pre-service special education teachers ... issue vol26 n... · web viewbeginner pre-service special...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 26, No: 2, 2011

ISSN 0827 3383

International Journalof

Special EducationVOLUME 26 2011 NUMBER 2

Beginner Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Learning Experience During Practicum

The Direct and Indirect effects of Environmental Factors on Nurturing Intellectual Giftedness

Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning Communities for Diverse Elementary School Students

Creating Success for Students with Learning Disabilities in Postsecondary Foreign Language Courses

Social Developmental Parameters in Primary Schools: Inclusive Settings’ and Gender Differences on Pupils’ Aggressive and Social Insecure Behaviour and their Attitudes Towards Disability

Let’s Have Fun! Teaching Social Skills Through Stories, Telecommunications, and Activities

Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusion and Schooling of Students with Angelman Syndrome: Suggestions for Educators

Enhancing Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Attitudes Toward School Diversity Through Preparation: A Case of One U.S. Inclusive Teacher Education Program

Professionalism and Institutionalization of Education of Speech and Language Impaired Children in an Inclusive System in Germany

School Culture for Students with Significant Support Needs: Belonging is Not Enough Inclusive Education in Sweden: Responses, Challenges and Prospects Special Education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, Perspectives, Future Possibilities Differentiated Accountability Policy and School Improvement Plans: A Look at

Professional Development and Inclusive Practices for Exceptional Students

1


International Journal of Special Education

EDITORIAL POLICY

The International Journal of Special Education publishes original articles concerning special education. Experimental as well as theoretical articles are sought. Potential contributors are encouraged to submit reviews of research, historical, and philosophical studies, case studies and content analyses in addition to experimental correlation studies, surveys and reports of the effectiveness of innovative programs.

Send your article to [email protected] or [email protected] as attachment by e-mail, in MSWORD for IBM format ONLY .

Articles should be double spaced (including references). Submit one original only. Any tables must be in MS-WORD for IBM Format and in the correct placement within the article. Please include a clear return e-mail address for the electronic return of any material. Published articles remain the property of the Journal.

E-mailed contributions are reviewed by the Editorial Board. Articles are then chosen for publication. Accepted articles may be revised for clarity, organisation and length.

Style: The content, organisation and style of articles should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. An article written in an obviously deviating style will be returned to the author for revision.

Abstracts: All articles will be preceded by an abstract of 100-200 words. Contributors are referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition for assistance in preparing the abstract.

Responsibility of Authors: Authors are solely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions. The author is responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously published material. All figures submitted must be submitted within the document.

JOURNAL LISTINGSAnnotated and Indexed by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted

Children for publication in the monthly print index Current Index to Journals of Special Education (CIJE) and the quarterly index, Exceptional Child Education Resources (ECER).IJSE is also indexed at Education Index (EDI).

The journal appears at the website: www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com

The editor can be reached at [email protected] co-editor can be reached at [email protected]

VOLUME 26 2011 NUMBER 2

2

I N D E X

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Beginner Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Learning Experience During Practicum…………..1Karen P. Nonis & Tan Sing Yee Jernice

The Direct and Indirect effects of Environmental Factors on Nurturing Intellectual Giftedness……….15Ahmad Mohammad Al-Shabatat, Merza Abbas &Hairul Nizam Ismail

Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning Communities for Diverse Elementary School Students……………………………………………………………………………..26Jennifer Katz & Marion Porath

Creating Success for Students with Learning Disabilities in PostsecondaryForeign Language Courses………………………………………………………………………………39Michael E. Skinner & Allison T. Smith

Social Developmental Parameters in Primary Schools: Inclusive Settings’ and Gender Differences on Pupils’ Aggressive and Social Insecure Behaviour and their Attitudes Towards Disability………………………………………………………………………..55Athina Arampatzi, Katerina Mouratidou, Christina Evaggelinou, Eirini Koidou, & Vassilis Barkoukis

Let’s Have Fun! Teaching Social Skills Through Stories, Telecommunications, and Activities……….67Kaili Chen Zhang

Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusion and Schooling of Students with Angelman Syndrome: Suggestions for Educators………………………………………………………………………………..76Yona Leyser & Rea Kirk

Enhancing Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Attitudes Toward School Diversity Through Preparation: A Case of One U.S. Inclusive Teacher Education Program………………………………………………………………………………89Wei Gao & Gerald Mager

Professionalism and Institutionalization of Education of Speech and Language Impaired Children in an Inclusive System in Germany…………………………………………………………………………………………………105Jörg Mussmann

School Culture for Students with Significant Support Needs: Belonging is Not Enough…………………………………………………………………………………………………..117Diane Carroll, Connie Fulmer, Donna Sobel, Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Lorenso Aragon, & Lisa Coval

Inclusive Education in Sweden: Responses, Challenges and Prospects………………………………………………………………………………………………...125Girma Berhanu

Special Education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, Perspectives, Future Possibilities……………………………………………………………………………………………...146Turki Alquraini

Differentiated Accountability Policy and School Improvement Plans: A Look at Professional Development and Inclusive Practices for Exceptional Students………………………………………………………………………………………………….157Marsha Simon & William R. Black

3


BEGINNER PRE-SERVICE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ LEARNING EXPERIENCE DURING PRACTICUM

Karen P. NonisTan Sing Yee Jernice

Nanyang Technological University

In Singapore, training for pre-service special education (PSSE) teachers is supported by a ten-week special education teaching (SET) practicum process in special school setting. In the first four weeks of SET practicum PSSE teachers are familiarized with their pupils, class routines, school culture and administrative processes within the school. The PSSE teachers were guided in lesson preparation and delivery by way of written and face-to-face feedback. Following this handholding, the PSSE teachers are observed by supervisors and cooperating teachers in the school and the University supervisors and they are graded for their overall performance of the SET practicum. This study focuses on the learning experiences of the PSSE teachers during the ten-week SET practicum in their respective special schools. The PSSE teachers completed a survey the week following completion of their practicum experience in school. Thirty-three (Male = 3; Female = 30) PSSE teachers participated in the survey. The survey instrument used a 4-point Likert scale which included two sections: (a) Teachers’ Response to the Practicum Experience their Learning Experience and (b) The process of the SET Practicum. The overall findings indicate that the PSSE teachers had positive experiences. Although the majority of PSSE teachers indicated that they enjoyed the SET practicum, their reasons varied. They felt that their supervisors both within the school and the University understood and the SET practice process and also conveyed the correct SET practicum process to them. The findings of this study are discussed in the light of recommended improvements to the SET practicum process for the PSSE teachers in special schools.

IntroductionA beginner teacher’s first experience in a classroom setting can be very daunting. It is for this reason that courses that offer foundation in education with a practicum component is valuable (Ogonor & Badmus, 2006). Studies on occupational stress have also revealed that teaching is one of the most stressful occupations (Boyle, Borg, Falzon & Baglioni Jr., 1995; Hui & Chan, 1996; Schonfeld, 2001. Teachers working in the field of Special Education experience stressful work situations (Antoniou, Polychroni & Kotroni, 2009; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Forlin, 2001; Willliams & Gersch, 2004). Practicum for pre-service special education (PSSE) teachers is especially important. Teaching practicum forms a critical part of the teacher training of the beginning teacher’s first experience in a real school setting. It is a time where pre-service teachers are able to test out new or different strategies and apply what they have learned in their lectures to classrooms situations. It could also be a time to experience and learn to cope with occupational stress while they are having practicum.

Studies have also suggested that for PSSE teachers in mainstream schools which include teaching children with special education needs (SEN), lectures and discussions are insufficient (Kraayenoord, 2003). Instead, teachers should be encouraged to reflect and discuss thoughts and new innovative ideas for inclusion would be most suitable in the classroom environment. While the literature on beginner teacher’s experiences in regular classrooms is well documented, that of beginner PSSE teachers in mainstream or special education classrooms is limited (Conderman, Katsiyannis & Franks, 2001; Conderman, Morin & Stephens, 2005; McIntyre, Bryd & Foxx, 1996).

The Value of the Practicum Experience

4


Practicum experience help beginner teachers remain in teaching, develop skills and competencies in classroom management and progress in their teaching profession (Cameron, Lovett & Berger, 2007; Heppner, 1994; Smith & Lev-Ari, 2005). Cameron et al. (2007) tracked teachers in both primary and secondary schools from their third year between the years 2005 and 2008. The authors wrote that quality leadership and organizational commitment and practices, collegial support and opportunities to continue to learn about teaching collectively assisted beginner teachers in their classrooms. Further, these factors kept teachers longer in the teaching profession. Specifically, at the class level, beginner teachers indicated that they were supported in classes with pupils of less behavioral challenges. In this way, beginner teachers, Cameron and colleagues (2007) said, could concentrate better on the teaching rather than managing the pupils’ behaviors. In addition, when beginner teachers taught in subject areas they were qualified in and having a lower number of subjects to teach added to the support they needed at the start of their careers in teaching.

Interestingly, Cameron et al. (2007) reported that beginner teachers had Provisionally Registered Teacher (PRT) time allowance which protected the time of the teachers from covering duties such as teacher absences and or the kitchen manager. Although the authors did not provide an explanation as to the role of the kitchen manager, one would assume this would mean duties other than classroom teaching. Creatively, beginner teachers were encouraged to use their PRT time to locate resources and increase their awareness of their school and community and observe other teachers in classroom teaching (Cameron et al., 2007).

The School Culture as Support to the Practicum ExperienceBeginnings in any new job can be stressful; some take it at their stride while others have problems settling in. The teaching profession, in particular has been ranked as a high stress occupation by many researchers (Beer & Beer, 1992; Borg, Riding & Falzon, 1991). Practicum forms part of the most stressful component in teaching and managing pupils’ behavior as this is one area where beginner teachers are challenged (Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). Managing challenging pupils’ behaviors not only affects beginner teachers but even qualified teachers tend to feel stressed as well (Head, Hill & McGuire, 1996). Toren and Iliyan’s (2008) study of 146 beginner teachers, five mentors and five advisors using open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews, reported that beginner teachers faced adjustment to the schools’ culture, overload with work and individual differences amongst pupils.

In Lee, Walker and Bodycott’s study (2000) exploring the perceptions and expectations of Principals, pre-service teachers did not expect to receive assistance from their Principals during their first month of teaching. However, some of these pre-service teachers expected their Principals to be receptive and supportive to innovative teaching. The study further revealed that the pre-service teachers either wished for more support from their teaching colleagues or they believed that they should depend on themselves during their teaching practicum (Lee et al., 2000). Adding to this, Cameron et al.’s study (2007) reported that beginner teachers felt better when the school understood that it was not easy for a new teacher to adjust to a new environment. Consequently, irrespective of the type of profession, a positive, warm, welcoming and supportive environment combined with collegiality certainly help settle beginner PSSE teachers a little better.

Mentoring forms a critical part of the practicum process which could also affect the level of stress of a beginner PSSE teacher. However, this would depend on the experience and ability of the mentors (Roehrig, Bohn, Turner & Pressley, 2008). The authors wrote that experienced mentors had more to offer to their mentees and that effective beginner teachers communicated more with their mentors (Roehrig et al., 2008). Good mentorship is reflected in mentor ability to work with beginning teachers, developing strong and positive interactions with openness to discussions between mentor and mentees and teaching competence of the mentor (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Mentors feedback to beginner student teachers during practicum has shown to affect their performance (Heppner, 1994). Heppner’s study (1994) involving five doctoral student teachers (four male, one female) found that the self-efficacy beliefs of these five student teachers were significantly enhanced under a structured teaching practicum system. This was seen through pre and post test ratings of prospective faculty of teaching whereby these five student teachers achieved significant differences in 21 out of 22 learning objectives during the course of the practicum. Some of these significant findings included learning objectives such as how to set the norms and expectations for my class, how to use learning objectives to guide my teaching strategies, developmental issues college students go through, factors to consider in leading a discussion, how to conduct a peer consultation and how to develop a teaching portfolio (Heppner, 1994, p. 503).

5


In addition, Heppner’s (1994) study also emphasized the need to have more varied forms of feedback for the student teachers to maximize the development of prospective faculty members’ self-efficacy. Typically, the common form of feedback from the instructor to the student teachers was through standard teaching evaluation questionnaires administered at the end of the semester. As Heppner’s (1994) study suggests, feedback can come in different forms such as instructor or peer observations, videotaping, peer consultation, or more traditional teaching evaluations. Further, the student teachers could also be introduced to a variety of activities during the teaching practicum such as peer support, discussion in teaching methods and techniques.

Other studies have supported the importance of having a mentorship programme during practicum (Boz & Boz, 2006, Hastings & Squires, 2002; Smith & Lev-Ari, 2005). For example, in Boz and Boz’s (2006) study, student teachers indicated that they either did not like the teachers they were attached to or felt that they did not get enough practice in their teaching experience. Smith and Lev-Ari (2005) study of 480 student teachers with a 68 closed-item questionnaire on their evaluation of various components of teacher education programmes indentified University supervisors as providing the strongest support next to their peers and school-based mentors during practicum. In Hastings and Squires’ (2002) study in which the role of mentorship was tasked to an experienced school-based teacher educator over a three-week period (rather than to the University Supervisor), the authors suggested that such new teaching practicum model allow opportunities for more collaboration which could potentially benefit every stakeholder in the practicum process. Examples of collaborative opportunities include sharing of ideas and understanding of ideal models of effective teaching among the different stakeholders and recognizing the new teaching practicum as a discussion platform for University mentor/supervisors and school-based mentors to develop the university course material incorporating their practical professional knowledge (Hastings & Squires, 2002).

