceived role item were completed to determine if there were any significant differences in responses to each item of the questionnaire. Similar results were obtained as concluded in the statistical analysis previously conducted; that is, no differences in responses to any role items were evident when different groups of administrators were compared. Frequency distributions for subjects'

PAGE 74

66 responses to each item on Part One of the Questionnaire, means and standard deviations for each item reported by group (by type of training), and correlations ar.iong variables are presented in Appendix F. All additional analyses reinforced the similarities previously observed using the statistical procedure of analysis of variance. S!11111ary In this study, comparisons of four different groups of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived administrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming conducted in their respective schools were analyzed. Analysis of data obtained through completion of a two part questionnaire by the subjects participating in the study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in perceived role regarding legal, staff, and progranr.1ing issues in the mainstream ing of handicapped students for aaninistrators with different training. Further, the results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions as reflected by the scores achieved by the administrators completing the question naire or in the percentage of students actually mainstreamed in each school. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if differences in special education training received by secondary school-based administrators relate to their perception of their roles, tested knowl edge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of

PAGE 75

67 mainstreaming in their respective schools. Analyses of the results of this study indicated that more similarities than differences existed in responses of the four groups of administrators regarding their perceived role, knowledge of special education, and degree or mainstreaming.

PAGE 76

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND U1PLICATIOrlS SUlllnary This research was conducted in an effort to detennine if differ ences exist among administrators with different educational backgrounds relative to perceived role, special education knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students in their respective schools. As the school principal must have the knowledge base and administrative skill to successfully implement program change (Gage, 1979; Robeson, 1977; Senmel et al., 1979), research designed to assist administrators in the effective imple mentation of mainstream programs is needed. This descriptive study was conducted to provide a foundation for the development of research designed to determine the roles and responsibilities of administrators in the implementation of mainstream Programs. Review of the Literature A review of the literature revealed a paucity of research on the issue of educational background of administrators and effective main streaming practices. Leadership from building administrators is critical if least restrictive environment, as mandated by law, is to 68

PAGE 77

69 become an effective method in meeting individual student needs (Rebore, 1980). Hoben (1980) stressed that the appropriately main streamed student will be an integral part of the class, acknowledged by peers and teachers and incorporated into classroom activities. Although goals established for handicapped children in mainstreamed environments encompass both academic and social/personal objectives, mainstreaming can be successful only to the extent that it integrates handicapped students into constructive relationships with nonhandi capped peers (Dunlop et al., 1980). A~aren~ss of the operation, organization, and administration of special education programs by general school administrators has received limited attention from educational researchers (Raske, 1979). The burdens of compliance with the laws and court decisions on education of the handicapped, coordinating staff schedules, finding and allocating funds for special education, and supervising the inte gration of handicapped children into regular programs are primarily the principal 's responsibility (Wendel & Vasa, 1982). The leadership role which the principal fills places him/her in a key position for the advancement of educational opportunities for the handicapped. The challenges to be faced in developing responsive and compre hensive special education programs consistent with legal requirements seem overwhelming. rt is estimated that approximately 30 percent of nearly eight million handicapped children in the United States will be assigned to regular classroom teachers for at least a portion of the school day if the least restrictive environnent requirements of P.L.

PAGE 78

70 94-142 are carried out in all school districts (Jones, 1981). Compre hensive staff develoi:r.,ent programs designed to address the needs of administrators are probably the best and quickest solution to the problem (Jones, 1981). As the ultimate success of mainstream programs is particularly dependent on the leadership of building principals, research which will provide adninistrators with knowledge and infonna tion necessary for successful implementation of mainstream programs is essentia 1. Method The subjects in this investigation were 36 secondary school-based administrators who were selected from four categories of administra tors (i.e., those who had preservice training in special education, those who had inservice training in special education, those who had both inservice and preservice training in special education, and those who had neither i nservi ce nor preservi ce training in speci a 1 education) A two-part questionnaire was administered to the subjects to determine (1) the perceived role of the administrator in the mainstreaming process and (2) the administrator's tested knowledge level of the identification, evaluation, and placement of mainstreamed students. The actual degree of implementation of mainstream programs in the participating administrators' respective schools was obtained from data provided by the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. The educational background of the secondary school-based adminis trators was the independent variable in this study. The three dependent variables in this study were {1) the secondary school-based

PAGE 79

71 administrators' perceived roles in dealing with special education progranming as measured by the 23 items in Part One of the Question naire (grouped into three categories-staff issues, program issues, and legal issues); (2) the secondary school-based administrators' level of knowledge regarding special education as measured by the total score achieved on Part Two of the Questionnaire (scores ranged from 0-7); and (3) the degree of implementation of mainstream programs achieved in the administrators' respective schools. Data in the first two areas were obtained through administration of a questionnaire and actual numbers of students in special programs were obtained fran the Pupil Accounting Department of the school district. Design An ex post facto design was used in this study. Comparisons were made among the four groups of subjects to determine if any conclusions could be drawn regarding the relationship between the administrator's level of training on his/her perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of mainstreaming implemented in his/her school. Differences among the scores of the four types of administrators on the 23 items in Part One of the Questionnaire wer~ analyzed by a series of one-way ANOVAs. The ANOVA was used to describe the differences among groups. The administrator's knowledge level about the identification, evalua tion, and placement of special education students was detennined from the total score received on Part Two of the Questionnaire. Differences among the scores were anlyzed by a one-way ANOVA. The data provided by the Pupil Accounting Office were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA to

PAGE 80

describe the differences in the degrees of implementation of main stream programs in each administrator's school S111111ary of Results Analysis of data obtained through completion of a two-part questionnaire by the subjects participating in the study indicated 72 that there was no statistically significant difference in perceived role regarding legal, staff, and programning issues in the mainstream ing of handicapped students for administrators with different training Further, the results indicated that there was no statistically signifi cant difference in tested knowledge of handicapping conditions as reflected by the scores achieved by the administrators completing the questionnaire or in the percentage of students actually mainstreamed in each school. Results of this study revealed that many similarities existed among the four groups of administrators regardless of the type of training received by the administrator. The similarity of responses by the administrators to the perceived role questions in Part One of the Questionnaire suggests that all questions regarding role were thought to be similarly important by all the administrators The mean scores obtained by all four groups of administrators on Part Two of the Questionnaire (knowledge of special education) were similar indicat ing general group similarity in the amount of knowledge all adminis trators had regarding special education. Analysis of the data obtained on the degree of mainstreaming implemented in the administrators' schools was similar for all four groups. Although it was observed

PAGE 81

73 that the highest percentage of mainstreamed students was obtained by those a~inistrators who had received preservice training in special education, the degree that the percentages differed was not statis tically significant. Conclusions As a result of this study it can be concluded that the type of training received by secondary school-based administrators in special education was not associated with differences in their perceived admin istrative roles, tested knowledge of handicapping conditions, and actual degree of implementation of mainstreaming handicapped students in their schools. Although the data obtained indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the type of train ing received by the secondary school-based administrators participating in this study and their perceived role regarding legal, staff, and prograllllling issues in the mainstreaming of handicapped students, several individual items in Part One of the Questionnaire received very strong support from the respondents. Five questions on the questionnaire were ranked very important ("l") by 100 percent of the administrators participating in the study. These items were the fol lowing: 13. have knowledge of due process as it relates to the exceptional student program. (legal issue) 14. understand federal, state, and county regulations as they relate to exceptional student program. (legal issue)