Others studies have reinforced the need for teaching institutes to take a larger role in fostering and enhancing communication between mentors and student teachers while also providing on-going support to mentors while in the practicum process (Bradbury & Koballa Jr., 2008). Bradbury & Koballa Jr. (2008) explored the tensions between two pairs of mentor student teachers using border crossing as a theoretical framework. In this study, tension is defined as a strain or source of anxiety in the relationship. Border crossing framework involves a negotiation channel of transitions and expectations between mentors and the student teachers in order to develop a successful working relationship. This study revealed that the tensions between mentors and student teachers include different perceptions of mentoring, difficulty in communication and relationship development and different beliefs in teaching.

Conderman et al. (2005) surveyed faculty members of special education programme from 100 institutions in the United States of which one of the surveyed areas included supervision practices. The authors reported that between 94% and 98% of special education University supervisors provide feedback either verbally or written to their student teachers (i.e. PSSE teachers). Further, that 80% of University supervisors made four visits for student teachers on a quarter system while 33% and 28% made four and six visits to student teachers on a semester system respectively. The duration of the visits varied for supervisors as well. For example, 60% of each visit lasted between 30 to 60 minutes, 32% of each visit lasted for 30 minutes or less , 6% of each visit lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, and 2% of each visit lasted for over 90 minutes (Conderman et al., 2005). When the respondents (i.e. PSSE teachers) were asked to specify what were the most student teaching challenges, the top three most frequent responses were getting appropriate and adequate resources in terms of time, travel and other university resources (Respondents: 29%), selecting and retaining qualified cooperating teachers who shared same teaching philosophy of teacher preparation programme (Respondents: 25%) and finding appropriate teaching placements for student teachers (Respondents: 19%, Conderman et al., 2005). Finding appropriate teaching placements was especially an important factor influencing the learning experiences during SET practicum (Conderman et al., 2005). Although not part of the most significant factors, 7% of faculty members of special education programme of various institutions indicated that the student teachers (i.e. PSSE teachers) themselves were the greatest teaching challenge. The PSSE teachers were socially and emotionally unprepared to teach and had the impression that they would receive an A grade from their mentors or that they would be posted out to schools in their home districts for SET practicum (Conderman et al., 2005).

Lewis, Hatcher and William (2005) study investigated 263 pre-doctoral psychology graduate students through a survey on their practicum experience. The study highlighted problems in communication between practicum sites and education programme taken by student teachers and that they hoped to have

6


more information about the practicum. Similarly, Tarquin and Truscott (2006) surveyed a national sample of 139 school psychology students to better understand their practicum experiences. Although these students were generally satisfied with their practicum experiences and their supervisors, many knew little about the whole range of activities which they were supposed to do after they graduated. The authors suggested that training should be provided to supervisors to set clear expectations to provide appropriate activities for practicum students and to ensure that practicum students be exposed to a range of potential professional functions. In addition, supervisors should understand the importance of modelling as these practicum students may look to them as role models. Thus, supervisors should also be aware of the specific strategies they can use to provide support, feedback, and apprentice-type learning opportunities.

Caires and Almeida (2007) explored the student teachers’ perception about their practicum. Specifically, Caires and Almeida (2007) conducted a survey based on the reflections of 224 student teachers about their cooperative teacher’s and university supervisor’s performance. Generally, the study concluded the way supervisors interacted with their supervisors in terms of involvement, proximity, respect and support contributed to a positive practicum experience. Further, the study also emphasized that the university supervisors’ interpersonal skills was crucial to the student teachers’ positive practicum experiences. Rajuan, Beijard & Verloop (2008) study involving 10 cooperating teachers and 20 undergraduate student teachers of an Israeli academic teachers’ college reported that student teachers can learn about personal characteristics essential for creating positive teacher-pupil relationships through the interpersonal relationships between student teachers and cooperating teachers. In general, student teachers viewed the practicum experience as the most significant aspect of learning to teach of which they regarded the relationship with their cooperating teachers as the most important part of the fieldwork experience. In another words, the supervisory relationships are important to the personal and professional development of the prospective teachers (Caires & Almeida, 2007). A view shared by other researchers (Rajuan, et al., 2008).

The Practicum Process for Pre-Service Special School Teachers (PSSE) in the 1990s to 2004In the past, the PSSE teachers in special schools underwent a two-year part-time Diploma in Special Education (DISE) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore’s teacher training hub for all teachers in both mainstream and special schools. At the time, the training involved two teaching practicums over a two-year period, Teaching practicum I (TP I) – which was seven weeks and Teaching Practicum II (TP II) – over a ten-week period. During both TP I and TP II, the PSSE teachers returned to their respective special schools that sponsored their teaching training for their SET practicum experience (Quah & Jones, 1996). The processes for TP I and TP II required a strong partnership between the NIE, the School and the PSSE teachers in training. The TP I was equated to that of the handholding session in which the teachers learned about the school environment, the pupils in the class, the culture of the school (the administrative processes) while observing other teachers in classrooms and learning to prepare and deliver lessons. The uniqueness of the special schools was that most of the PSSE teachers were experienced in working with pupils with special needs without formal training as they had on-the-job training and or in-house training. Annecdotal observations indicated that in the years from 1990 to 2004, majority of the PSSE teachers had at least three years and up to ten years of formal teaching in special schools.

Consequently, while the initial TP I allowed the PSSE teachers the time to get to know their special school, majority of the PSSE teachers were well established in their schools. The PSSE teachers were observed in both TP I and TP II but TP II carried a greater weight on the final grade and which the PSSE teachers had to pass in order to graduate as fully-trained special education teachers (Quah & Jones, 1996). The TP I handholding session served as a means of identifying and counseling the PSSE teachers at risk whereby measures were taken to assist them further into TP II. Further, it was at TP I where the PSSE teachers’ negative attitudes would also be addressed with the PSSE teachers prior to the TP II. In the more serious cases, the PSSE teachers would be recommended to repeat the TP I.

The New Practicum Process for Pre-Service Special School Teachers (PSSE) from 2005 to PresentBeginning in 2003, a taskforce was formed within the NIE, Early Childhood and Special Needs Education Academic Group (ECSEAG) to review the DISE programme for PSSE teachers in training. The taskforce recommended changes for the two-year part-time DISE to be reduced to a one-year full-time programme for the DISE. Inclusive in this change was the SET Practicum process which would be aligned to that of pre-service teachers in mainstream teacher training. With the two-year part-time compressed into a one year, the SET practicum was compacted to a ten-week practicum. Unlike the

7


earlier TP process, TP I and TP II which comprised of a total of 17 weeks (spread over the two years) was now a ten-week SET practicum (see Figure 1). The PSSE teachers completed all their courses in the DISE prior to the SET Practicum. The new SET practicum for special schools comprised of the School Coordinating Mentor (SCM) and the Cooperating Teacher (CT) and the University Supervisors. The Principal (P), Vice-Principal (VP) and or Programme Level Leader (PLL) could be the SCM in the schools while the teacher working with the PSSE teacher on a day-to-day basis in classroom planning and delivery of lessons and co-teaching was usually the CT.

Given that both handholding and graded SET Practicum was compressed into one ten-week period, the rationale was to have handholding session within the new ten-week SET Practicum for special schools. The process of ten-week SET practicum for the PSSE teachers was further divided into TP I and TP II. In TP I, the SCM, CT and University Supervisors had to complete one observation each within the first four weeks of the start of the practicum with the submission of a Summary Interim report (see Figure 1). However, in cases where there were weak PSSE teachers, an additional observation could be done after discussions between all partners in the process. The Interim Report is unique to the SET practicum process and transparent to the PSSE teachers involved in the process prior to entry to the second phase of the TP II. The Interim Report would highlight a summary of the either a PSSE teacher at risk of failing and or with a negative attitude towards teaching and or a potential A grader in the SET practicum.

Figure 1. SET Practicum Process for Special Schools

Specific guidelines would be written in the Interim Report and made known to the student teacher in preparation for the TP II. For example, where a PSSE teacher has been performing extremely well and where both the school and the University supervisor were in agreement that the PSSE teacher was observed to be consistently performing at a high level which would be highlighted in the interim report. The expectations required for a potential A grade would be discussed with the University supervisor and the School. This interim process would give the PSSE teacher a clear and guided opportunity to view the expectations towards a potential A grade in the TP II. The TP II comprised of the remaining six weeks in which the SCM completed two observations, the CT had two observations and the University supervisor had one observations adding to a total of five out of eight observations for this period (see Figure 1). In the event that the school and the University supervisor unanimously agreed after completing the total of

8

SET Practicum: 10 Weeks (Total: 8 Observations)Student Teacher, School, NIE

PSSE Teachers at Risk: 1 Extra Observation at Handholding

TP I4 Weeks

Handholding Sessions

TP II6 Weeks

Graded Sessions

Interim Report

NIE: 1 ObservationSchool: SCM 1 Observation

(P, VP, PLL)CT-1 Observation

(DISE Trained PSSE Teachers)

Total: 3 Observations

NIE: 1 ObservationSchool: SCM 2

Observations (P, VP, PLL)CT - 2 Observations(DISE Trained PSSE

Teachers)Total: 5 Observations


eight observations, that the PSSE teacher was either a fail or an A grade then an independent observation would be done by a moderator from the University.

Given the importance of practicum to PSSE teachers’ learning experiences and the change in the SET practicum process for special education teachers in Singapore, this study focused on the following questions raised as a result of the change to the SET practicum for special schools during the ten-week SET practicum in their respective schools. These included:

1. What were the PSSE teachers’ experiences during the SET Practicum?2. From the PSSE teachers’ perspectives, was the new process in-place and understood by all those

involved in the SET Practicum?3. What were the factors that helped the PSSE teachers have a positive experience during SET

Practicum? And what were not?4. What were the difficulties faced by the PSSE teachers during the SET practicum?5. What would the PSSE teachers like to see more of in the SET Practicum?

MethodParticipantsThe total cohort of PSSE teachers enrolled in the Diploma in Special Education (DISE) participated in the study (N= 33; Male =3, Female = 30; M Age = 30.8 years old, Age Range = 23 – 44 years old). The PSSE teachers completed their ten-week special education teaching (SET) practicum as partial fulfillment of the DISE. On average, the PSSE teacher’s teaching experience ranged between four months and seven years, five months (Mean Years in Teaching Special Education = two years, ten months).

Test Instrument and Training of the PSSE Teachers, School and University SupervisorsA 4-point Likert scale which included two sections: Section (A) PSSE Teachers’ Response to the Experience of SET Practicum to their Learning Experience (16 items) and Section (B) PSSE Teachers’ Response to the process of the SET Practicum (15 items) was used in this study. In addition, in Section A, where the PSSE teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I enjoyed my teaching practicum, they were asked to elaborate what made their experience enjoyable. However, where there was disagreement with the same statement, they were to provide reasons for their responses. In the event that the PSSE teachers provided two responses to an item question, their response was coded as unsure. The survey also asked the PSSE teachers to write about the three most important difficulties they faced and three most important changes they would like to see take place in the SET practicum process.

All PSSE teachers, school and University supervisors were briefed about the new SET practicum process prior to the start of SET practicum. During the briefings, the first author encouraged discussion of potential problems based on past experiences in relation to the new SET practicum process. In addition, PSSE teachers, school and University supervisors could revert back to the first author to make further clarifications of the new process throughout the ten-week SET practicum. Administration of the Survey InstrumentThe PSSE teachers completed a survey at the National Institute of Education (NIE) the week following the completion of their SET practicum experience in special schools. The PSSE teachers took 30 minutes to complete the survey and they could opt out of the survey participation if they choose to.

Data Reduction and AnalysisInitial and Overarching Themes were formed from the raw data collected (Barber & Turner, 2007). Specifically, from the Overarching Theme in Section A – PSSE teachers’ response on the Experience of SET Practicum to their Learning Experiences during Practicum, the responses to the five questions (Questions 5, 7, 9, 10 and 15) formed the theme Understanding Child’s Needs. The responses from the questions 1 through to 4, 6 and 11 through to 14 and 16 formed the theme Classroom and School Related Matters. For the overarching theme in Section B – PSSE teachers’ response to the Process of SET Practicum in Section B, the four themes included were (1) School & Supervisors’ Understanding of the Practicum Process (Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7); (2) Conveying Correct Information about the Practicum Process (Questions 4, 6, 8); (3) Support from School and University (Questions 9, 11, 13) and (4) Rapport with Teacher (Questions 10, 12, 14, 15). The percentage frequency of responses were calculated for each item and based on the total sample of 33 participants.

9


Results & DiscussionThe PSSE teachers’ learning experience during SET practicumThe overall findings indicate that the PSSE teachers had positive experiences (see Table 1). These positive experiences were reflected in the themes of Understanding Child’s Needs and Classroom and School Related Matters. For example, about 91% of the PSSE teachers felt that the SET practicum had helped them better understand the educational needs of their pupils (see Table 1). In addition, the PSSE teachers agreed that with the SET practicum they were able to identify problems that pupils faced in class and had helped them developed a better understanding of pupils’ social needs (88% respectively; see Table 1). A component of understanding their pupils in special education is essential in developing student teachers Individual Educational Plans (IEP) which would affect the delivery of the lessons. Cameron et al. (2007) highlighted that teachers in their study were stressed when they could not focus on the teaching when they had to attend to pupils’ behavioral problems during teaching practicum.

In relation to the theme of Classroom and School Related Matters, the SET practicum provided the PSSE teachers a link between theory and practice in classrooms, real situations and provided hands-on experience (91%, 88% & 91% respectively; see Table 1). The PSSE teachers were positive as they could try out different teaching strategies and reflect on the delivery of their lessons (91% & 88% respectively; see Table 1). Further, the majority of the PSSE teachers found the SET practicum helped them to understand Diagnostic Summaries and Individual Educational Plans (IEP) and to write and improve their lesson plans (see Table 1). A small percentage of the PSSE teachers disagreed that the SET practicum helped them understand their school culture (30%; see Table 1).

Although the majority of PSSE teachers indicated that they enjoyed the SET practicum, their reasons varied. They also felt that their supervisors both within the school and the University understood the process of the SET practicum. Supervisors conveyed the correct process to the PSSE teachers during the SET practicum.

Table 1Percentages of teachers’ responses of SET Practicum and their learning experience

(N=33)Question Strongly

Disagree & Disagree

%(n)

Strongly Agree

& Agree %(n)

Unsure

%(n)

No Respons

e

%(n)

Understanding Child’s Needs

1. The practicum helped me to identify problems that my pupils faced in class (qs 5)

12.1(4)

87.9(29)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

2. The practicum gave me an insight into teaching children with special needs on a daily basis (qs 7)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

3. The practicum helped me better understand the educational needs of my pupils (qs 9)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

4. The practicum gave me insights into the needs of the family’s of my pupils (qs 10)

39.4(13)

60.6(20)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

5. The practicum helped me developed a better understanding of my pupils’ social needs (qs 15)

12.1(4)

87.9(29)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

Classroom and School Related Matters1. The practicum provided a link between

theory and practice in a classroom (qs 1)6.1(2)

90.9(30)

3.0(1)

0.0(0)

2. The practicum experience help me to translate theory to practice in a real situation (qs 2)

9.1(3)

87.9(29)

3.0(1)

0.0(0)

10


3. The practicum gave me the hands-on experience I needed in my field (qs 3)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

4. The practicum helped me to try out different strategies in teaching (qs 4)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

5. The practicum gave me time to reflect on my lesson delivery (qs 6)

12.1(4)

87.9(29)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

6. The practicum gave me a picture of what a special education teacher’s life is like on a daily basis in school (qs 8)

21.2(7)

78.8(26)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

7. The practicum helped me understand Diagnostic Summaries (qs 11)

15.2(5)

84.8(28)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

8. The practicum helped me understand Individual Educational Plans (qs 12)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

9. The practicum helped me understand how to write lesson plans (qs 13)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

10. The practicum helped me improve on writing my lesson plans (qs 14)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

11. The practicum helped me with understanding my school culture (qs 16)

30.3(10)

69.7(23)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

The PSSE Teachers’ Perspectives of the new process of SET Practicum in-placeThe percentages of PSSE teachers’ responses in relation to school and supervisors’ understanding of the new SET practicum process were generally positive (see Table 2). For example, the PSSE teachers felt that the school’s supervisors and cooperating teachers and the University’s supervisor understood and conveyed the correct process of teaching practicum to them (Percentage Range of Responses: 82% - 94%; see Table 2). This result suggests the importance of the support that the PSSE teachers need from both the school and the University during the practicum which has been supported in other studies (Hastings & Squires, 2002; Lee et al., 2000; Rajuan et al., 2008). The results showed a marginally larger percentage of the PSSE teachers understood the SET practicum better when they experienced it in schools than when they were briefed during lectures (Percentage Difference: 91% & 82%; see Table 2).

The PSSE Teachers responded that they their supervisors both at the school and the University gave good support throughout their SET practicum experience (see Table 2). Where the rapport between the PSSE Teachers and their respective supervisors were concerned, an average of 90% had good rapport. However, by comparison, although still a large percentage, 70% indicated they enjoyed their SET practicum experience. Others studies support the positive relationship that the PSSE teachers have with their mentors and supervisors influence the learning experience of student teachers during practicum (Boz & Boz 2006; Caires & Almeida, 2007; Conderman et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2005; Roehrig et al., 2008). Based on the findings, it is suggested that careful consideration must be given when matching supervisors both at the schools and the University and the PSSE teachers. The authors in this study would go a step further to suggest that potential school and University supervisors have opportunities to meet to discuss supervisory roles prior to confirmation of supervisors. This would give both supervisors and PSSE teachers a chance to select whom they could best work with during the SET practicum.

Table 2Percentages of PSSE teachers’ responses of the process of SET Practicum (N=33)

Question Strongly Disagree

& Disagree%(n)

Strongly Agree

& Agree

%(n)

Unsure

%(n)

No Response

%(n)

School & Supervisors’ Understanding of the TP Process1. I understood the process of practicum

when I was briefed during lectures (qs 1)18.2(6)

81.8(27)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

2. I understood the process of practicum when I experienced it in schools (qs 2)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

3. My school’s Cooperating Teacher understood the process of practicum (qs 3)

9.1(3)

87.9(29)

0.0(0)

3.0(1)

11


4. My school Supervisors understood the process of practicum (qs 5)

6.1(2)

93.9(31)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

5. My University Supervisor understood the process of practicum (qs 7)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

Conveying Correct Information about the TP Process1. My school’s Cooperating Teacher

conveyed the correct process of practicum to me (qs 4)

12.1(4)

87.9(29)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

2. My school Supervisors conveyed the process of practicum to me (qs 6)

18.2(6)

81.8(27)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

3. My University Supervisor conveyed the process of practicum to me (qs 8)

15.2(5)

81.8(27)

0.0(0)

3.0(1)

Support from School and University1. My Cooperating Teacher provided good

support (qs 9)9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

2. My University Supervisor provided good support (qs 11)

9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

3. My school Supervisor provided good support (qs 13)

6.1(2)

93.9(31)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

Rapport with Teacher1. My Cooperating Teacher and I had good

rapport (qs 10)9.1(3)

90.9(30)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

2. My University Supervisor and I had good rapport (qs 12)

6.1(2)

93.9(31)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

3. My school Supervisor and I had good rapport (qs 14)

6.1(2)

93.9(31)

0.0(0)

0.0(0)

4. I enjoyed my teaching practicum* (qs 15) 21.2(7)

69.7(23)

6.1(2)

3.0(1)

Factors that helped the PSSE teachers have a positive experience during SET PracticumThe PSSE teachers wrote that they enjoyed their SET practicum experience when their supervisors supported them with good techniques and strategies in organising and delivering their lessons (see Table 3). The PSSE teachers were also receptive to constructive feedback from both their school and the University supervisors, a finding supported elsewhere (Heppner, 1994). Cooperation, mentoring and rapport that the PSSE teachers received from their supervisors were also highlighted as reasons for teachers enjoying their practicum experience (see Table 3). Other studies conducted to investigate teaching practicum of pre-service teachers claim positive associations of their practicum experiences to factors such as having good relationships with their supervisors, support and guidance from supervisors (Boz & Boz, 2006; Caires & Ameida, 2007; Tarquin & Truscott, 2006).

Table 3Top three most common responses as to why the PSSE teachers enjoyed TP (N = 33)

*If you Agree / Strongly Agree with I enjoyed my teaching practicum, tell us what made your experience enjoyable.

% (n)

27.3 (9) Provided me with good techniques and strategies in organizing and delivering lesson plans well

27.3 (9) Obtained constructive feedback from both school and University supervisors to improve my lessons better

21.2 (7) Received affirmative support such as cooperation, mentoring and rapport received from cooperating teacher, and both school and University supervisors

By contrast, the PSSE teachers who did not enjoy their SET practicum experience cited handling too much paperwork, feelings of stress as a result of being watched, sticking to lesson plans and setting too many objectives (presumably by the supervisors), and not having opportunities with their pupils before

12


commencement of the practicum as reasons. Similarly, Toren and Iliyan (2008) reported that student teachers were stressed as a result of heavy workload during their teaching practicum. This study also showed that a small percentage highlighted that they received limited support from their CTs and schools which led them to have a less enjoyable SET practicum experience (see Table 4).

Table 4Top three most common response as to why the PSSE teachers did not enjoy TP (N = 33)

*If you Disagree / Strongly Disagree with I enjoyed my teaching practicum, tell us what made your experience not enjoyable.

% (n)

12.1 (4) Needed to handle too much paperwork for Practicum.

9.1 (3) Felt stressful during Practicum having being watched, sticking to lesson plan and setting too many objectives but not having enough opportunities with pupils beforehand.

9.1 (3) Received limited support from school and cooperating teacher to prepare well for Practicum.

Teaching Practicum in Special Schools requires teachers to read, prepare and make sense of the diagnostic summaries of the pupils in their class. In many challenging pupil cases, the PSSE teachers need to discuss with school therapists and parents to get a better understanding of the needs of their pupils. Only after having a better understanding of their pupils, the PSSE teachers will be able to plan the IEPs and lesson plans effectively. Although a relatively small percentage of teachers (12.1%, n = 4) were unhappy, it should not be ignored as we consider that the number of pupils and the type of disability could vary for each teacher. For example, schools may have as many as up to 16 pupils in a class which may be co-taught with a Teacher Aid or Teacher. To assist PSSE teachers with their workload, it is recommended that supervisors limit the number of pupils based on the level of support needs assigned to the PSSE teacher undergoing the SET practicum. Given that the results showed that 9% (n = 3) were stressed when observed (being watched & sticking to lesson plans), the authors recommend that the supervisors convey a feeling of comfort and openness during the classroom observations with the PSSE teachers. The research suggests that when beginner teachers experienced openness with their supervisor s and or mentors, it helped them in their practicum experience (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Rapport with teachers is critical to set the pace and the atmosphere of the teaching practice. The results indicated that overall, the PSSE teachers had good rapport with their supervisors.

Difficulties that the PSSE teachers faced during their SET PracticumThe PSSE teachers responded that time to both observe their pupils and also develop an understanding of pupils’ educational needs in order to prepare for the appropriate lessons plans was a challenge for them during the SET practicum. In addition, it was difficult for the PSSE teachers to handle pupils who were uncooperative or had diverse educational needs. Of interest, some 22% (n = 7) responded that the transition from learning (at the NIE) to SET practicum was a difficult adjustment they had to make which influenced their SET practicum experience (see Table 5). Currently, the PSSE teachers complete their final year of courses in the DISE in Semester II over 6 weeks followed by the ten-week SET practicum attachment in Special Schools. This process has raised concerns about the difficulties that PSSE teachers faced in the transition from a full-time course into the Special School and which warrants further investigation.

Table 5Top three difficulties faced by the PSSE teachers during their SET practicum (N = 33)

Tell us about 3 difficulties you faced during the practicum

% (n)

64.5 (20) Inadequate time to observe pupils to know their educational needs and prepare appropriate lesson plans.

38.7 (12) Challenge to handle pupils with diverse educational needs as well as uncooperative pupils as they were not used to being observed during Practicum.

22.6 (7) Disorientation faced in transiting from learning to teaching (working) once returned from NIE to school

13


Changes that the PSSE Teachers would like to see in new SET PracticumThe PSSE teachers wanted pre-briefings on the expectations of the practicum prior to entering the schools while also allowing for informal observations of their delivery of lessons (57.6%, n = 19; see Table 6). In addition, the PSSE teachers required time to assess pupils’ needs and prepare suitable lesson plans. They also asked for guidance and improved support from both the school and the University in terms of preparation of IEPs and other resources (see Table 6). While pre-briefings in reference to the practicum and preparation of lessons were part of the DISE course, the results suggests that it was not enough for the PSSE teachers and warrants further review. In addition, the overall findings suggests that a review of the SET practicum process in view of the importance of gelling theory with practical experiences within the programme for teacher preparation in Special Education, the authors propose a continuous SET practicum process (see Figure 2).

Table 6Top Three changes the PSSE teachers would like to see in ‘new’ SET practicum (N =

33)Tell us 3 things you would like to see take place during the practicum

% (n)

57.6% (19) Pre-briefings on the expectations of us and also allow informal observations as a discussion platform to give feedback or suggestion to reflect and improve.

41.9% (13) More time to assess pupils’ needs and prepare appropriate lesson plans.

35.4% (11) Clearer guidance and better support from school as well as NIE in preparing IEP, lesson plans and other resources.

In reference to Figure 2, the revised SET practicum process for PSSE teachers should spread over the one year full-time DISE course instead of the current compacted 10 weeks. The PSSE teachers will have the opportunity to explore different classroom teaching with their respective CTs while also assisting with the assessment of pupils in the TP I. The PSSE teachers will then be able to observe and get to know their pupils in the class in the Special Schools which they helped assess. The PSSE teacher would then be able to know the pupils better and could also take this class in Semester 2 - TP I (see Figure 2). This process will assist schools to better match pupils, class and level type with the PSSE teacher and CTs thus reducing the stress of all those involved in the revised SET practicum. The PSSE teachers will be able to settle better into the revised SET practicum as they will be at their respective schools on a continuous basis through their training and not only at the end of their courses. It is hoped that this continuous practicum process will help diminish the stress of transition anxiety from a full-time course into SET practicum. In addition, given that the PSSE teachers will be in contact with their respective schools throughout their training, they will be able to share and discuss the problems in relation to observations made in the classrooms with their course mates, brainstorming on effective teaching strategies for classroom management in relation to different disabilities both at the school and University.

ConclusionOverall, the findings of this study indicate that the majority of PSSE teachers had a positive experience during the new SET practicum. These positive experiences were related to the fact that they were better able to understand their pupils’ needs, they were able to link what they learned in their courses to the SET practicum, they could write IEPs and deliver their lessons to the pupils and they had overall good rapport with both their school and University supervisors. The new process of practicum, as indicated by the PSSE teachers, was understood by all involved in the process and this was also conveyed clearly to the PSSE teachers during the ten-week SET practicum. The findings highlight the importance of a quality mentorship programme reported in other studies (Cameron et al., 2007; Conderman et al., 2006; Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Roehrig et al., 2008).

While the overall process was clearly understood by the school and University supervisors, the study showed that a small percentage of teachers were somewhat unhappy during their practicum. These PSSE teachers cited unhappiness due to stresses of being overloaded, being watched and having poor rapport while others as problems with understanding the needs of their pupils given that they had a very short

14


time in the schools (8 observations within ten-week SET practicum). Williams and Gersch (2004) reported the lack of time to spend with individual student as one of the stressors experienced by SEN teachers in their studies. In this study, a small number of the PSSE teachers cited transition from the full-time course work at the NIE followed by the immediate ten-week SET practicum at the school was difficult for them.