PAGE 82

15. have knowledge of the definition of each of the areas of exceptionality. (program issue) 16. understand the procedures involved in a referral. (program issue) 17. understand the procedures reco11111ended in your district for staffings. (legal issue) 74 The similarity of responses by all four groups of administrators to Part One of the Questionnaire was reflected in a high degree of agree ment relative to the importance of staff, legal, and program issues. The spread of responses by all groups of administrators to all sections of Part One was from 1.7 to 2.2 (l=very important, 6=not very important) indicating strong support for the 23 items in this section. These data strongly suggest that all administrators in this study had a high degree of general agreement relative to the importance of certain areas of their perceived roles regardless of their training in special education. As a limitation of this study was the use of perceived role as a dependent variable, caution should be taken when reviewing the data obtained from Section of the Questionnaire. The 23 items selected for this portion of the Questionnaire may reflect only a portion of the areas involved in the role and responsibilities of an administrator regarding mainstreaming. Thus, it is possible that an aaninistrator may respond differently to an expanded questionnaire that contained many more areas of concern. Also, as the questions were designed to determine the administrator's perception of his/her role, the responses reflect only his/her views of the role and not how they are viewed by significant others or as required by a job description. Without actual

PAGE 83

75 observation of the day-to-day activities of the school aaninistrator, it is not possible to determine if the perceived role reflects the actual role of the administrator. There was no statistically significant difference in knowledge about handicapped students for administrators with different training as measured by the scores obtained by the administrators on Part Two of the Questionnaire. The mean test scores of the four groups ranged from 4.5 to 5.1 {O=lowest, ?=highest score) indicating that all four groups of acininistrators had a similar knowledge level of special education. The six items on Part Two of the Questionnaire can not, however, be viewed as addressing knowledge of the identification, evaluation, and placement of handicapped students by the administrators in the study without the realization that six items can only sample these information areas. Further, Part Two of the Questionnaire (Subskills for Competency #24) was originally developed to measure teachers' knowledge about special education matters. Although all administrators were first certified as classroom teachers, their knowledge of special education issues may only be suggested by the use of an instrument initially developed for testing of teachers. The percentages of students mainstreamed in the four types of administrators' respective scnools varied less than 20 percent. The highest percentage of mainstreamed students (70 percent) was found in schools where administrators had received preservice training in special education although the degree to which this percent varied from the others was not statistically significant. rt should be noted

PAGE 84

76 that there appeared to be a trend indicating that preservice train ing in special education may be indicative of a higher degree of mainstreaming. Results indicated that the lowest percentage of students mainstreamed were those in schools where the administrators had received neit!1er inservice nor preservice training (50 percent). Thus, the data suggests that a lower level of mainstreaming may be related to a lack of actninistrators' training. Those administrators receiving both preservice and inservice training and those administra tors receiving inservice training only mainstreamed 60 percent of their handicapped students. Although this research indicated no significant differences between the type of training received by the acininistrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming, it can be noted that more similarities than differences existed in the responses of the four groups of administrators. Results of this study imply directionality of percent of time students are mainstreamed and the type of training administrators receive. However, true experimental research needs to be conducted in order to infer causality. The information obtained in this study should be utilized in the development of future research studies designed to investigate the role of the school acininistrator in the implementation of mainstream programs for handicapped students.

PAGE 85

77 [mplications This research was conducted in an effort to detennine if any relationships exist between the educational background of secondary school-based administrators and their perceived role, knowledge level, and the degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handi capped students in their respective schools. Analyses of the results of this study indicated that more similarities than differ ences existed in responses of the four groups of administrators participating in the study regarding their perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming. Future research investigating the role of the school administrator and the implementation of main stream programs for handicapped students is warranted. Reco11111endations for future research based on the results of this study include the following: 1. A replication of this study should be conducted with modifi cations to the instruments used in this investigation. As the Questionnaire only sampled knowledge level in particular areas of special education, it would be appropriate to develop (or adopt) an instrument that would more fully assess actual knowledge of handi capping conditions. Also, an instrument should be developed that would require the administrator or his/her supervisor to document actual responsibilities and activities regarding mainstreaming as opposed to the instrumer.t in this study that addressed the "perceived" role of the acininistrator. Revisions in the instr ... -.oentation cf this study should provide data that could more clearly demonstrate a rela tionship between type of training and degree of mainstreaming of handicapped students.

PAGE 86

78 2. Ethnographic research on mainstreaming within the school needs to be conducted. Observations need to be conducted within the school setting to determine the actual degree of integration of handicapped students into the regular education program. This type of research would yield information indicating actual integration of handicapped students in classroom situations as opposed to per centages of time as doc1J11ented by school administrators. Information on actual integration of handicapped students may be used as one measure of successful" mainstreaming practices in the schools. Once this is determined, an investigation delineating variables involved in "successful" mainstreaming needs to be completed. 3. Research should be conducted to investigate the importance of the variables of perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of mainstreaming to the mainstreaming process. If these variables are not found to be pertinent to the role of the administrator. their importance to the significant others in the school system or district level personnel for effective mainstreaming needs to be considered. 4. Ethnographic research needs to be conducted with administra tors to determine if what the administrator perceives as his/her actual duties are, in fact, the duties he/she is carrying out. This research should also address the specific amount of time administra tors actually spend involved in mainstreaming issues. This type of observational study should reveal any differences among school adminis trators' actual responsibilities and whether or not these differences relate to the degree of mainstreaming achieved in their respective schools.

PAGE 87

79 5. Research should be conducted to determine how administrators are gaining knowledge about exceptional student education, e.g., through district procedures and federal regulations, through infonna tion orovided by special education teachers. Oetennination of the source from which administrators draw to keep informed regarding the evaluation and placement of special education students could aid in the training or retraining of administrators who do not have success ful mainstream programs in their schools. Continued research efforts designed to determine what issues administrators should be concerned with in order to effectively main stream handicapped students is essential. If mainstreaming is to result in improved quality of education for handicapped students, administrators must consider alterations in educational programming and placement of handicapped students with nonhandicapped peers. As the ultimate success or failure of this effort is dependent on the school administrator, it is imperative that information and assistance be provided to the administrator to assist him/her in the development of successful mainstream programs.

PAGE 88

TO: FRCf,1: SUBJECT: DATE: APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND INTERVIEW FORM Secondary School Principals and Vice-Principals John 0. Gillespie, General Director Research and Evaluation PROPOSED RESEARCH BY RICHARD B. VOORNEVELD August 24, 1982 This letter is to introduce Richard B. Voorneveld, doctoral candidate at the University of Florida, who wishes your cooperation in this research project. Mr. Voorneveld will be contacting you during the week of August 30th to assist him by completing a questionnaire. Your responses will indicate your perceived role, knowledge level, and degree of implementation of mainstreaming of handicapped students. All information collected is to be kept anonymous and confi dential. He will be responsible for absorbing any and all costs pertain ing to this data collection. Your assistance in this study is voluntary. 80

PAGE 89

81 Initial Telephone Interview With Aaninistrators Administrator's Name: School: Address: Phone Number: ________ DOB _____ Sex ____ Questions: 1. Prior to becoming a principal, had you had any coursework dealing with special education, handicapping conditions, or Public Law 94-142? Yes ___ No __ 2. If yes, how many courses (write actual number of credit hours)? 3. How long have you been in your current position? 4 Since you have become a principal have you attended any inservice programs dealing with special education, handicapping conditions, or Public Law 94-142? Yes ___ r~o __ 5. If yes, where (i.e., conferences, workshops, etc )? 6. How many sessions (hours)? 7. What special education populations do you serve in your school (e.g., LO, ED, MR, Gifted, Speech, etc.)? 8. What percent of your time would you estimate you spend on special education matters? ________ i 9. Would you be willing to participate in a study that would require you to complete a short questionnaire in the area of special education? Yes ___ No __

PAGE 90

10. Have you had any personal contact with the handicapped, i.e., member of family, taught handicapped students, etc.? ~s Populations Preservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Question 11. Inservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Question 14. Preservice and Inservice: Administrators who have answered YES to Questions #1 and #4. Neither Preservice or Inservice: Administrators who have answered NO to Questions #1 and #4. 02