In view of these challenges faced by the PSSE teachers and to enhance the quality of the PSSE practicum, the authors in this study recommend a continuous SET practicum experience throughout the 1-year full-time DISE course (see Figure 2). This continuous practicum will allow the PSSE teachers a better match with their supervisors in schools and classrooms while also reducing the stress faced in the current SET practicum as PSSE teachers will be able to better understand the needs of their pupils. In addition, given that the PSSE teachers would be in the school throughout the DISE course, better rapport could be built between the school, the school supervisors, pupils and the PSSE teachers. While recommendations to enhance the quality of the PSSE practicum are made, PSSE teachers may need to realize that occupational stress experienced by teachers is common as reported in other studies (Antoniou et al., 2009; Boyle et al., 1995; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Forlin, 2001; Hui & Chan, 1996; Schonfeld, 2001). It is further suggested that educators could use the practicum experience to prepare PSSE teachers cope with the challenges encountered in real classroom settings.

Figure 2. Revised SET Practicum Process for Special Schools.

15

TP I5 Weeks

Handholding Sessions

TP II5 WeeksGraded Sessions

1 day/week(Total: 8 days within 8 weeks)-Student Teachers Classroom Observations-Team Teaching with CT-Rapport Building with CT, P, VP, PLL, NIE Sup

1 continuous week(Total: 5 days Oct – Nov)-Student Teachers Classroom Observations-Team Teaching with CT-Student Teachers Assist with Students’ Final Placement Assessment

1 day/week(Total: 5 days in Jan)-Student Teachers Observations in Allocated Classroom-Team Teaching with CT-Rapport Building with CT, P, VP, PLL, NIE Sup

2 weeks(10 days of Feb)NIE: 1 ObservationSchool: SCM 1 Observation (P, VP, PLL)CT-1 Observation (DISE Trained Teacher)Total: 3 Observations

5 weeks(25 days of Mar – Apr)NIE: 1 ObservationSchool: SCM 2 Observations (P, VP, PLL)CT - 2 Observations(DISE Trained Teachers)Total: 5 observations

Interim Report

DISE Semester 1 (Aug – Nov) DISE Semester 2 (Jan – May)


ReferencesAntoniou, Α.S., Polychroni, F., & Kotroni, C. (2009). Working with students with special educationalneeds in Greece: Teachers’ stressors and coping strategies. International Journal of Special Education,24(1), 100-111.Barber, N. & Turner, M. (2007). Even while they teach, newly-qualified teachers learn. British Journalof Special Education, 34(1), 33-39.Beer, J., & Beer, J. (1991). Burnout and stress, depression and self-esteem of teachers. PsychologicalReports, 71, 1331-1336.Bradbury, L. U. & Koballa Jr., T. R. (2008). Borders to cross: Identifying sources of tension in mentorintern relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education. 24, 2132-2145.Borg, M. G., Riding, R. J., & Falzon, J. M. (1991). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress andits determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary school teachers. EducationalPsychology, 11, 59-75.Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M. & Baglioni Jr., A. J. (1995). A structural model of thedimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 49-67. Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2006). Do prospective teachers get enough experience in school placements?Journal of Education for Teaching, 3 (4), 353-368.Caires, S., & Ameida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The studentteachers’ perspectives. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 515-528.Cameron, M., Lovett, S., & Berger, J. G. (2007). Starting out in teaching: Surviving or Thriving as a newteacher. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, (3) 32-37.Conderman, G., Katsiyannis, A., & Franks, D. (2001). Program assessment practices in special educationteacher preparation programs. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 182–186.Conderman, G., Morin, J., & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special Education Student Teaching Practices.Preventing School Failures, 49(3), 5-10.Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special Education Teacher Burnout and Act. InternationalJournal of Special Education, 25(3), 119-131.Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2008). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: Anexperimental field study, Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294-304.Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. EducationalResearch, 43, 235-245.Hastings, W., & Squires, D. (2002). Restructuring and Reculturing: Practicum supervision asprofessional development for teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 3 (1), 79-91.Head, J., Hill, F., & McGuire, M. (1996). Stress and the postgraduate secondary school trainee teacher: ABritish case study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22, 71-84.Heppner, M. J. (1994). An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of a Teaching Practicum on ProspectiveFaculty. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 500-507.Hui, E. K. P. & Chan, D. W. (1996). Teacher stress and guidance work in Hong Kong secondary schoolteachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 199-211. Kraayenoord, C.V. (2003). The task of professional development. International Journal of Disability,Development and Education, 50 (4), 363-365. Kyriacou, C., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ concerns during teaching practice. Teachers andTeaching Research in Education, 13, 18-31.Lee, C. K. J, Walker, A., & Bodycott, P. (2000). Pre-service Primary Teachers’ Perceptions aboutPrincipals in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher and principal education. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 28(1), 53-67.Lewis, B. L., Hatcher, R. L., & William, E. P. II. (2005). The Practicum Experience: A Survey ofPracticum Site Coordinator. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 291-298.McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In W. R. Houston,M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of theassociation of teacher educators (pp. 171–193). NY: Macmillan.Ogonor, B. O., & Badmus, M. M. (2006). Reflective Teaching Practice among Student Teachers: TheCase in a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (2), 1-11.Quah, M. L., & Jones, K. (1996). The professional development needs of learning support coordinatorsin Singapore primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11(2), 181-190. Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2008). What do student teachers learn? Perceptions of learningin mentoring relationships. The New Educator, 4, 133-151.

16


Roehrig, A. D., Bohn, C. M., Turner, J. E., & Pressley, M. (2008). Mentoring beginning primary teachersfor exemplary teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 684-702.Shonfeld, I. S. (2001). Stress in 1st-year women teachers: The context of social support and coping.Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 133-168. Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre-service teacher education: the voice of the students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289-302.Tarquin, K. M., & Truscott, S. D. (2006). School Psychology Students’ Perceptions of Their PracticumExperience. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 727-736.Toren, Z. & Iliyan, S. (2008). The problems of the beginning teacher in the Arabs school in Israel.Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1041-1056.Williams, M. & Gersch, I. (2004). Teaching in mainstream and special schools: are the stresses similar ordifferent? British Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 157-162.

17


THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON NURTURING INTELLECTUAL GIFTEDNESS

Ahmad Mohammad Al-ShabatatMerza Abbas

Hairul Nizam IsmailUniversiti Sains Malaysia

Many people believe that environmental factors promote giftedness and invest in many programs to adopt gifted students providing them with challenging activities. Intellectual giftedness is founded on fluid intelligence and extends to more specific abilities through the growth and inputs from the environment. Acknowledging the roles played by the environment in the development of giftedness leads to an effective nurturing of gifted individuals. Further, giftedness requires a context that enables it to develop. However, no study has investigated the direct and indirect effects of environment and fluid intelligence on intellectual giftedness. Thus, this study investigated the contribution of environment factors to giftedness development by conducting tests of fluid intelligence using CCFT and analytical abilities using culture reduced test items covering problem solving, pattern recognition, audio-logic, audio-matrices, and artificial language, and self report questionnaire for the environmental factors. A number of 180 high-scoring students were selected using CCFT from a leading university in Malaysia. Structural equation modelling was employed using Amos V.16 to determine the direct and indirect effects of environment factors (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources) on the intellectual giftedness. The findings showed that the hypothesized model fitted the data, supporting the model postulates and showed significant and strong direct and indirect effects of the environment and fluid intelligence on the intellectual giftedness.

Introduction Environment plays an essential role as an incubator hold the energy, direction, and feedback which give the gifted opportunities to manifest their potentials, and support constructing connections between the fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence through social interfaces (Al-Shabatat et al., 2008). However, giftedness requires social context that enables it to develop and individuals’ aptitudes need nurturance and support. The child surrounded environments such as family, peers, school, and community, beside the social, economical, and political institutions can help to determine the field of talent that society expect to be achieved (Tannenbaum, 1991). However, researchers advocating the environment, or nurturing, account of talent development promoted the belief that appropriate environmental conditions could lead to the development of giftedness to become into talent. Individuals’ dedication to their activities is typically accompanied by great sacrifices for both the individuals themselves and their families, they are surrounded by others, who support and nurture their talent. Further, families, peers, and teachers play an essential role in the development of expertise (Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Feldman, 1986; Winner, 1996).

Environment has been studied through two levels; micro-level (e.g. family, personality givers, socioeconomic) that children interact with their families, peers and school (Amabile, 1983; Csikzentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1998; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998; Wachs, 1992). Second is the macro-level (e.g. demographic, sociological) which helps to shape environments as a larger socio-historical milieu (Li, 1997). Bloom (1985) demonstrates that the role of families is vital in nurturing individuals’ talents. In his study, the individuals participating defined their families as greatly child-centered in which parents offer efforts to support their talent development. For example, they would work more than one job to pay for private skating lessons, or make extra efforts in order to be closer to training facilities. Indeed, as Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993) stated that when the child's abilities are truly prodigious, parental and social investments need to be prodigious as well (p. 26). Therefore, parents

18


must provide the right nurture stimulation at the right time according to the genetic trait of the child in order to give a greater chance for the child to achieve giftedness (Haensly, 2004).

Parents tend to set high standards for their talented children rather than their emotional and financial support (Winner, 1996). Parents also support their children to challenge, to strive for increasingly higher levels of achievement and evaluate the success of their performances (Bloom, 1985). According to Zimmerman and Ringle (1981), talented children's levels of achievement and personal ambitions are affected by the goals parents set for them. Thus, the best environments for cultivating talent challenging are provided by supportive families (Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993). Moreover, the behaviours parents’ model influences children's talent development (Bloom, 1985; Winner, 1996). For example, children closely notice the way in which parents conduct themselves, and they garner many parental values. In addition, parents also can teach children industriousness and perseverance by working hard themselves. Indeed, Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) found that the length of time children were keen to work on a similar situation, influence the duration of an adult model's persistence on a task significantly.

Competitive and supportive peer groups can serve to promote the intrinsic value of school and the educational process in its members (Ryan, 2001). The influence of the peers is quite considerable outside the classroom. Peers have an influential effect on attitudes and concepts (Guimond, 1999). Children's peers also support the development of talent (Bloom, 1985). However, talented children often tend to spend their time alone and with parents more than with than non-talented children, because they feel isolated from mainstream peers (Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996).

Even parents themselves often feel alone and unable to talk with friends about their parenting experiences and their children’s development (Delisle, 2002a; Webb & DeVries, 1998). Moreover, talented’ peers themselves are varied in terms of their developmental and social goals. For example, a child whose central ambition is often looking for peers of similar ability to chase her/his talent development. These children flourish when encircled by peers that challenge, support, and legitimize their talents. On the other hand, the tendency to interact more frequently with non-talented children accompanied by a proclivity that often consequences in a lessened desire to achieve by talented whose main goal is to be sociable (Feldman, 1986).

Teachers also play an important role in the development of talent (Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993). Instructional environments affect the ways in which children are motivated to participate and excel in their activities. Teaching styles characterized by clear rules for achieving distinction, controlled decision-making, and public performance evaluations promote extrinsic motivation in children. On the other hand, teaching styles that highlight student participation in evaluations of success and decision-making processes encourage intrinsic motivation and autonomy (Eccles et al., 1998).

Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence Sternberg (1985) identifies three kinds of giftedness including analytic, synthetic and practical giftedness. The identification includes assessment through observation of a student’s ability in these three areas. Teachers may then design opportunities for students demonstrating analytical, synthetical and/or practical abilities. According to Sternberg (1985), people with analytical giftedness can analyze and understand problem elements, and this kind of giftedness might be tested by traditional tests for intelligence, such as testing analogies, synonyms and matrix problems. The second type is synthetic giftedness, which might be noted on the people who are creative or tend to deal with discovering and inventing. Unlike the first kind of giftedness, this kind might not be measured by the traditional tests of intelligence. The third type of giftedness is practical giftedness, people who are practitioners have a propensity to apply and implement what have been analyzed or synthesized, with an investment of environment situations. The analytical abilities were investigated in this study by measuring the effects of general abilities g and the environmental factors on this element of intellectual giftedness.

MethodsParticipantsThe study involved one hundred and eighty students (age ≈ 19-20) in the schools of Mathematics and Computer Science at a leading university in Malaysia. Students were selected through lecturers’ nominations and exceeding the cut-off point of 35 of the raw scores of CCFT. A total of 210 students were nominated by their lecturers as good to excellent first-year students at these schools. The Cattell Culture Fair Test (CCFT) was then administered to identify the potentially gifted students. Since CCFT can be administered by groups, the nominated students (210) were divided into five groups and tested

19


according to the test manual. Out of the 210 students, only 180 exceeded the 35 cut-off point of CCFT raw scores and were chosen for the study. The analytical test was administered the following week through two sessions with a refreshment break. The environment questionnaire was administered immediately after the students had completed the analytical test.

MeasuresCattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CCFT) The test consisted of four types of spatial problems administered according to a set time. All four subtests of geometric figures are intended to give the widest range of perceptual relation-educing operations possible. Each subtest begins with three practice items. Test items are graded in order of increasing difficulty following an easy-to-grasp item to start off with (Cattell & Cattell, 1960). To score performance on the test, one point is given for each correct item. A total score out of 46 is calculated. The test can be given either as a group test or as an individual test using exactly the same instructions and time limits. The test is considered to have low knowledge dependence, thereby making it a reliable test for measuring general intelligence g despite socioeconomic status, educational background, and cultural upbringing of any participant.

Analytical Abilities Measure To measure the analytical abilities 30 items were developed and validated prior to the time of conducting this study. These items were subjected to factor analysis which revealed five factors with Eigen values greater or equal to one while three items were dropped due to cross loadings (> 0.30). Further the items were subjected to reliability scale to calculate the internal consistency; Spearman-Brown technique was used to calculate the reliability coefficient for the analytical abilities items. The internal consistency measuring the reliability of the analytical abilities measure using Spearman-Brown was ranging from 0.70 to 0.79 and the overall coefficient for the scale was 0.73. These values show high reliability indices which support the appropriateness of the instrument as shown in Table 1. According to Nunnaly (1967), a value above .70 is considered as highly reliable.

Table 1: Summary of Internal Consistency Indices for the Ten Factors of the Analytical Abilities

N Factor Valid Items Spearman-Brown1 Problem Solving 7 0.742 Pattern Recognition 7 0.723 Artificial Language 4 0.794 Audio-Logic 5 0.705 Audio-Matrix 4 0.77

Total 27 0.72

Pattern Recognition This section contained two parts. The first part is composed of two items require from the respondents to recognise a shape given on the top of the questions within a list of choices attached to the questions. The shapes are similar to the required shape but only one accurate shape matches the given shape that is needed to be identified out of the given choices. Item number three of the test was conducted through computer flash application. A shape was given to be identified out of a number of shapes. When identifying the correct choice of the shape, it will be removed from the arranged given shapes. Then another shape was given and so on. All the given shapes were constituted of geometrical figures ordered from easy to difficult. The second part of this test consisted of four items with auditory contents. Respondents were asked to hear a musical sound then to match it to the similar sound form the given options. All sounds have the same rhythm but differed in their pitch. Problem Solving This section is composed of seven items. Items number one, two, three, and four have primitive indices followed by dilemmas, however, the solutions for the proposed problems was covered by irrelevant remarks. Respondents have to go backward and forward through the primitive indices for the situations connecting the relative indices and eliminating the irrelevant ones seeking for the correct solutions. The correct answers or choices were attached to each item. Items number five and six have weight measurement contained grading system on each side of the scale. The weight was known but the concentration or scaling point to figure out the needed weight on the other side of the scale to achieve balance. Items number seven and eight include two maps, on the right side; they contain an indicator for the direction along with four symbols. The directions and symbols are [a star; indicates the east, triangle; indicates the north, square; indicates the south, and a circle and triangle indicate to the north-west

20


direction]. Respondents were given instructions in each question to move according to the provided symbols. Each move was designed for one intersection included in the map. Respondents were required to identify the place that the symbol indicates on the map. The symbol indicated the correct given place in the choices attached to the items within a number of other places symbolised on the map.

Audio Matrices This section consisted of four items; each item has a series of sounds presented in a progressive form. Sounds were manipulated professionally using computer sounds application (Sound Forge V.8) to be varied in their pitch. Respondents were asked to choose from the given options the correct sound that should be added to complete the matrix.

Audio-LogicThe audio-logic items require the use of the deductive logic which involves drawing conclusions based on sets of premises that are assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning involves the use of two or more premises, which may be rules, laws, principles, or generalizations, and forms a conclusion based upon them. In order to be valid, a deductive argument must have premises that are true and a conclusion that logically follows from those premises, without trying to go beyond them. When individuals understand how these arguments work, they will know how to construct their own strong arguments. This section consisted of five items, each item introduced premises represented by sounds, respondents are asked to draw a correct conclusion by getting use of the provided premises from the sounds, and the correct conclusion (answer) was given in item answer options. The following is an example of audio-logic items:

Premise (1): If North-East is represented by the sound (A)Premise (2): North-West is represented by the sound (B)Premise (3): South-East is represented by the sound (C)What sound could indicate to South-West?

Sound A in the first premise consisted of two distinct musical notes (X: indicates North, Y: indicates East). In the second premise, sound B also is composed of two distinct musical notes, namely, X that indicates North, and a new note Z that indicates West. In the third premise, sound C is composed of another pair of notes, i.e., W that indicates to South and Y that indicates East). Thus the sound which indicates South-West must be W & Z the pair of notes. In order to solve such a problem, a high level of sound recognition, an ability to keep holding the various notes for a long time in the working memory, and the abilities to build logical linkages and connections among the premises to draw the conclusion are required.

Artificial Language This section consisted of six items. It was developed to measure the qualitative reasoning into two different levels (average and advanced). The average level includes two logical introductions (premises) require from respondents to find out the result (conclusion) following the logical indicators of the premises. The advanced level involves three logical premises require from the respondent to find out the possible conclusion from the given six multiple choices attached to each item.

Environment questionnaire A number of 36 items were developed and validated in form of self rating scale to identify students’ environment status using Likert scale (1-5) ranging from very frequent to never. The items were distributed on eight factors encompass the environmental status perceived by the gifted students. All the items were structured of informative sentences aim at measuring the amount or strength of value that the respondents have regarding their environment elements (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources). Items were built through exhibiting the conduct related to the findings of the gifted and talented as in several studies (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996; Feldman, 1986). The internal consistency measuring the reliability of the environment factors using Cronbach’s Alpha was ranging from 0.71 to 0.83 and the overall coefficient for the questionnaire was 0.89. These values had shown high reliability indices which support the appropriateness of the instrument as shown in Table 2.

21


Table 2: Summary of Internal Consistency Indices for the Six Factors of the Environment Questionnaire

Factor Valid Items Chronbach’s AlphaResources 6 0.71Family 6 0.83Peers 6 0.74School 6 0.75Society 6 0.75Teachers 6 0.79Total 36 0.89

Results Evaluation of SEM AssumptionsMulticollinearity refers to a high correlation among a set of variables within a specific construct. Hair et al. (2006) suggest that the value greater than 0.9 of correlation coefficient creates multicollinearity problem. Although some of the variables for this research are highly correlated, they fell within the acceptable range (< 0.9) suggested by Hair et al. (2006) as shown in Table 3. There was no evidence of multicollinearity of the variables so all these variables were used for further analysis. Prior to the SEM analysis, the assumptions for SEM were evaluated. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were computed to access the reliability of the indicators for all observed variables. The results showed that the measures used for the current study had adequate to excellent internal reliability. The sample covariance matrix value was evaluated to confirm multicollinearity and to determine if singularity problems existed. A high value of determinant on the sample covariance matrix (1.567) was found in the Sample Moments section and it was larger than zero. Therefore, there was no singularity problem among the tested variables. No further rescaling was required for the current data. A skewness range from -0.268 to 0.467 was well below the suggested level of the absolute value of 3.0. In addition, a kurtosis range from -0.322 to.945 revealed that the variables are not overly peaked and well below the absolute value of 10.0 as suggested by Chan (2003). Thus the presented values reveal that the variables are normally distributed and have met the criteria for the SEM analysis.

Evaluation of the Measurement Model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA was carried out to determine the adequacy of the factor loadings and the standardized residuals and explained variances for the measurement variables. Figure 1 presents the measurement model for the variables. For this constructed measurement model, all factor loadings are freed (i.e., estimated); items are allowed to load on only one construct (i.e., no cross loading); and latent constructs are allowed to correlate (equivalent to oblique rotation in exploratory factor analysis EFA).

Table 3 shows the elaborated evaluation of the measurement model parameters. All standardized regression weights were significant with CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05 and all the error variance were < 1.0 indicating that there was no violation of estimates revealed. The standardized regression weights range from 0.278 to 0.770. These values indicate that the 15 measurement variables are significantly represented by their respective latent constructs. The explained variances for the 15 measurement variables are represented by their squared multiple correlations (SMC), the higher the value of the squared multiple correlation, the greater the explanatory power of the regression model. The percentage of variance explained range from 0.129 or 12.9 % (Artificial language) to 0.593 or 59.3 % (Pattern Recognition) as shown in Table 3. SMC results indicate a strong relationship between the constructs and their factors and demonstrate the greater explanatory power of these factors in predicting these compounds.

22


Figure 1: The Measurement Model with the Factor Loadings

Table 3: Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates of the Standardized Factor Loadings, Standard Error, Critical Ratio, and Squared Multiple Correlation for

Measurement ModelParameters Estimate S.E. C.R. SMCTeachers 0.657 - - 0.432Society 0.743 0.130 7.292 0.552School 0.665 0.154 6.325 0.442Peers 0.664 0.138 6.619 0.441Family 0.533 0.146 5.548 0.284Resources 0.475 0.178 4.746 0.226CCFT Series 0.452 - - 0.205CCFT Classification 0.535 0.326 3.784 0.287CCFT Matrices 0.278 0.298 2.323 0.177CCFT Topology 0.657 0.401 3.681 0.431Problem Solving 0.547 - - 0.299Pattern Recognition 0.770 0.216 5.906 0.593Audio logic 0.489 0.130 4.668 0.239

23


Audio matrix 0.763 0.206 5.968 0.582Artificial language 0.359 0.115 3.602 0.129CovariancesEnvironment <--> g 0.754 0.243 3.107g <--> Analytical 0.308 0.102 3.010Environment <--> Analytical 1.135 0.285 3.990CorrelationsEnvironment <--> g 0.530g <--> Analytical 0.544Environment <--> Analytical 0.639

Examination of the Modification indices MI did not give any suggestions to modify the measurement model. As the adequacy of the measurement model was supported by parameters estimates, the directions of the estimates were theoretically justifiable. In other words, the three latent variables in the measurement model, namely, g, analytical, and environment are theoretically represented by their constructs. Many scholars such as Cattell and Cattell (1960) identify the components of the fluid intelligence as the ability of classification, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and manipulate conditions (topology). Further, Carroll’s (1993) conception of high order intellectual abilities (stratum II) are consisted of the sequential reasoning (premises or conditions to conduct one or more steps of reasoning to draw a conclusion), induction (to find out the rules that direct the similarities or contrasts), quantitative reasoning (using concepts including mathematical relations to reach a correct conclusion), Piagetian reasoning (abstraction), visualisation (to manipulate visual patterns), and originality/creativity (original verbal/ ideational responses). And for the environment latent variable, numerous scholars (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Csikzentmihalyi et al., 1993; Winner, 1996; Feldman, 1986) present gifted’ environment in terms of family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources which were confirmed in the measurement model as one latent variable named environment.

Assessment of Model Adequacy for the Competing ModelThe competing model has been analyzed using Amos V.16 with Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) as shown in Figure 2. Table 4 shows the results for Goodness-of-Fit Indices (GFI) for the competing model.

Table 4: Results of Goodness-of-fit Indices of the Competing Model

Goodness of fit indexes df /df (CMIN/df)

P CFI GFI TLI RMSEA

Recommended value - - < 3.0 >.05 > .90 > .90 > .90 < .08Model 118.819 87 1.366 .063 .936 .906 .923 .050

The model adequacy has indicated that a statistically fit structured model with root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .050 (<.08), comparative fit index (CFI) = .936 (> .90), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .923 (> .90) and the overall good fit index (GFI) = .906. Moreover, the chi-square statistics of (

= 118.819, df = 87, P = .063) and relative chi-square (CMIN/df = 1.366) which fell below the threshold point of 3.000 as suggested by Kline (2005). Table 5 shows the elaborated evaluation of the competing model parameters. All factor loadings were significant with CR > ± 1.96 and all the error variance were < 1.0 indicating that there was no violation of estimates revealed. The direct effect of environment on g was 0.530, environment on analytical abilities was 0.488, and g on analytical abilities was 0.285. All direct effect were significant paths (CR > ± 1.96).

As the paths coefficients > 0.20, the effects of the environment are considered important to the analytical abilities. Further, the direct relationship between the environment and the analytical abilities was significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05) with path coefficient of 0.448. As the path coefficient > 0.20, the effect of the environment is considered important to the analytical abilities. On the other hand, the indirect effect of environment on the analytical abilities through the g was 0.151. The total standardized effects for environment on the analytical abilities was 0.639 and on g was 0.530, the total standardized effects for g on the analytical abilities was 0.285. These results indicated that the external nurturing

24


factors embodied in Environment had strong effects on the analytical elements of the intellectual giftedness.

Figure 2: The Competing Model with the Factor Loadings

Table 5: Summary of the Direct and Indirect Effects, Total Effects, Standardized Error, andCritical Ratio of the Competing Model

Standardized Direct Effects Estimate S.E. C.R.Environment g 0.530 0.050 3.374Environment Analytical 0.488 0.056 3.466g Analytical 0.285 0.189 1.886Standardized Indirect Effects Environment Analytical 0.151Standardized Total Effects (Direct Effects + Indirect Effects)Environment g 0.530Environment Analytical 0.639g Analytical 0.285

The percentage of variance (SMC) explained range from 0.129 or 12.9 % (Artificial language) to 0.593 or 59.3 % (Pattern Recognition). The amount of variance associated with g accounted for 0.281 or 28.1 % by its predictors, namely, CCFT series, CCFT matrices, and CCFT topology. The amount of variance associated with the analytical abilities accounted for 0.467 or 46.7 % by its predictors, namely, problem solving, pattern recognition, audio-logic, artificial language, and audio-matrices as shown in Table 6. SMC results indicated a strong relationship between the variables’ constructs and their factors and demonstrate the greater explanatory power of these factors in predicting the intellectual giftedness. Examination of the modification indices (MI) did not give any suggestions to modify the competing model. As the adequacy of the competing model was supported by parameters estimates, the directions of the estimates were theoretically justifiable.

By examining paths coefficients among the latent variables in the competing model, one latent variable revealed a strong bond among them, namely, environment, g, and analytical abilities. This bond was

25


supported by calculating the direct and indirect effects among these variables. The direct effects were: environment to g = 0.53, environment to analytical abilities = 0.49 and g to analytical abilities = 0.29. The indirect effects were: environment to analytical abilities = 0.488 as shown in Table 3. This bond was named analytical giftedness; the existence of this bond was due to the crucial roles played by environment to crystallize these compounds (g and analytical abilities). This role is mediating by g platform which supports the analytical abilities to be maximized.