PAGE 91

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Part One Please check the most appropriate response. As a general education administrator, you perceive your role as part of the mainstreaming process to: 1. assure due process for handicapped children. 2. resolve conflict among special and regular education personnel. 3. participate in school district policy making which leads to educational programs in the least restrictive envirorvnent for every handicapped child. 4. determine staff functions and qualifications that will be required to conduct programs for the handicapped. 5. budget time for teachers, support staff, and administrators to create programs for individuals or groups of students with special needs. 6. design and maintain a student evalua tion system that will reliably show student progress in instructional programs. 7. show with data that handicapped children are being educated in the least restrictive envirortnent. 83 Very Important 1 2 3 4 Not Very Important 5 6

PAGE 92

Very Important 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. assist staff and faculty to redesign their programs to meet the needs of handicapped students. establish activities for identifying, locating, and evaluating all children eligible for special education services. demonstrate that the time handicapped students are educated with nonhandi capped age mates are well used. lead multidisciplinary staffing for handicapped children. understand school law as it relates to locating, identifying, and evaluat ing exceptional students. have knowledge of due process as it relates to the exceptional student program. understand federal, state, and county regulations as they relate to exceptional student program. have knowledge of the definition of each of the areas of exceptionality. 16. understand the procedures involved in a referral. 17. understand the procedures reco11111ended in your district for staffings. 18. be aware of or know the least restrictive envirorment that can help the exceptional student. 19. know the requirements involved in providing an individual education plan. 20. maintain current knowledge of trends in curricula and management strategies appropriate for use with the various exceptionalities. 1 2 3 4 84 Not Very Important 5 6

PAGE 93

21. promote positive attitudes of school and community for special programs and mainstreaming. 22. encourage active involvement of special t~achers in programs or activities with regular students. 23. budget time for ongoing inservice related to mainstreaming for regular and special teachers. Very Important 1 2 3 4 85 Not Very Important 5 6 Adapted from: Egner, A. Special education competencies required of general education administrators in Vermont school districts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38, 3170A-71A. (University Microfilms No 7726-141}

PAGE 94

Part Two Please read each narrative carefully and check the most appro priate response. fl6 1. Mr. Brown has observed that Dana, a new student in his class, often seems to drop her books and pencils. Her written work is always sloppy. When Dana is asked to work in one of the activity lab centers in the classroom, she often bumps other students' desks, sending their books and papers to the floor. Sometimes desks are pushed out of place or a student is jostled. These incidents usually are followed by an outburst from an irate classmate. Dana always seems to be extremely embarrassed, quickly apologizes, and tries to rearrange things. The first few times she attempted to use the slide viewer in one of the centers, she needed help to set it up, even though the directions were presented clearly. Select the option that best describes which of Dana's behaviors or characteristics indicates a need to modify the learning en vironnent. A. Dana's poor motor coordination. B. Dana's physical aggression. C. Dana's inability to follow directions. D. Dana's extreme embarrassment. Select the r'ec011111endation which is most appropriate. A. Mr. Brown should use an appropriate technique to modify Dana's aggressive behavior. B. Mr. Brown should not require Dana to work independently in the activity lab centers. C. Mr. Brown should ensure that Dana receives special training in motor skills. D. Mr. Brown should not change anything about the learning envi rorrnent.

PAGE 95

87 2. Mr. Carson, the sixth-grade teacher, is notified during the second week of school that he and his class will be receiving a new student on Monday of the following week. The notification indi cates that Paul, the new student, is orthopedically handicapped, confined to a wheelchair, and has minor convulsive seizures once or twice each week. Paul's academic achievement records indicate that he is perfonning at or above the sixth grade level in all areas. Mr. Carson wants to influence classroom acceptance and adjustment to Paul in a positive manner. Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Carson to take. A. He should tell the class irrmediately that a handicapped student in a wheelchair is coming. Then he and the class should work together to rearrange the classroom environment and design a carrel or cubicle area for Paul. B. He should talk with Bill and Marie, two students who seem to be the most popular, describe Paul's character istics, and enlist their support. Then he should share infonnation with the rest of the class, focusing on some of Paul's strengths and limitations. C He should confinn receipt of the notification with the principal. Then he should plan to implement an inter action strategy on Tuesday of the following week, after Paul's arrival, in an effort not to prejudice or frighten the class. D. He should irrmediately describe to the class Paul's physical disability and the consequences of his con vulsive seizures. Then he should have the students work together to make a "Welcane, Paul" banner.

PAGE 96

88 3. Mrs. Collins, the second-grade teacher, noted during the second week of class that Jake, a seven-year-old boy, was repeatedly disrupting other classmates during writing, spelling, and art related activities. His behavior during these activities included temper tantr1J11s and destruction of school property. Further classroom observation and review of Jake's cumulative folder noted that his intelligence quotient was low average when he was tested in first grade. It was also noted that he has missed nine weeks of school because of a variety of illnesses. Mrs. Collins is meeting with the Special Services Team to discuss appropriate placement and services for Jake. Select the reco1T111endation below which is most appropriate for Mrs. Collins to support on the basis of her knowledge of Jake. A. Jake should be placed in another second-grade class, and should return to first grade each day for writing, spelling, and art-related activities. B. Jake should be sent to the district's special school for the rest of the semester, and then returned to Mrs. Collins' class for the second semester. C. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, since there are no programs for students like hi~, and maturation will take care of his problems. D. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, but receive daily (20-30 minute) resource room assistance in the appropriate social and academic areas.

PAGE 97

89 4. Mr. Banner has observed that Leslie doesn't pay attention during class discussions and often seems to be staring into space. Most of the time, instructions must be repeated for her, or Mr. Banner sometimes has to write them out. All of her written work is excellent, but when she reads aloud, she frequently stumbles over or mispronounces words. When she is working independently, she attends well and stays on task until she canpletes the assignment. In fact, it is very difficult to distract her. Mr. Banner has called her name several times, and finally has had to get her attention, which seemed to startle her. Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Banner to take. A. He should alert the guidance counselor that Leslie's behavior indicates emotional problems. B. He should have a talk with Leslie about trying harder and paying attenticn in class. C. He should refer Leslie for evaluation for the district's learning disabilities program. D. He should use an informal hearing screening technique before he refers Leslie for further evaluation. 5. Natasha, a sixth-grader, has been identified as learning disabled (LD) and a special program has been designed for her. She receives reading instruction from the LD resource teacher. Classroan activities involving reading have been modified for her. She also is receiving counseling to improve her poor self-concept. Natasha s parents recently have separated. Lately, she has been complaining of headaches and stomach aches only during P.E. class and asking to be excused from P.E. activities. Other students have begun to re port that Natasha has been taking their things without pennission. Select the most appropriate course of action related to Natasha s recent behavior. A. The school principal should take disciplinary action to deal with rlatasha's stealing behaviors. B. Natasha's counselor should work with her to reduce her attention-getting behavior and detennine underlying problems. C. The school nurse should reconmend to Natasha's parent(s) that Natasha have a physical examination. D. The LD resource teacher should work with Natasha to reduce her attention-getting behavior and determine underlying problems.

PAGE 98

6. During the period set aside for her fifth-grade class to read the assigned social studies chapter, Ms. Grant notices that Pat is consistently off-task and disruptive. Upon further investigation, she realizes that the text selected is too difficult for Pat, who has a learning disability, to read independently. His reading skills are approximately two years below grade level. Select the most appropriate alternative for Ms. Grant to use with Pat. 90 A. Have Pat read a social studies book that covers similar material on a lower reading level during that period. B. Tell Pat to try his best to read the material during -that period and that she will review it with him during recess time. C. Allow Pat to work on an art project related to the social studies topic. O. Give Pat more time to read the assigned social studies chapter.

PAGE 99

APPENDIX C SUBSKILLS FOR COMPETENCY 24 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the Instructional Needs of Exceptional Students. Subskill: Identifies the characteristics of exceptional students that have implications for modifying the learning envirorvnent. General Description: Given a description of a student that includes physical, cognitive, sensory, and/or social/emotional characteristics and infonnation concerning the physical and educational environment, the examinee will identify either: (a) those characteristics of the student described which imply a need to modify the learning environ ment, or (b) aspects of the learning envirorment which are inappropriate for the student described. Rationale: In order for learning to take place, the learning envirorvnent must be appropriate to the needs of the learner. Teacher candidates must be able to determine objectively the limitations of an exception ality and assess incongruities between various aspects of the learning environment and student characteristics Stimulus Attributes A. Format 1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a statement setting the task. 2. The scenario may contain up to 100 words. B. Content 1. The scenario will include a description of the elements of the learning environment including: phys i cal environment, aspects of the curriculum, instructional objective, characteristics of media/materials available and used, and/or instructional pro cedures used. 2. The scenario will include a description of physical, cognitive, sensory, or social/emotional behavior(s) and/or characteristic(s) of a student. At least one behavior/characteristic which does not represent a significant departure from the nonn must be included. 91

PAGE 100

3. The scenario will not name a classification or category of student exceptionality. 4. The scenario may include description of student behavior(s) or characteristic(s) that may be culturally based. 5. At least one aspect of the learning environnent will be in appropriate to at least one of the student characteristics described, 92 6. The scenario may be specific to a particular age and/or grade level. If so, the age and/or grade level will be specified in the scenario. 7. General infonnation about the class/school/conmunity population may be provided in the scenario. 8. The stem for Item Type A will direct the examinee to select the option which best describes the student behavior(s) or characteristic(s) that indicate a need to modify the learning environment. The stem for Item Type 8 will direct the examinee to select the reco11111endation that is most appropriate on the basis of the informat1on presented in the passage. Response Attributes A. Fonnat-The response options will be four: (a) descriptions of student behavior(s) and/or characteristic(s) (Item Type A), or (b) recommendations related to modifying the learning envirorvnent (Item Type B). B. Options Item Type A 1. The correct option will describe at least one student behavior/ characteristic which implies a need to modify at least one aspect of the learning environment. 2. Each incorrect option will describe at least one student behavior or characteristic which: a. may be culturally based; and/or b. may indicate a mere lack of adequate experience with some aspect of the learning environment; and/or c. is based on an improper or inappropriate inference from at least one behavior/characteristic described in the stimulus scenario or d. does not represent a significant departure from the nonn. Item Type B 1. The correct option will be a reconmendation to modify the aspect(s) of the learning environment which is (are) inappropriate to the student behaviors/characteristics described in the stimulus scenario. 2. Each incorrect option will be a statement that rec011'11ends: a. modifying at least one aspect of the learning enviroment which is appropriate to all student characteristics described; and/or b. modifying at least one aspect of the learning environment in an appropriate manner; or c. that no modifications of the learning environment be made.

PAGE 101

93 SAMPLE ITEMS Mr. Brown has observed that Dana, a new student in his class, often seems to drop her books and pencils. Her written work is always sloppy. When Dana is asked to work in one of the activity lab centers in the classroom, she often bumps other students' desks, sending their books and papers to the floor. Sometimes desks are pushed out of place or a student is jostled. These incidents usually are followed by an outburst from an irate classmate. Dana always seems to be extremely embarrassed, quickly apologizes, and tries to rearrange things. The first few times she attempted to use the slide viewer in one of the centers, she needed help to set it up, even though the directions were presented clearly. Item Type A Select the option that best describes which of Dana s behaviors or characteristics ind i cates a need to modify the learning environment (la) A. Dana's poor motor coordination (2c) B Dana's physical aggression (2b) C. Dana's inability to follow directions (2d) O. Dana's extreme embarrassment Item Type B Select the reconmendation which is most appropriate. (2c) A. Mr. Brown should use an appropriate techn i que to modify Dana's aggressive behavior. (2a) B. Mr Brown should not require Dana to work independently in the activity lab centers (1) C Mr. Brown should ensure that Dana receives special training in motor skills. (2b) O. Mr. Brown should not change anything about the learning environment.

PAGE 102

94 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the Instructional Needs of Exceptional Students. Subskill: Demonstrates awareness and appropriate use of educational programs, support services, personnel and other resources available to meet the needs of exceptional students. General Description: Given a description of student behavior(s)/ characteristic(s) which indicate a need for exceptional student program(s) and/or service(s), the examinee will identify the appropriate alterna tive(s) available to meet the specialized needs of the student. Rationale: Evaluation, placement, and planning procedures for excep tional students must include teacher recommendation. The student's regular teacher generally is the initiator of the referral process whereby a request for special assessment is made. The classroom teacher is likely to have the most in-depth knowledge of a student's functional classroom behavior, and also is likely to serve as a member of a multi-disciplinary evaluation and planning team. Teacher candi dates should be aware of the range and objectives of specialized programs and services for exceptional students in order to facilitate the design of the most appropriate educational environment for an exceptional student which is not unduly restrictive. Stimulus Attributes A. Format l. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a state ment setting the task. 2. The scenario may contain up to 100 words. 8. Content l. The scenario will include a description of physical, sensory, social/emotional, cognitive, and/or academic behavior(s) characteristic(s) of a student that clearly indicate(s) the need for particular type(s) of exceptional student program(s) and/or service(s). 2 The scenario will not name a classification of student excep tionality. 3 The scenario may be specific to a particular age and/or grade level. If so, the age and/or grade level will be specified in the scenario. 4. The scenario will not delineate the range of available alterna tives. 5. The scenario will indicate that the student's teacher is serving as a member of a team that will discuss appropriate placement and services for the student. 6. The scenario will not delineate the range of available alterna tives.

PAGE 103

95 7. The stem will direct the examinee to select the most appro priate recorrmendation for the teacher to support on the basis of the teacher's knowledge of the student. Response Attributes A. Fonnat-The response options will be four descriptions of teacher reconmendations B. Options 1. The correct option will specify one or more educational programs, support services, personnel, and/or other resources appropriate to the specialized student needs indicated by information provided in the scenario. 2. Each incorrect option will: a. specify one or more educational program(s), support services, personnel, and/or other resources not appropriate to the specialized needs indicated by infonnation provided in the scenario. The alternative(s) specified in an option will be inappropriate because it is (they are): (1) too restric tive; or (2) are not designed to address the particular type(s) of student needs indicated; and/or (3) are designed to address some of the student needs indicated, but are not adequately specialized; or b. state that there are no alternatives available to meet the student s needs.

PAGE 104

96 Sftl,IPLE ITEM Mrs. Collins, the second-grade teacher, noted during the second week of class that Jake, a seven-year-old boy, was repeatedly disrupting oth~r classmates during writing, spelling, and art-related activities. His behavior during these activities included temper tantrums and destruction of school property. Further classroom observation and review of Jake's cumulative folder noted that his intelligence quotient was low average when he was tested in first grade. It was also noted that he has missed nine weeks of school because of a variety of illnesses. Mrs. Collins is meeting with the Special Services Team to discuss appropriate placement and services for Jake. Select the recorrmendatfon below which is most appropriate for Mrs. Collins to support on the basis of her knowledge of Jake. (2a-3) A. Jake should be placed fn another second-grade class, and should return to first gra~e each day for writing, spelling, and art-related activities. (2a-1) B. Jake should be sent to the district's special school for the rest of the semester, and then returned to Mrs. Collins' class for the second senester. (2b) C. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, since there are no programs for students like him, and maturation will take care of his problens. (1) D. Jake should remain in Mrs. Collins' class, but receive daily (20-30 minute) resource room assistance in the appropriate social and academic areas.