Discussion and Conclusion The findings of this study are consistent with Gagne’s (1985) DMGT model, Tanenbuam’s (1991) Star model, and Sternberg’s (1985) Triarchic model. The beauty of the current findings stand on counting the contribution of environment factors (family, peers, teachers, school, society, and resources) to the development of the intellectual giftedness. No study utilized multivariate analysis using SEM to investigate the interrelationships of the environment factors, the fluid intelligence, and intellectual giftedness. Further, the concept of giftedness and talent is now varied based on the incubating environments of the intellectual giftedness. However, the previous models of giftedness and talent (e.g. Gagne’s (1985) model) describe giftedness in terms of high ability and talent as high performance, while

Table 6: Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates of the Standardized Factor Loadings, Standard Error, Critical Ratio, and Squared Multiple Correlation for Measurement Model

Factor Loadings S.E. C.R. SMCTeachers 0.657 - - 0.432Society 0.743 0.130 7.292 0.552School 0.665 0.154 6.325 0.442Peers 0.664 0.138 6.619 0.441Family 0.533 0.146 5.548 0.284Resources 0.475 0.178 4.746 0.226CCFT Series 0.452 - - 0.205CCFT Classification 0.535 0.326 3.784 0.287CCFT Matrices 0.278 0.298 2.323 0.177CCFT Topology 0.657 0.401 3.681 0.431Problem solving 0.547 - - 0.299Pattern Recognition 0.770 0.216 5.906 0.593Audio logic 0.489 0.130 4.668 0.239Audio matrix 0.763 0.206 5.968 0.582Artificial language 0.359 0.115 3.602 0.129

g 0.530 0.050 3.374 0.281Analytical 0.285 0.189 1.886 0.467

it can be redefined by prescribing these concepts in depth showing how a specific series of aptitudes combined in a certain way to establish g , analytical abilities, or any other areas of giftedness and talent. Further, the foundation of talent can be redefined by having these compounds connected to internal and external factors, namely motivation and environment to establish the bonds as talent foundation. This conceptualization is consistent with Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model (McGrew, 1997) as crystallized intelligence extends the fluid intelligence capabilities by having a context, which encompasses motivation and environment factors.

Environment as a nurturing tool plays a crucial role in the development of giftedness to become a distinguished talent. The evaluation of the competing model parameters in terms of the direct, indirect, and total standardized effects gave a significant direct effect of environment on g and analytical abilities. These results are consistent with Bloom (1985) and Carlson (1993), in which talent development is supported by several factors such as good teachers, potential support, sport clubs, socialization, playful activities with guidance, support from parents, and stimulation of interest. Environment gives the gifted opportunities to manifest gifted potentials and to supports individuals’ aptitudes to be nurtured through various interfaces. Additionally, giftedness requires social context that allows individuals’ abilities to be flourished. The analytical abilities are affected by the environment factors, which is consistent with

26


Tannenbaum (1991) that child’s environments such as family, peers, school, and community, beside the social, economical, and political institutions can help to determine the field of talent. The family factor loading in the structural model was significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05), and this highlights the important role of parents as emphasized by Bloom (1985) in his studies as the role of families is vital in nurturing individuals’ talents and parents offer efforts to support their talent development. The Environment’ items developed in this study followed the theoretical foundations of the role of parents proposed in the literature. For example, Winner (1996) suggests that parents tend to set high standards for their talented children rather than their emotional and financial support, while Bloom (1985) emphasized that parents support their children to challenge, to strive for increasingly higher levels of achievement and to evaluate the success of their performances. Zimmerman and Ringle (1981) demonstrate that talented children's levels of achievement and personal ambitions are affected by the goals parents set for them. According to Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993), the best environment for cultivating talent challenging is provided by supportive families. Bloom (1985) and Winner (1996) reported that the behaviours parents’ model influences children's talent development which is consistent with results of this study.

The peer factor loadings in the structural model were significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05) and this indicates that the important role of the peers in giftedness development. This result is consistent with Ryan (2001) in which the competitive and supportive peer groups can serve to promote the intrinsic value of school and the educational process in its members. Also it is consistent with Bloom (1985) and Guimond (1999) as children's peers support the development of talent and have an influential effect on attitudes and concepts. Sichivitsa (2004) found peers to play a significant role in shaping students’ values and attitudes toward music. The teachers factor loading in the structural model was significant (CR > ± 1.96, p < 0.05), and this indicates the important role of teachers play in the development of giftedness, which in turn consistent with Bloom (1985), Csikzentmihalyi et al. (1993), and Sichivitsa (2004) who found that teachers play a crucial role in improving both academic and social integration of their students, parental support of music and the amount of previous musical experience had a significant positive impact on college students’ self-concepts in music.

A multivariate analysis employing the structural equation modelling (SEM) to explore the simultaneous interconnections and relationships between fluid intelligence, analytical abilities, and environmental factors was used in this study. The main focus of this study was to investigate how these factors interacted so that the administration of the gifted and talented education and the role of parents and other environmental factors can be enhanced. The findings of this study indicated that the availability of supportive environments promoted higher analytical abilities and suggested that environmental factors were integral and significant variables in the further development of gifts and talent. Thus, these findings provide support for the belief that with proper environmental scaffolding everyone can be talented and these findings can be helpful for planning and conducting the identification and nurturing processes of gifted and talented individuals. However, more studies that explore the characteristics of the environmental factors in promoting other intellectual, emotional, and psychomotor intelligences are recommended.

References Al-Shabatat, A., Ismail, H., & Abbas, M. (2008). Giftedness and Talent: Definitions and ConceptionsPerspectives. Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities 2008(Icossh’08), 18th-20th June 2008. Universiti Sains Malaysia.Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Incorporated. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, Ballantine. Carlson, R. (1993). The path to the national level in sports in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 3, 170 - 177. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Cattel, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1960). Handbook for the individual or group Culture Fair Intelligence Test - Scale II. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Chan, Y. H. (2003). Biostatistics 101: Data Presentation. Singapore Med J, 44(6): 280-285.Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1998). The development of the person: An experiential perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., 635-684). New York: Wiley.Csikzentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and

27


failure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Delisle, J. R. (2002a). Barefoot irreverence: A guide to critical issues in gifted child education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (5th ed.), 3, 1017-1095. New York, NY: Wiley.Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic.Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of cognitive stimulating home environment in children's academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 69, 1448-1460.Guimond, S. (1999). Attitude change during college: normative or informational social influence, Social Psychology of Education, 2, 237 - 261.Haensly, P. (2004). Parenting gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 27, 1, 31.Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, B., J., Rolph, E. A., & Ronald, L. T. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. Pearson Education Inc.Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Li, J. (1997). Creativity in horizontal and vertical domains. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 107-132.McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (131-150). New York: Guilford.Nunnaly, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Ryan, A. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150.Sichivitsa, V. (2004). Music motivation: A study of fourth, fifth and sixth graders’ intentions to persist in music. Contributions to Music Education, 31(2), 27-41.Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (27-44). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Wachs, T. D. (1992). The nature of nurture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Webb, J. T., & DeVries, A. R. (1998). Gifted parent groups: The SENG Model. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Zimmerman, B., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statement of confidence on children's self-efficacy and problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 485- 93.

28


TEACHING TO DIVERSITY: CREATING COMPASSIONATE LEARNING COMMUNITIES FOR DIVERSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Jennifer KatzMarion Porath

The University of British Columbia

Emotional and behavioral outcomes of the Respecting Diversity (RD) program, a social and emotional learning (SEL) intervention to develop self-awareness, self-respect and respect for diverse others, were investigated with 218 students in Grades four to seven and their teachers. Intervention and control groups were assessed pre and post intervention for level of self-awareness, self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others. Measures of classroom climate were also included. Students completed several measures of SEL, and a selected sample were interviewed to obtain detailed information about their experiences with the RD program. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis procedures and repeated measures MANCOVAs. The intervention significantly increased students’ self-respect, awareness of others, and respect for others, while students in control classrooms decreased in these factors. Classroom climate also significantly improved for treatment classrooms according to both teachers and students, and, similarly, decreased in control classrooms.

IntroductionAround the world, children of the same age enter today’s classrooms with differing learning strengths and challenges, background knowledge, cultures, languages, and experience (Karangwa, Miles, & Lewis, 2010; Mowat, 2010; Schirmer & Casbon, 1995). Students do not learn alone, but rather, in diverse communities, interacting with their teachers, in the company of their peers, and bringing with them the values and teachings of their families. Internationally, unacceptably high rates of school violence, bullying, school dropout, youth suicide, and other negative behaviors have been documented (Kawabata, Crick & Hamaguchi, 2010; Liang, Flisher, & Lombard, 2007; McCombs, 2004; Zins & Elias, 2006). These behaviors have taken a toll on students’ social and emotional well-being, evidenced by rising rates of depression, emotion-related illnesses, and expressions of fear and hopelessness (Cluver, Bowes, & Gardner, 2010; Hymel, Schonert-Reichl, & Miller, 2006; Modrcin-McCarthy & Dalton, 1996). However, findings from a number of recent research investigations indicate that schools are among the most effective socialization contexts in our culture, and among the most influential in guiding social and emotional learning (Schonert-Reichl, Smith, & Zaidman-Zait, 2006). Children’s social and emotional learning can be fostered via classroom and school-based intervention efforts (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Graczyk, et al, 2000; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001).

For students to learn all students must be recognized as having diverse needs, and a classroom created that allows all students to learn and develop a sense of belonging. To support inclusion and diversity in Canada, several Canadian provinces have added social and emotional curricula to their mandate. For instance, in British Columbia, the province in which the current study took place, the Ministry of Education defines social responsibility as one of four foundational skills, equal in importance to reading, writing, and numeracy. Despite these efforts, many Canadian youth continue to struggle socially and emotionally. Approximately 20% of children and adolescents, well over 800,000 children in Canada,

29


experience bullying, and mental health problems severe enough to warrant mental health services, (Kutcher & Davidson, 2007; Romano, Tremblay, Vitaro, Zoccolillo, & Pagani, 2001), a number that parallels findings in other countries (Cheng et al, 2010; Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004).

In the current study, the effects of a multiple intelligences based program designed to increase students’ self and social awareness and respect, key factors in the development of social and emotional health, were evaluated, and their impact on classroom climate assessed. Respecting Diversity (RD) is a theoretically derived social competence program, based on the framework for social and emotional learning (SEL) proposed by Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, and Walberg (2004), and using a multiple intelligences (MI) framework derived from the work of Gardner (1983).

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), SEL is defined as the process of acquiring and effectively applying the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to recognize and manage emotions, developing caring and concern for others, making responsible decisions, establishing positive relationships, and handling challenging situations capably (Zins & Elias, 2006, p. 1). SEL has positive effects on many aspects of children’s development, including academic performance, physical, mental, and emotional health, prosocial behaviors, and citizenship (Zins & Elias, 2006). However, debate has raged over to what extent schools can or should be asked to devote time to social and emotional learning given their emphasis on academic learning (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003). What is not recognized in this argument is the link between social and emotional development and academic success. Strengthening students’ sense of community in school increases academic motivation and aspirations, and has a substantial effect on academic achievement (Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufamn, 2008; Zins et al., 2004), including performance on standardized tests (Malecki & Elliott, 2002).

Key Factors in SELSEL programs can develop protective factors in children that reduce the likelihood of psychological or mental health problems in adolescence and later life. In the elementary school years, research has clearly demonstrated that key amongst these protective factors is self and social awareness, and respect (Greenberg et al., 2001).

Self- and social awareness. Self-awareness involves recognizing and acknowledging one’s strengths and challenges (Brandt, 1998; Hippe, 2004; Jaouen, 1990). Children who are self-aware are able to recognize their own emotions, and are aware of how they are perceived by others. Social awareness, on the other hand, involves the ability to perspective take (Zins et al., 2004). Children with well-developed social awareness recognize that others have differing strengths and challenges, are therefore able to understand others’ reactions to situations, and suggest win-win solutions to problems.

Self- and social respect. Children who have self-respect embrace their strengths and see them as tools for achieving their goals and overcoming their challenges (Hippe, 2004). They are willing to take risks and try challenging tasks. Students who are respectful of others demonstrate empathy for others, and accept the relative strengths and challenges of others in relation to their own. They can work cooperatively with others, utilizing their own and others’ abilities appropriately (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Socially, respect for others implies an appreciation for diversity (Zins et al., 2004).

Classrooms provide different emotional, social, and academic environments, and these factors affect student’s social and emotional learning, which in turn, affects the classroom climate, and learning (Keogh, 1998). In order to assess the outcomes of any program, intervention or curriculum designed to promote SEL, therefore, it is important to acquire baseline measures of classroom climate, and compare them to post intervention measures.

Important Components of SEL Programs

Effective programs for social and emotional learning have several key components, including teaching specific skills such as self-awareness, self-respect, empathy (respect for others), perspective taking

30


(awareness of others), and cooperation (Zins et al., 2004). These programs must be integrated into comprehensive school programs if they are to be successful over the long term (McCombs, 2004).

The Respecting Diversity (RD) Program

The Respecting Diversity (RD) program’s emphasis is on the promotion of positive development among all children and youth. As a program designed by teachers for teachers, the RD program differs in some significant ways from other SEL programs. The program was initially designed by the first author, and then reviewed and modified by many teachers of grades K-12 over a 6-year period. Most SEL programs are highly scripted in their implementation, requiring teachers to teach them as a separate curriculum. The RD curriculum provides teachers with a nine-lesson script which is flexible in its implementation - the curriculum is meant to be differentiated to fit the unique context of each classroom, while still maintaining particular concepts/skills, as most curricula are.

Another unique feature of the RD program is that it uses a multiple intelligences framework (Gardner, 1993) to facilitate SEL. MI theory is internationally known as an educational framework for the delivery of content area curricula (Kim & Cha, 2008; Temure, 2007). Thus the RD program fits within teachers’ skill set in classrooms around the world, and is easily extended across the curriculum. According to Taylor and Dymnicki (2007), researchers have offered little information about how to infuse SEL interventions into the regular academic curriculum and create opportunities for students to learn through authentic experiences. By using MI as a framework, the RD program aims to do just this.