PAGE 105

97 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the Instructional needs of Exceptional Students. Subskill: Demonstrates the ability to identify and appropriately refer students who may be in need of exceptional student education. General Description: Given a description of student behaviors and characteristics which indicate a potential need for exceptional student education, the examinee will i dentify an appropriate course of action that is either: (a) gathering additional data prior to initiating a formal referral for further evaluation to determine whether exceptional student education is needed, or (b) referring the student for further eva 1 uation. Rationale: Teacher candidates must be sensitive to student needs and whether those needs are being met in the current learning envirol'lllent. They must be able to identify those students who have specialized needs that are not being met through the programs and services in which they are participating. Teacher candidates must be able to determine when there is a need for further evaluation to determine whether a student is in need of specialized educational services, and to follow appropriate referral procedures. Stimulus Attributes A. Format 1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a statement setting the task. 2. The scenario may contain up to 120 words. B. Content 1. The scenario will include a description of physical, sensory, social/emotional, cognitive, and/or academic student behaviors and characteristics that indicate a potential need for excep tional student education. 2. The scenario will describe some behaviors which are not clear departures from normal variance among students. 3. The scenario will not be specific to an age or grade level. 4. The stem will direct the examinee to select an appropriate action for the teacher to take. Response Attributes A. Format-Response options will be four statements of courses of teacher action. B. Options 1. The correct response is for the teacher to:

PAGE 106

98 a. gather additional infonnation prior to initiating a fonnal referral for further evaluation (e.g., implement a greater variety of alternative strategies and observe the student s behavior); or b. refer the student for evaluation to determine whether there is a need for exceptional student education. The type of program or service may or may not be named. 2. Each fncorrect option will describe teacher action based on: a over-interpreting the data presented; or b. under-interpreting the data presented (e.g identifying the problem(s) as being motivational or cultural); or c. interpreting the data correctly, but making improper recorrmendations; or d. interpreting the data incorrectly, thus drawing an inappro priate conclusion about the nature of the problem(s); and/ or e. interpreting the data incorrectly, thus drawing an inappro priate conclusion about the type of program(s) or service(s) that may be needed. SAMPLE ITEM Mr. Banner has observed that Leslie doesn t pay attention during cl ass discussions and often seems to be staring into space. Most of the time, instructions must be repeated for her, or Mr Banner sometimes has to write them out All of her written work is excellent, but when she reads aloud, she frequently stumbles over or mispronounces words. When she is working independently, she attends well and stays on task until she completes the assignment. In fact, it is very difficult to distract her. Mr. Banner has called her name several times, and finally has had to touch her to get her attention, which seemed to startle her. Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Banner to take (2d) A. He should alert the guidance counselor that Leslie's behavior indicates emotional problems. (2b) B. He should have a talk with Leslie about trying harder and paying attention in class. (2e) C. He should refer Leslie for evaluation for the district's learning disabilities program. (la) O. He should use an informal hearing screening technique before he refers Leslie for further evaluation.

PAGE 107

99 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the instructional Needs of Exceptional Students. Subskill : Demonstrates awareness of the roles of the parent, teacher, and other professional personnel as members of the educa tional team responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating the exceptional student's program. General Description: Given a description of a situation related to some aspect of planning, implementing, or evaluating an exceptional student's program, the examinee will select a statement which identifies the appropriate member of the educational team and describes that member's role in addressing the issue. Rationale: Developing, implementing, and evaluating an exceptional student's educational program requires the coordinated efforts of parents and several different professionals. Teacher candidates must be aware of the roles and expertise of these individuals in order to follow appropriate procedures in planning, implementing, and evaluating the exceptional student's program. Stimulus Attributes A. Format 1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a statement setting the task. 2. The scenario may contain up to 100 words. 8. Content 1. The scenario will describe a situation in which some aspect of planning, implementing or evaluating an exceptional student's educational program must be addressed by a particular member of the educational team. 2. The scenario will specify the student's exceptionality. 3. The scenario may be specific to a particular age and/or grade level. [f so, the age and/or grade level will be specified in the scenario. 4. The scenario will indicate the current stage in planning, implementing, or evaluating the student's educational program by specifying the nature of prior decisions that have been made regarding the student's educational program. 5. The stem will direct the examinee to select the most appropriate course of action related to the issue described in the stimulus scenario.

PAGE 108

100 Response Attributes A. Fonnat-The response options will be four statements of courses of action. B. Options 1. The correct option will be a statement that names the appro priate member of the educational team and describes the member's role relative to addressing the issue desc~ibed in the stimulus scenario. 2. Each incorrect option will be a statement that names: a: an inappropriate member of the educationa 1 team, and describes a role that is appropriate or inappropriate for addressing the issue described in the stimulus scenario; or b. the appropriate member of the educational team, but describes a role not appropriate for addressing the issue described in the stimulus scenario. SAMPLE ITEM Natasha, a sixth-grader, has been identified as learning disabled (LO) and a special program has been designed for her. She receives reading instruction from the LO resource teacher. Classroom activities involving reading have been modified for her. She also is receiving counseling to improve her poor self-concept. Natasha's parents recently have separated. Lately, she has been complaining of headaches and stomach aches only during P.E. class and asking to be excused from P.E. activities Other students have begun to report that Natasha has been taking their things without permission. Select the most appropriat2 ccur~~ of action related to Natasha's recent behavior. (2a) A. The school principal should take disciplinary action to deal with Natasha' s s tea 1 i ng behaviors. (1) B. Natasha's counselor should work with her to reduce her attention-getting behavior and determine underlying problems. (2a) C. The school nurse should recOlllllend to Natasha's parent(s) that Natasha have a physical examination. (2a) D. The LO resource teacher should work with Natasha to reduce her attention-getting behavior and determine underlying problems.

PAGE 109

101 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and Be Aware of the Instructional Needs of Exceptional Students Subski 11 : # Demonstrates the ability to recognize and/or use alternate instructional strategies to implement that portion of the exceptional student's program for which the teacher has the responsibility. General Description: Given a description of a situation in which a teacher has detennined that a specific instructional strategy is inappropriate for an exceptional student in the class, the examinee will select an appropriate alternative instructional strategy. Rationale: It often is necessary to modify or change the instructional strategies typically used in a regular classroom to enable an excep tional student to benefit from instruction in that setting. Teacher candidates should be familiar with the availability and use of alter native instructional strategies. StimulJS Attributes A. Fonnat 1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a statement setting the task. 2. The scenario may contain up to 100 words. B. Content 1. The scenario will specify the student's exceptionality. 2. The scenario will include a description of the instructional strategy that has been used with the student and at least one student behavior which indicates that the strategy was inappro priate for the student. 3. The scenario will indicate that the teacher recognizes the need to implement an alternative strategy and wishes to select a strategy that is likely to be more appropriate. 4. The scenario may specify an age, grade level, or subject area. 5. The stem will direct the examinee to select the most appropriate alternative strategy. Response Attributes A. Fonnat-The response options will be four descriptions of alternative instructional strategies consistent with the data presented in the scenario. 8. Options 1. The correct option will describe a strategy that takes into account the student behavior(s) which indicates the need for modification. Appropriate alternative strategies must be selected from among the following:

PAGE 110

102 a. use of specialized equipment; b. use of specialized materials; c. alternative time usage; d. alternative space usage; e. alternative level of difficulty; f. alternative behavior structure; g. alternative content presentation technique. 2. Each incorrect option will describe one or more strategies which are not likely to modify the source of difficulty indicated by the problem behavior(s). At least one incorrect option will be selected from la-g above, but will be inappro priate for the situation described in the scenario. SAMPLE ITEM During the period set aside for her fifth-grade class to read the assigned social studies chapter, Ms. Grant notices that Pat is con sistently off-task and disruptive. Upon further investigation, she realizes that the text selected is too difficult for Pat, who has a learning disability, to read independently. His reading skills are approximately two years below grade level. Select the most appropriate alterndtive for Ms. Grant to use with Pat. (lb) A. Have Pat read a social studies book that covers similar material on a lower reading level during that period. (2) B. Tell Pat to try his best to read the material during that period and that she will review it with him during recess time. (2i C. Allow Pat to work on an art project related to the social studies topic. (2c) D. Give Pat more time to read the assigned social studies chapter.

PAGE 111

103 Competency: The Ability to Recognize and be Aware of the Instructional Needs of Exceptional Students. Subskill: [dentifies and/or selects effective techniques and strategies for facilitating integration and social acceptance of exceptional students. General Description: Given a description of a classroom situation in which there fs evidence of a potential for social isolation of an exceptional student in the class, the examinee will select an appro priate strategy for promoting acceptance and positive interaction among the students. Rationale: Teacher candidates should be sensitive to students' needs for social acceptance and to the potential for social isolation of an exceptional student in the regular classroom. They should be aware of various types of interaction strategies that have been utilized successfully in environments having both exceptional and non-excep tional students. Stimulus Attributes A. Format 1. The item will consist of a narrative passage followed by a statement setting the task. 2. The scenario ~ay contain up to 100 words. B. Content 1. The scenario will describe a situation in which at least one exceptional student is included in a class with non-exceptional students. 2. The scenario may be specific to a develoi:xnental stage or age group of students. [f so, age and grade level will be described. 3. The scenario may be specific to a type or degree of excep tionality of the student(s), or may include more than one type or degree of exceptionality. 4. The scenario will include a description of the exceptionality(ies) of the student(s). 5. The stem will direct the examinee to select the most appropriate teacher action. Response Attributes A. Format-The response options will be four descriptions of strategies for dealing with the situation.

PAGE 112

104 B. Options 1. The correct response will describe an interaction strategy that has been used successfully in learning environments including both exceptional and non-exceptional students (e.g., a "buddy" system arrangement, peer tutoring, coopera tive goal structuring, peer facilitation). 2. Each incorrect option will describe: a. a strategy that may cause embarrassment to the exceptional student(s) by singling out the exceptional student(s) and focusing negative attention on differences; and/or b. a strategy that will promote only social or academic interaction, but not integration or acceptance; and/or c. a strategy that will promote a type or level of social or academic interaction that may significantly impair the self-concept of the exceptional student(s) because it is inappropriate to the maturity level of the excep tional student(s); and/or d. a strategy that addresses i11111ediate symptoms, but will not promote continuing interaction, integration or social acceptance; and/or e. a strategy that may threaten or shame the non-excep tional students in the class; and/or f. a recornnendation to ignore the situation perhaps giving a plausible rationalization for such behavior. SAMPLE ITEM Mr. Carson, the sixth-grade teacher, is notified during the second week of school that he and his class will be receiving a new student on Monday of the following week. The notification indicates that Paul, the new student, is orthopedically handicapped, confined to a wheel chair, and has minor convulsive seizures which cause him to lose bladder control once or twice each week. Paul's academic achievement records indicate that he is performing at or above the sixth-grade level in all areas. Mr. Carson wants to influence classroom acceptance and adjustment to Paul in a positive manner. Select the most appropriate action for Mr. Carson to take. (2a) A. He should tell the class i11111ediately that a handicapped student in a wheelchair is coming. Then he and the class should work together to rearrange the classroom environment and design a carrel or cubicle area for Paul. (1) B. He should talk with Bill and Marie, two students who seem to be the most popular, describe Paul's characteristics, and enlist their support. Then he should share infonnation with the rest of the class, focusing on some of Paul's strengths and limitations.

PAGE 113

105 (2f) r.. He should confinn receipt of the notification with the principal. Then he should plan to implement an inter action strategy on Tuesday of the following week, after Paul's arrival, in an effort not to prejudice or frighten the class. (2a,e) D. He should immediately describe to the class Paul's physical disability and the consequences of his convulsive seizures. Then he should have the students work together to make a "Welcome, Paul" banner.

PAGE 114

Letter to State Department of Education Dr. Thomas Fischer State Department of Education Knott Building Room 580 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dear Or. Fischer: July 26, 1982 Attached please find a copy of the sample items fran the "Subskills for Competency 124" which I am proposing to use in my dissertation research. I will be using these items to test the knowledge level of secondary school-based administrators about special education. 106 I would very much appreciate receiving your written permission for me to use this instrument. Thank you for your support and assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Richard 8. Voorneveld Department of Special Education University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611

PAGE 115

Letter from State Department of Education Mr. Richard B. Voorneveld University of Florida Department of Special Education Gainesville, FL 32611 Dear Mr. Voorneveld : August 12, 1982 107 In reply to your recent letter to Mr Thomas Fischer, you have the pennission of this office to use the enclosed sample items for Competency #24 as a test instrument. Best wishes in your dissertation efforts. Sincerely, Maria Pitner, Ph.D. Consultant, Assessment Section Department of Education

PAGE 116

APPENDIX D PUPIL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DATA FORM 1. The exceptional student education programs that are currently operating and the number of students in each program: Program __ Educable Mentally Retarded Trainable Mentally Retarded __ 8notionally Handicapped __ Learning Disabilities __ Speech Gifted Deaf/Blind __ Physically Handicapped Vision Resource __ Hearing fmpaired 108 Number of Students

PAGE 117

10') 2. Indicate the average percent of time these students spend in regular education and in special education. Educable Mentally Retarded Trainable Mentally Retarded Emotionally Handicapped Learning Disabilities Speech Gifted Deaf /Blind Physically Handicapped Vision Resource Hearing Impaired Regular Education Special Education ., ., ____ .. ____

PAGE 118

APPENDIX E RAW DATA

PAGE 119

lnfonnation Obtained from Telephone Interview ID Number Sex Years of Years of Percent of time Type of Experience Age on Special Ed. Administrator 022 Male 04 54 10 4 025 Male 02 34 25 4 031 Female 02 51 30 4 033 Male 12 59 12 035 Male 02 56 05 2 ...... ...... 038 Male 03 34 03 062 Male 03 37 05 063 Female 06 49 25 2 066 Male 07 47 05 069 Male 02 31 20 075 Male 06 51 05 3 086 Male 11 59 10 3 090 Male 04 34 05 4 092 Male 12 49 10 4 107 Female 03 42 12 2 146 Male 03 28 05 3

PAGE 120

ID N1a11ber Sex Years of Years of Percent of time Type of Experience Age on Special Ed. Administrator 152 Male 10 38 30 3 153 Female 04 40 02 3 154 Male 12 5(1 10 3 155 Male 04 45 20 3 165 Male 03 49 03 3 207 Male 11 51 25 2 211 Male 06 50 20 4 212 Male 05 38 10 4 213 Male 02 42 10 4 216 Male 02 32 10 2 219 Male 02 46 10 2 223 Male 02 56 03 224 Female 08 51 02 236 Male 15 52 12 2 237 Male 04 36 05 2 238 Male 04 47 05 4 N 241 Male 04 44 10 2

PAGE 121

ID Number Sex 244 248 254 Male Male Male Type of Administrator: = Preservice training 2 lnservice training Year of Experience 02 13 14 3 = Preservice and 1nserv1ce training 4 = Neither preservice or inservice training Years of Age 36 48 45 Percent of time on Special Ed. 08 04 05 Type of Administrator 2 w

PAGE 122

Responses to Part One Question ID Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 022 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 l 2 025 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 031 6 6 l 1 6 6 6 1 6 033 l 035 2 3 3 5 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 038 6 3 5 3 3 6 5 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 062 2 2 2 2 063 2 5 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 066 6 2 4 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 069 ') 4 5 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 .. 075 2 3 5 4 4 5 2 4 3 3 6 l '1 3 4 3 3 3 086 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 090 3 3 6 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 2 2 2 4 2 5 092 6 3 2 5 6 5 6 3 3 5 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 +>107 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 146 2 1 l 1 l

PAGE 123

ID Nllllber Question 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 152 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 153 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 154 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 155 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 165 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 207 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 211 0 2 2 2 2 2 212 2 2 l 2 2 2 213 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 216 2 5 5 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 219 223 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 224 236 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 237 2 2 2 2 2 2 238 2 2 3 3 5 5 3 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 241 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 244 1 1 l Ul 248 2 2 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 254 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 0 3 2 3 2 3 2

PAGE 124

Test Scores and Student Data ID Number Test Score % of Students Total Population of Average% of Time Mainstreamed Special Ed. Students in Regular Education 022 5 59 224 84 025 5 48 200 85 031 4 84 202 81 033 4 79 78 88 035 5 68 105 88 038 5 68 77 81 062 4 82 87 85 063 5 90 184 73 066 6 100 107 63 069 5 71 106 84 075 4 50 140 88 086 4 96 85 85 090 4 33 138 85 092 6 64 224 83 107 5 86 156 73 O'I 146 4 89 101 78