Multiple intelligences (MI)The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 1983) spawned a regular education reform movement that includes many of the teaching philosophies, techniques, and assessment methods found to be effective for developing social and emotional learning and positive classroom climates. Practices based on MI are facilitative of inclusion, since they are designed to accommodate a diverse range of learners (Armstrong, 1994; Eichinger & Downing, 1996; Falvey, Givner, & Kimm, 1996). An MI framework was chosen for this research for specific reasons, despite its controversy in the field (Gardner & Moran, 2006; Waterhouse, 2006). First, there is the intuitive utility of MI for differentiating instruction (Stanford, 2003), allowing teachers to connect students’ learning in the RD program to the rest of the curriculum. An MI framework may therefore increase implementation and cross-curricular delivery, a goal for SEL programs. Second, MI theory provides teachers and schools with neutral, non-culturally biased, language. Because MI is based in cross-cultural studies of intelligence (Gardner, 1983), everyone, regardless of cultural or racial background, or learning profile, is intelligent, and the program can have international application. Finally, MI has been cited as a useful tool for counseling and addressing social and emotional issues, and therefore bridges the curricular and social-emotional life of the classroom (Booth & O’Brien, 2008). Thus the framework is simply being used as a tool to allow teachers to explore diversity, differentiate instruction, and build self and social respect.

MI and SEL. Two of the intelligences posited by Gardner (1983) are social and emotional constructs - interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Interpersonal intelligence includes the SEL components of social awareness and respect. Intrapersonal intelligence incorporates self-awareness and respect.

Goals of the Respecting Diversity (RD) Program Goals of the RD program include developing self and social awareness and respect, as well as the creation of a positive, inclusive classroom climate. Developing self-awareness and respect necessitates helping students understand their unique learning profile. This in turn allows students to become aware of how they learn best, and see their strengths and what they can contribute (Brandt, 1998; Jaouen, 1990). Thus students know how to use their strengths to make choices for academic activities and see how their learning profile can make valuable contributions to their classroom, community and future career choices (Levine, 2001, 2002).

Social awareness and respect allow students to appreciate diversity, develop respect and empathy for others, and gain an understanding of diverse learning profiles and the advantages to this diversity within a community (Peavey & Leff, 2002; Smith, 1999), resulting in respect for diverse others, and a more positive classroom climate. Students, teachers and school management influence classroom climate

31


(Sprott, 2004), which in turn affects children’s adjustment, including self-esteem, interest and motivation, behavior and school achievement, (Somersalo, Solantaus, & Almqvist, 2002).

Purpose of the StudyThis study investigated the extent to which the RD curriculum facilitated the development of students’ self and social awareness and respect in classrooms of diverse learners. The following research questions were addressed:

1. Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?2. Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?

MethodThe methodology for this study parallels common practice in the field of SEL program evaluation (e.g., Greenberg, Kusche, Cook, & Quamma, 1995). This involves pre intervention / program delivery and post intervention measurement processes using both qualitative and quantitative measures. A quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design was used.

Participants Participants were drawn from a large suburban public school district in British Columbia, Canada. All students attend their neighborhood school and are enrolled in regular education classrooms. Support services are provided in school and in class to facilitate inclusion. Students in the schools speak more than 57 languages, and more than 60% of the student population is learning English as a second language (ESL).

Nine elementary school teachers located in five schools volunteered to participate in the study. All schools enrolled students from K- Grade seven, and ranged in size from 300-500 students. Two schools were randomly selected to serve as the treatment group (three teachers in one school, two teachers in another). Treatment group classes and control group classes were located in separate schools, to avoid transference of program materials/ideas, and allow treatment group teachers to support and collaborate with each other. Student ESL populations ranged from 58% to 67% in these schools. Percentage of students below the poverty line ranged from 26% – 33%. Control group classrooms were located in three schools (with 1, 2, and 1 teachers respectively), and no intervention was made in these classrooms between pre and post testing. Student ESL populations in these schools ranged from 48% to 72%. Percentage of students below the poverty line ranged from 20% to 33%.

Teachers involved in the study ranged in age, experience, and education level. Age ranged from 32 to 60 years and experience from 2 to 36 years. Two teachers, one in each of the groups, had master’s degrees; the rest had a baccalaureate degree or post-baccalaureate education. Two hundred and eighteen students from grades four to seven took part in the study. Forty-nine and a half percent were boys, while 50.5% percent were girls. Mean age was 11 years. Students for whom English was a second language made up 67.4% of the sample, which is common in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The dominant languages spoken were English and Asian in origin. The treatment group consisted of 121 students, while the control group had 97 students. Chi square analyses were used to investigate any group differences, including differences in gender, age, first language, and ability (ministry categories such as students with autism, learning disabilities, etc.). A significant difference was found for grade (X2

[3,N=218]=7.754, p<.051), with the treatment group having more students in grade five and the control group more students in grade six. All subsequent analyses controlled for grade.

Participation in the study was high, with 94% of eligible students participating. Students who had moderate to severe cognitive disabilities, or who had not developed sufficient proficiency in the English language to take part in the programs’ activities and complete measurement scales and interviews were excluded from the study.

The InterventionTraining Procedures. Previous research has indicated five components of successful implementation: (a) the degree to which program components were delivered as prescribed (adherence), (b) the frequency

32


and duration of the program administered (dosage), (c) qualitative aspects of the program delivery (e.g., content, affective quality), (d) participant responsiveness, and (e) program differentiation - the extent to which only the experimental group received the intervention (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000). In any program evaluation, results cannot be fully interpreted without measures of implementation – as it will be unclear to what extent effect sizes were mitigated by the degree to which the program was actually carried out. For instance, the RD program has nine lessons; if teachers implemented only some of these lessons, or spread them out over an extended time so that there was little connection between them, results could be potentially impacted. What might appear to be an ineffective program could actually be an ineffectively implemented program. Thus it is essential that implementation be both supported and measured.

To promote program implementation, intervention teachers attended a three hour training workshop with the first author and were provided with a manual detailing lesson plans and extensions. Weekly consultation and observation meetings were held on an individual basis. At times these meetings were one to one after school and, at other times, took place in the classroom with students present, during RD lessons. At these times, the first author co-taught lessons, gave feedback to the teachers, or clarified ideas for students when requested to do so.

To verify implementation, teachers were asked to keep records of any changes they made to lesson plans, dosage, their feelings about each section/lesson, and the reponses of the children. Teachers also kept records of the extensions of the program, for instance, the frequency of use of the language of multiple intelligences across the curriculum, references to program lessons, etc. Finally, teachers were surveyed at the end of the program to ascertain their feelings about the RD program, and the extent to which it was extended throughout their teaching.

Program Procedure. The RD program involves nine introductory lessons in which students explore their own learning strengths and challenges, and those of others in their community. They work both individually and in small groups on tasks that require a variety of intelligences/approaches, and discuss how their strengths, and the strengths of others, are reflected in task outcomes, with the intention of increasing students’ awareness of the value of complimentary skill sets/intelligences. Students explore the outcomes of varying learning profiles, including associated career options, and famous people with a variety of intelligence strengths, in an effort to give students hope that, no matter what their learning profile, there is a place for them in society, as school often convinces those who are not strong in verbal linguistic strengths that success is beyond their reach. There are many careers – being an architect, surgeon, or composer, for instance - not tied to reading novels and writing essays. In the final lesson of the RD program, students explore disabilities, within the context of ability. Students discuss how severe challenges in a given intelligence can result in disability, with the remaining possibility of intelligence in many other ways (for instance, a person with severe challenge in visual-spatial intelligence may be blind, but may be very intelligent in many other ways). We must eliminate the idea that the student who can’t read, see, or walk, is not intelligent, or that the student who is different in any way is to be disdained, if we are to reduce bullying. Teachers were encouraged to use the vocabulary and framework of MI theory throughout their curriculum to connect this program to the everyday life of the classroom. Resources were provided to teachers to facilitate their ability to plan science, social studies, mathematics, and literacy activities using an MI framework.

Data Collection Schools were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. Subsequent to the end of data collection, teachers from the control group classrooms were trained in the RD program, so as not to deny any of the participants its benefits (Greenberg, 2004).

Each child was individually assessed twice, pre- and post-intervention, over a three-month period. Self- awareness, self-respect, social awareness, respect for others, and class climate were assessed. Completion of these scales took approximately one hour pre-and post intervention.

Measures. Many of the scales used were created/utilized by the Child Development Project (CDP) (http://www.devstu.org/cdp/). The Revised Self-Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was used as a measure of self-awareness. To measure self-respect, two subscales of the Marsh Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) (Marsh, 1992): the Academic Self Concept Subscale, and the General Self Concept Subscale were used. In addition, items from the self-efficacy, emotional control, and

33


relationships with peers subscales of the Resiliency Inventory (RI) (Song, 2004) were also used as measures of self-respect.

The Perspective Taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983) was used to assess students’ awareness of others’, in addition to the Compliance Goals subscale of the Social Goals Questionnaire (Wentzel, 1993). The Extrinsic Motivation scale (CDP) assesses the motivations behind children’s helping behavior. Respect for others (social respect) was measured using the Empathic Concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983), the Prosocial Goals subscale of the Social Goals Questionnaire (Wentzel, 1993), the Acceptance of Outgroups scale (CDP), and the Altruistic Behavior subscale of the Intrinsic Prosocial Motivation scale (CDP). Seven items from the CDP’s classroom supportiveness scale were adapted by changing the prefix In my class kids… to I to assess students’ willingness to work with diverse others.

To assess changes in classroom climate, the CDP student autonomy and influence in the classroom and classroom supportiveness and safety subscales of the Sense of school as a classroom community instrument were used. The Global Portrait of Social and Moral Health for Youth (GPSMHY) (Davidson & Kmelkov, 2006) scale was used to assess students’ attitudes and behaviors relating to valuing diversity, and the extent of shared vision and goals present in their classroom. The Louvain Loneliness Scale for Children and Adolescents (Marcoen, Goossens, & Caes, 1987) was used to assess the degree of belongingness/alienation and loneliness students experience in their classroom before and after the RD program.

Interviews. Interviews were conducted pre and post intervention regarding participants’ experiences of self and social awareness and respect and experience of the program (post intervention), with a targeted sample. This sample of participants was chosen to represent gender and age/grade balance, and a subset of students with learning disabilities and recent immigrants for selective analysis. These interviews took several forms. First, a semi-structured interview exploring students’ experiences of diversity and respect was conducted. Second, a case study/scenario depiction of a student who struggles to read was used with questions that focused on perspective taking ability (social awareness), attitudes to diverse others, and empathy (respect for others). Post intervention, a semi-structured interview exploring targeted students’ experiences of diversity, respect, and the RD program was undertaken. As well, a second case study/scenario depiction was utilized. Results of these interviews regarding diversity and the case study scenarios are reported in an upcoming paper. This paper reports only those questions relevant to the outcomes of the RD program.

In an effort to triangulate students self-reports related to respect for others and classroom climate, teachers were asked to fill out The Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996). This scale includes subscales relevant to valuing diversity, behavior, and peer interactions including the aggressive with peers (alpha = .89-.92), excluded by peers (alpha = .93-.96), and prosocial with peers (alpha = .91-.92) subscales.

Results and DiscussionTwo independent raters coded the qualitative student data using thematic content analysis. Reliability was calculated for a sub-sample of ten interviews, achieving 92% agreement. As quantitative data revealed no significant differences in outcomes for students with learning disabilities or for whom English is a second language, students responses were coded together as coming from a single pool.

Quantitative student data were examined using a process recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998). Initially, negative items were recoded. Data from the scales for each variable were then aggregated to assess changes in class climate and self and social awareness and respect pre and post intervention. Reliability was computed for each scale; all scales had reliability (coefficient alpha) greater than .7 (range .72 to .93).

The five dependent variables are all conceptual groupings. For example, self-awareness is understood theoretically to be a combination of factors such as an awareness of how one is perceived by others, emotional awareness, and reflective thinking. Using factor analysis, items from each conceptual grouping were loaded onto a single factor to determine if they were, in fact, related. Each of the five main factors explained from 30-50% of the variance, indicating a significant single factor for each aggregated variable. Scales were aggregated to reflect the five conceptual variables: Self-awareness,

34


self-respect, awareness of others, respect for others, and class climate. Reliability coefficients were calculated as a second measure of relationship between the scales/factors. Alpha reliability coefficients for all five aggregated scales were above .7 (range = .77 to .94). Histograms were used to check for a normal distribution; all data fit this criterion. Between groups comparisons before intervention were computed. There were no significant differences in any of the aggregated variables pre-intervention.

As the dependent variables were aggregated, a principal components analysis was used to calculate factor scores for each of the five dependent variables, providing weighted scores for each. Using these weighted scores, a repeated measures MANCOVA was computed using complete cases only, controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined, F(5, 141) = 8.88, p = .000. It should be noted that students completed multiple multi-question scales. One skipped question/item on one scale rendered the entire student’s data as missing. Thus almost 25% of data were lost if only complete cases were used. Therefore a second repeated measures MANCOVA was then computed using imputed means and principal components, controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined, F(1, 209) = 23.244, p =.000. Finally, a MANCOVA was computed using a complex plan to control for nesting effects, F (1, 209) = 20.575, p =000. These results were all significant at the .01 level, demonstrating that the nesting of students in classrooms, and classrooms in schools, did not significantly impact results. Thus, the reported values are from the second (imputed means) MANCOVA, as it allowed for the greatest power and a repeated measures analysis (see Table 1).