PAGE 125

ID Ninber Test Score % of Students Total Population of Average% of Time Mainstreamed Special Ed. Students in Regular Education 152 6 100 118 69 153 5 100 240 79 154 4 100 7 0 155 5 61 206 75 165 4 94 49 85 207 6 69 142 74 211 4 59 177 84 212 5 64 140 77 213 6 93 130 79 216 6 57 210 78 219 5 100 167 72 223 5 90 115 85 224 5 100 61 88 236 5 40 230 77 237 5 97 208 72 238 5 77 161 79 241 5 67 192 66

PAGE 126

ID Nllllber 244 248 254 Test Score 5 5 3 % of Students Mainstreamed 100 91 75 Total Population of Special Ed. Students 176 33 177 Aver~ge l of T1me in Regular Education 84 88 78

PAGE 127

APPENDIX f ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

PAGE 128

Section One: Perceived Role Frequency/Percent "uestions Responses 2 3 4 5 6 f 26 8 l l : 72.2 22.2 2 8 2.8 2 19 6 8 2 1 52.8 16.7 22.2 5.6 2.8 3 8 12 7 l 4 4 22.2 33.3 19.4 2.8 li.l 11. l 4 11 7 7 2 6 2 sub=0/2.8% 30.6 19.4 19.4 5.6 16.7 5.6 5 13 13 7 3 36. l 36. l 19.4 8.3 6 9 12 4 5 5 l 25.0 33.3 11. l 13.9 13.9 2.8 7 11 9 12 1 3 30.6 25.0 33.3 2.8 8 3 8 16 8 8 2 2 44.4 22.2 22.2 5 6 5.6 9 16 7 8 3 2 44.4 19.4 22.2 8.3 5.6 10 12 9 12 l 1 1 33.3 25 0 33.3 2 8 2 8 2.8 11 6 13 8 6 3 16.7 36.1 22.2 16.7 8.3 12 21 12 2 1 58.3 33.3 5.6 2.8 13 26 9 l 72.2 25.0 2 8 120

PAGE 129

121 Questions Responses 2 3 4 5 6 14 22 13 l 61. l 36. l 2.8 15 17 16 3 47.2 44.4 8.3 16 22 9 4 l sub=0/2.8: 61. l 25 0 11. l 17 17 10 9 47.2 27.8 25.0 18 18 10 7 l 50.0 27.8 19.4 2.8 19 19 12 4 l 52.8 33.3 11. l 2.8 20 9 16 9 2 25 0 44.4 25.0 5.6 21 22 9 4 l 61. l 25.0 11.1 2.8 22 21 7 7 1 58 3 19 .4 19.4 2.8 23 13 13 8 1 l 36. l 36 .1 22.2 2.8 2.8

PAGE 130

122 Means and Standard Deviations by Type of Administrator Groups Question Preservice [nservice Both Neither x so x so x so r so 2.0 1.6 1.1 .3 1.4 .5 1.2 7 2 1.4 .7 2 0 1.6 2.5 1.1 1. 7 1.1 3 2.8 1.9 2.6 1.4 2.6 1.2 3 2 2.2 4 2.2 1. 7 3.1 1.7 2.5 1.3 3. l 1.9 5 2.0 1.0 1.6 8 2.3 1.2 2 1 8 6 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.5 2 8 1.5 3.0 1.9 7 2.5 1.5 2 1 1.0 l. 9 .4 3.2 2.0 8 2. l 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.9 1.1 2.3 1.3 9 1. 9 1.1 2.0 1.2 2.1 l. l 2 7 2.1 10 1.9 1.0 2.0 l. l 2.4 .8 2.8 1.8 11 2.5 l. l 2.5 1.3 2 6 1.5 3 2 1.6 12 l. 7 .7 1.4 .7 1.4 .5 1.8 1.3 13 1.6 .7 1.2 4 1.4 5 l. l 3 14 1.5 .7 1.3 .5 1.5 .5 1.3 .5 15 1.7 .7 1.6 .7 1.6 7 1.6 .5 16 1.4 .5 1.6 8 1.8 .9 1.2 4 17 1.9 8 1.7 1.0 l. 9 1.0 l. 7 7 18 l. 9 1.0 1.7 .9 2.1 1.0 1.3 5 19 1. 7 .7 1.6 l. l 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 20 2.0 .9 2.1 .7 2.1 1.0 2 2 1.0 21 1.4 .7 1.7 .8 1.5 .8 1.8 1.6 22 2.0 l. l 1.4 7 2.0 .9 1.3 .7 23 1.8 .8 1.8 .8 2 3 7 2.2 1.5

PAGE 131

123 Total Population Very Important Not Very Important Question 1-3 on scale 4-6 on scale 97 2 2.8 2 91. 7 8.3 3 75 0 25.0 4 71.4 28.6 5 91.7 8.3 6 69 4 30.6 7 88.9 11 .1 8 88.9 11 .1 9 86.1 13 .9 10 91. 7 8.3 11 75.0 25 0 12 97.2 2 8 13 100.0 14 100 0 15 100.0 16 100.0 17 100.0 18 97.2 2 8 19 97 2 2.8 20 94.4 5.6 21 97.2 2.8 22 97.2 2.8 23 94.4 5.6

PAGE 132

Correlations Group Test/ Test/ Test/ Test/ Legal/ Lega 1 / Legal Staff Progrm Mstrmg Staff Progrm Preserv1ce 0. 2774 0.1072 0.5350 0.1765 0.7950 0.9411 p=0.235 p=0.392 p=0.086 P"0.325 psQ.005 p=0.000 Inserv1ce -0.0764 0.0487 -0.1796 -0.3565 0.6893 0.7928 p=0.417 pc0.447 p=0.310 p=0.156 pz0.014 p=0.003 Both 0.119 0.3059 0.1107 0 .1927 o. 7570 0.8175 p=0.396 p=0.231 p=0.397 p=0.324 p=0.015 p=0.007 Neither 0.2872 -0.5712 0.1650 0.3890 0.6505 0.9504 p=0.227 p=0.070 p=0.336 p=0.150 p=0.040 p=0.000 Total 0.1259 -0.0359 0. 1350 0.0751 0.6945 0.8739 Population p=0.232 p=0.419 p=0.220 P"0.332 paO.OQQ p=0.000 Legal/ Staff/ Mstrmg Progrm -0.5317 0.8433 p=0.070 pcQ.004 -0.2501 0.8710 p=0.243 pc0.001 -0.3345 0.9710 p=0.209 p--0.000 0.0316 0.6993 p=0.468 p=0.027 -0.2116 0.8342 P"0.108 p.000 Staff/ Mstrmg -0.5170 p=0.077 -0.5844 p=0.038 -0.2185 p=0.302 -0.4975 P"0.105 -0.4160 P"0.006 Program/ Mstrmg -0.4863 p=0.111 -0.3861 p=O .135 -0.3414 p=0.204 -0.0875 P"0.411 -0.2920 p.044 N A

PAGE 133

REFERENCES Amos, N. G., & Moody, L. Comparisons among principals, regular classroom teachers, and special aducation teachers of their perceptions of the extent of implementation of administrative practices pertaining to mainstreaming mildly handicapped students. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 168 241) Birch, J. Mainstreaming: Educable mentally retarded children in regular classes. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1975. Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. Bogue, E., & Saunders, R. The educational manager: Artist and practitioner. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones, 1976. Cochrane, P. V., & Westling, D. L. The principal and mainstreaming: Ten suggestions for success. Educational Leadership, 1977, 34 (7), 506-510. Comptroller General. Report to the Chairm~n. Subcorrmittee on Select Education, Corrmittee on Education and Labor, House of Representa tives of the United States. Disparities still exist in who gets special education. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1981 Council for Exceptional Children. What is mainstreaming? Exceptional Children, 1975, 42(3), 175. Crazo, R., & Yanouzas, J. Formal organizations: A systems approach. Homewood, [L: Richard D. [rwin and the Dorsey Press, 1967. Davis, W. E. An analysis of principals' formal training in special education. Education, 1980, 101(1), 89-94. Davis, W. E. Principals' attitudes toward placement of mildly and moderately handicapped pupils. Journal of Special Education, 198l, llJ3l. 265-269. Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 1970, R, 229-237. 125

PAGE 134

126 Dozier. A. R. Facilitating the education of handicapped children in the re ular classroom: The rinci al's res onsibilit. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan. 1979. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC 132 198) Dunlop. K. H Stoneman, Z., & Cantrell. M. L. Social interaction of exceptional and other children in a mainstreamed preschool classroom. Exceptional Children. 1980. 47(2). 132-141. Dunn, L. M. (Ed.). Exceptional children in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Egner. A. Spec~al education competencies required of general education administrators in Vermont school districts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977. 38. 3170A-3171A. (University Microfilms No. 77-26-141) Gage, K. H. The principal's role in implementing mainstreaming. Educational Leadership. 1979. 36(8), 575-577 Harasymiw, S. J & Horne. M. D. Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children and regular class integration. The Journal of Special Education, 1976, .!.Q., 393-400. Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G., & Cruickshank. W. H. Attitudes of educators toward exceptional children. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1958. Hoben, M. Toward integration in the mainstream Exceptional Children. l 980 4 7 ( 2) l 001 05 Johnson. D. W., & Johnson. R. T. Integrating handicapped students into the mainstream. Exceptional Children. 1980. 47(2). 90-98. Jones. N. Response of educators to Public Law 94-142. In D. P. Turner (Ed.), Preparing regular educators for new responsibilities in educating handicapped children: A guide to implementation strategies for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1981. Kaufman. H., Gottlieb, J., Agard. J., & Kukic, M. Mainstreaming: Toward an explication of the construct. In E. Heyen, G. Vergason, & R. Whelan (Eds.), Alternatives for teaching exceptional children. Denver: Love. 1975. Kells, P. P. Delivery of quality inservice education programs. In D. P. Turner (Ed.), Preparing regular educators for new responsi bilities in educating handicapped children: A guide to implementa tion strategies for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1981. Leitz, J., & Kaiser. J. S. The principal 's role in administering programs for exceptiona 1 children. Education, 1979 .!.QQ.( 1). 31-40.

PAGE 135

127 Longstreth, J. W. Personal corrmunication, September 29, 1982. MacMillan, 0. L., Jones, R. L., & Meyers, C. E. Mainstreaming the mildly retarded: Some questions, cautions, and guidelines. Mental Retardation, 1976, J.!(1), 3-10. Mann, P. H. Inservice training. In D. P. Turner (Ed.), Preparing regular educators for new responsibilities in educating handi capped children: A guide to implementation strategies for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1981. March, J., & Simon, H. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. McAdams. M. L. The effects of regular educators' inservice training on teacher anxiety, knowledge about individualization, and attitudes toward mainstreaming (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1g01, 40, 139A-140A. (University Microfilms No. 82-13678) Mergler, R. So, site administrator, you want to mainstream. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 1979, 9(2), 8-9. (ERIC Docum~ Reproduction Service No. EJ 213 730) Middleton, E Morsink, C., & Cohen, S. Program graduates' perception of need for training in mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 1979, 45, 256-261. Mingo, J & Burrello, L. Determining the relationship between special education administrator, supervisor, and building principal role and responsibilitie~ in the administration of educational programs for the handicapped. Reston, VA: Council of Administrators of Special Education, 1982. Morsink, C. Preservice training programs for teachers and administrators. In B. P. Turner (Ed.), Preparing regular educators for new responsibilities in educating handicapped children: A guide to implementation strategies for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1981. Naor, M & Milgram, R. M. Two preservice strategies for preparing regular class teachers for mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 1980, 47(2), 126-129. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Personal communication, October 1, 1982. Oaks, C. A. Considerations in the integration of behaviorally disordered students into the regular classroom: Implications for the school principal. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Dallas, Texas, April 22-27, 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 171 096)

PAGE 136

128 Payne, R., & Murray, C. Principals' attitudes toward fntegratfon of the handicapped. Exceptional Children, 1974, 4i(2), 123-125. Pitner, N. J., Riley, R. M., & Giduk, A. K. Training of the school administrator: State of the art. Eu gene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, November 1981. Public Law 93-380; U.S. Code Section 1413 (13). Congressional Record, November 14, 1975. Public Law 94-142. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Congressional Record, November 1975. Raske, 0. E. The role of general school administrators responsible for special education programs. Exceptional Children, 1979, i_(8), 645-646. Rebore, R. W. Public Law 94-142 and the building principal. NASSP Bulletin, April 1979, 26-30. Rebore, R. W. Faculty leadership in implementing Public Law 94-142. Education, 1980, 100(4), 395-397. Reynolds, M. C. A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 1962, 28,367-370. Robeson, T. Mainstreaming and the role of the regular administrator: A review of the literature, existing materials, and needed competencies. In G. Oenemark & C. Morsink, Developing competencies for teachin handica ed students amon re ular classroom teachers and other professionl personnel Grant proposal submitted to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, 1977. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978. Schipper, W. V. An overview of special education personnel development for general educators. In D. P. Turner (Ed.), Preparing regular educators for new responsibilities in ed~cating handicapp~d children: A guide to implementation strategies for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1981. Schmid, R., & McAdams, M. In-service education. In A. H. Fink & C. Kokaska, Career education for the behaviorally disordered. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, in press. Sen111el, M. I., Gottlieb, J., & Robinson, N. Mainstreaming: Perspectives on educating handicapped children in public school. Bloomington, IN: Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, School of Education, Indiana University, 1979.

PAGE 137

129 Sivage, C. A. Implementing Public Law 94-142: A case for organizational readiness. Eugene, OR: Oregon University, College of Education, 1979. Tarrier, R. B. Mainstreamed handicapped students in occupational education: Exemplary administrative practices. New York: Institute for Research and Development in Occupational Education, City University of New York, 1978. Thomason, J., & Arkell, C. Educating the severely/profoundly handi capped in the public schools: A side-by-side approach. Exceptional Children, 1980, 47(2), 114-122. Wendel, F C., & Vasa, S. F. Administrators' perceptions of issues in special education. The Journal of Professional Studies, 1982, .Z.(3), 31-35. Yates, J R. Model for preparing regular classroom teachers for mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 1973, 39, 471-472. Ysseldyke, J. E. & Algozzine, B. Critical issues in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

PAGE 138

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Richard Burke Voorneveld is the son of Albert H. Voorneveid, Sr. and Margaret Burke Voorneveld. Born at Rockville Center, Long Island, New York, on November 16, 1949, he received a parochial school elementary and high school education and graduated in 1969. He graduated from Saint Leo College, St. Leo, Florida, with a B.A. degree in elementary education in 1972 At that time he was offered a graduate assistantship to the University of South Florida. In 1973, upon completion of a M A. program in gifted education, he assumed a position as a resource teacher for elementary/middle school gifted programs with the Alachua County school system in Gainesville, Florida. In 1979, he was the president of the Gatorland Chapter of the Council for Exceptional Children. He became coordinator of the high school gifted programs in Alachua County from 1979 to 1981. In January 1980, Mr. Voorneveld was admitted to the University of Florida doctoral program in the Department of Special Education. He is a member of the Florida Association for the Gifted, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the Association for Retarded Citizens. Mr Voorneveld is married to the former Susan Monroe Straus. They have t\10 children, Edward Corrie, age six, and Margaret Brice, age one. 130

PAGE 139

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it confonns to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Robert F. Algozzine Professor of Special I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Catherine Morsink Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it confonns to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Rona 1 d E. Nutter Assistant Professor of Special Education

PAGE 140

i certify that r have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fu11y adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ~e.~ Edward C. Turner Assistant Professor Instructional Leadership and Support This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Special Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Covncil, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 1982 Dean for Graduate Studies and Research