Table 1: MANCOVA ResultsAggregate Variable df F partial η

Overall 5,204 14.267* .23

Self-Awareness 1,209 23.244* .10

Self-Respect 1,209 48.635* .17

Awareness of Others 1,209 23.974* .08

Respect for Others 1,209 32.817* .13

Class Climate 1,209 42.411* .13

* = p<.01

As implementation data were collected from treatment teachers only (n=5), data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, and a thematic analysis completed of teachers’ comments at the end of the program. In addition, teachers filled out the Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) for each student in their class, pre and post. There were no missing quantitative teacher data on program effects. Thus, a principal components analysis was used to calculate factor scores. Using these weighted scores, repeated measures MANCOVA was computed controlling for grade, with treatment group, sex, and ESL status and interactions examined. Results indicated that teachers saw a significant difference in overall student behavior, F. (1, 209) = 4.07, p =.045, partial η = .11 with the treatment group increasing in positive behaviors and the control group demonstrating fewer positive behaviors. Specifically, there was no difference between groups in aggressive behaviors. However, prosocial behaviors increased for students in treatment classes, and decreased for students in control group classes, F(1, 209) = 5.15, p = .028, partial η = .15. As well, students in treatment group classes were less excluded by peers F (1, 209) = 3.72, p = .05, partial η = .10, and increased in social responsibility F(1, 209) = 3.9, p = .05 partial η = .97. By contrast, students in control group classes experienced increased exclusion, and decreased in social responsibility.

Overall MANCOVA results indicated significant differences post intervention between treatment and control groups, F(5, 204) = 14.267, p=.001, with treatment group students’ SEL scores increasing overall, and control group students’ scores decreasing. This pattern of decreasing scores for control groups (i.e., students who have had no intervention for SEL) is commonly found in the literature, and has been previously explained as resulting from greater student disruptive behavior and familiarity between

35


teachers and students and amongst peers as the school year progresses (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Partial η for this MANCOVA was .23, which is considered to have practical significance in social sciences research (Barnett, 2008). Follow-up univariate tests were used to determine specific relationships between treatment groups and the five dependent variables.

Is there a significant difference in students’ self-awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?

Results indicated significant differences in the change from pre to posttest scores between treatment and control groups for both self-awareness, F (1, 209) = 23.244, p =.000, partial η = .10, and self-respect F (1, 209) = 48.635, p =.000, partial η = .17. However, these results were opposite in direction. Students in the treatment group decreased in self-awareness, while students in the control group increased. However, students from the treatment group increased in self-respect, while students from the control group decreased. This finding appears to be contradictory to past findings regarding the association between self-awareness and self-respect (e.g., Weissberg et al, 2004). The current finding may have been due to the instrument used to measure self-awareness. This scale was a measure of self-consciousness, and included items such as I’m always trying to figure myself out, and I usually worry about making a good impression. While the authors hoped this would assess students’ reflective tendencies and awareness of how they were perceived by others, students appear to have interpreted this as a negative statement; that is, someone who worries about their appearance/image actually lacks self-respect or confidence. Interviews conducted post-analyses confirm this interpretation. Thus, self-awareness, in this definition (i.e., being concerned about one’s image, feelings, or behavior) became negatively correlated in participants’ minds with self-respect, a result born out by the statistical findings.

Students’ definitions and feelings of self-awareness and respect changed significantly following the intervention. When asked, Did this program change the way you think about yourself? students overwhelmingly replied yes, and went on to describe how exploring their strengths and challenges had impacted their sense of self. It feels like I’m learning the inside of my body, one student remarked. They felt more comfortable and accepting of themselves. Several students commented that this newfound knowledge had encouraged them to set goals, take risks with their learning, and persevere through challenges. Some students also expressed a greater comfort level with themselves and how others perceived them. I felt like I could finally show people that I learn this way and not that way. I’m sort of proud of it. I’m a little more happy because these people know. This sense of belonging, of not being alone, was mentioned on several occasions. You feel like you’re not the only one, and it’s ok. Students felt they had become more confident and resilient in their sense of self even when everyone else says you’re dumb you’re like just because I can’t do this doesn’t mean I’m dumb. I’m just as smart as them, even smarter. This confidence allowed students to become more comfortable with exposing their challenges and asking for help.

Before the RD program began, students defined self-awareness and self-respect in terms of emotional regulation and self-confidence in both academic and social situations. By the end of the program, students had broadened their definition to one that included more focus on a meta-cognitive awareness of how they learned, their strengths and challenges, and what they had to contribute to their learning community. This allowed students to feel more comfortable taking risks, because, after all, everyone has challenges, and to persevere through these challenges. When asked what the most valuable lessons were in terms of changing how you think about yourself, students pointed to learning about the intelligences and their learning profile. I think it is so important that you see what your strengths and challenges are and the lessons exploring what the world would be like without diversity. Self-awareness and respect are necessary precursors to students’ ability to be motivationally and strategically active participants in their learning (Zimmerman, 1990). When students believe in themselves, they are better prepared to deal with challenging subjects, difficult peers, exams and other anxiety provoking situations, even, yes, difficult teachers. As one student succinctly put it, I learned more about my intelligence. So now for every other program around the school I think – if you know that you’re intelligent then nothing can get on you.

36


Teachers felt the program had an impact on students’ self-esteem and their understanding of their unique learning profile. It is a good way for students to understand that just because they find certain areas of school work challenging, they are not dumb. In fact, they are all smart in some way – this builds their self-esteem.

Is there a significant difference in students’ social awareness and respect following an introduction to multiple intelligences theory and individual and group instructional activities focused on the value of diverse learning profiles?

Results indicated significant differences between treatment and control groups for awareness of others, F (1, 209) = 23.974, p =.000, partial η = .08, respect for others, F (1, 209) = 32.817, p =.000, partial η = .13 and class climate F (1, 209) = 42.411, p =.000, partial η = .13. In all three cases, scores for students from the treatment group increased, while scores for students from the control group decreased.

When asked whether the program had changed how you think about others, students articulated a variety of attitudes, skills, and knowledge gained through their experiences with the RD program that impacted their relationships with others. Students expressed a growing awareness of the different strengths and challenges experienced by their peers, knowing that everyone learns differently than you – it makes me understand that there’s different smarts – everyone is smart in different ways. This increased students’ awareness of the perspectives of others when facing a challenge they did not share; I really understood how they felt to be like that, how it would be harder. This understanding, in turn, impacted their attitudes and behavior towards these peers. I can get to know them and know what their strengths are and what are their weaknesses like that. So I didn’t bully them about that. Many students expressed how they had come to empathize with the diverse learners in their class. Before when I saw someone act a little different I was like, I think they are a little weird but now after I’ve seen this, I realize they’re all the same as us, they just might act a little different cause they have challenges. In the final lesson of the program, students explore the concept of disability, within a context of ability. They note disabilities that would result from significant challenges in a particular intelligence (for instance, a person with significant challenge in body-kinesthetic intelligence may be quadriplegic and wheelchair bound), while recognizing their potential to have many other forms of intelligence. Students reflected on the power of this lesson, and the increase in empathy they developed for people with disabilities I realized how hard it is for disabled people to live. A lot of people are special in their own way – I should have known that before. In fact, students learned to appreciate the value of diversity for their lives. One student summed it up: It’s good to have different.

This attitude translated into behavior that affected students’ interactions and the class climate. Students talked about how they treated each other with respect. They help you and help you get better in other subjects and they make you learn more . We share, and ask what’s going on, do you have any problems, what’s on your mind? This also translated into a reduction of negative behaviors. In fact, not only did negative behaviors decrease, positive support seemed to increase. If you are being teased by other people, they might stand up for you, people tell them to stop.

Students also referred to a reduction in racist comments and attitudes. You don’t talk behind their back…just because they are from a different country. Ideally, preventative interventions help all students develop self-respect, while at the same time building positive relationships and social networks within a classroom learning community. In fostering a sense of interdependence amongst students, a sense of the classroom as a supportive community emerged. We help each other in things that we are not that good at. We look at our community brain and if we are not that good at something but we see someone who is we go ask them for help but then they don’t say that we are not good, that we are dumb because they know we have strengths too. The classroom had become so safe, one student said, If you are down you don’t have to like say it’s always my fault. You can talk to some people, talk about yourself. You can say I suck at this.

37


Teachers responded to two questions regarding program effects. The first,Generally, how do you feel now about the RD program? was rated on a five point Likert scale ranging from very negative (1) to very positive (5). Mean score for this response was 4.5. The second, Did the RD program have a positive effect on the students in your class this year? also was rated on a five point Likert scale ranging from No, not positive to Yes, very positive. Mean score for this response was 4.0.

In general, teachers were quite positive about the outcomes of the program. As cited above, they rated students’ behavior as significantly improved on the Child Behavior Scale. All five teachers commented that they would have liked to go deeper and spend more time, but heading into the end of term, they felt pressed for time. Teachers felt the program had helped the students to become better acquainted with one another. Teachers, like students, noted that there was a greater level of comfort in facing challenges. They realized how everyone can contribute and it’s ok to ask for help . Several of the teachers commented in particular on the final lesson – exploring disabilities associated with the different intelligences. They felt this lesson had really impacted students’ understanding and behavior related to students with exceptional needs. Most students began to think seriously about what it would be like to be severely challenged. They became more aware of our student with autism, and how they can try and include her.

ImplementationImplementation for all five treatment group teachers was uniformly high. All teachers completed all nine lessons, and rated themselves as very engaged for each lesson with the exception of the optional lesson (#8), which they rated as somewhat engaged. Teachers made few adaptations; minor adjustments such as adding a visual icon for each intelligence on the survey were noted. Teachers did not feel the need to adapt the actual lesson sequence at all, although some noted they did a bit of review such as, Let’s remember the nine intelligences, tell your partner what your strength was at the beginning of the lessons to remind students of what they had done previously. All teachers made some effort to extend the program across the curriculum. All teachers reported extending the language and planning activities based on MI into language arts, social studies, mathematics, and personal planning curricula. However, the frequency of this extension varied widely, from once or twice to daily extension.

ConclusionChildren spend many of their early years, the years in which identity and self-concept are formed, in school. Here they develop a sense of self, based on their interactions with teachers, peers, and curricula, that can have lasting impact (Mantzicopoulos, 2006). In Canada, and likely many other countries, if you enter a grade one classroom in October, and ask students, What does smart mean? (as the RD program does in lesson one), almost universally the first response is, You can read. So what is the corollary of that response? What if you struggle to learn to read? The implication is clear, and has been known for many years. Many children, as early as grade one, have begun the process of defining themselves as not smart, not good at school and unsuccessful, a reflection of their encounters with teachers, schooling, and eventually their peers who recognize these struggles and can reject and isolate students with learning challenges (Alberti, 1970; Al Zyoudi, 2010). The emphasis on verbal linguistic tasks, therefore, has significant implications for students’ social and emotional well-being. To make inclusion work, teachers must find a way to develop a learning community in which the social and emotional learning of all students is valued, nurtured and supported alongside their academic learning (Reicher, 2009). Students must be given opportunities to experience success, develop hope and vision for a positive future, and learn to appreciate the value of diversity in their lives, regardless of their cultural, linguistic, or learning profile.

The RD program provides a vehicle for teachers to develop an inclusive, respectful learning community for diverse learners at the start of the school year. The program has international applicability, as it relies on culturally neutral frameworks of multiple intelligences and respect for self and others. Results support students’ ability to explicitly engage in honest and open conversations about themselves, their peers, and life in an inclusive, diverse learning community. Students made clear that these discussions had significant impact on self and social respect, and classroom climate. Social inclusion is thus facilitated by helping students gain these perspectives. Students of this age are able to reflect in profound and meaningful ways about their sense of self, their respect for others, and the influence of the world around them.

38


I guess I learned more about different people, how they feel, what goes on. It kind of felt a little different, we never talked about this before, but it was enlightening I would say. As it was interesting to find out what our strengths and weaknesses were.

Perhaps Jay, a grade seven student with a learning disability and severe behavior problems, put it best. When asked what the most important thing he learned from the RD program was, he said:

The most important thing I have learned about was people. People such as me. How someone can shine a light on you even when you are in a dark place. How all people have something to contribute? Some kids believe that there is no hope in life. That they will always fail. But these children have never heard of hope for the better, of MI and that there is something for you. I used to say that hope was a bunch of lying crap but I have seen now that there is hope in the world for people like me and others.

Limitations of the StudyIt is hoped that this study will lead to further exploration regarding the outcomes of an MI / SEL framework, the RD program, and their potential for facilitating SEL and inclusion. This study took place over a short period of time, teachers expressed frustration with the limited time they had to extend and supplement the curriculum. For the same reason, the ability of the author to mentor and support teachers, guide their delivery and extension, and follow up with students was limited. Effect sizes were small, perhaps as a result. A more comprehensive study, beginning at the very start of the school year, and extending throughout the year and beyond, will shed light on the long-term effects of this program. As well, further research should explore implementation on a larger scale – at the whole school and divisional level to determine the wide spread applicability of the RD program. Finally, further research is also necessary to explore academic outcomes, if any, of the RD program.

ReferencesAl Zyoudi, M. (2010). Differences in self-concept among student with and without learning disabilitiesin Al Karak district in Jordan. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 72-77.Alberti, J. M. (1970, November). Self-perception in school. Paper presented to the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Grossinger, NY. Retreived from ERIC database. (ED048379)Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Barnett, W. S. (2008). Early childhood education. In A. Molnar (Ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. USA: Information Age.Booth, R. & O’Brien, P. J. (2008). AN holistic approach for counselors: Embracing multiple intelligences. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 30, 79-92.Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufamn, S. E. (2008). Children's perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129-149.Cheng, Y., Newman, I. M., Qu, M., Mbulo, L., Chai, Y., Chen, Y. & Shell, D. F. (2010). Being bullied and psychosocial adjustment among middle school students in China. Journal of School Health, 80, 193-199.Cluver, L., Bowes, L, & Gardner, F. (2010). Risk and protective factors for bullying victimization among AIDS-affected and vulnerable children in South Africa. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 793-803.Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Initial impact of the fast track prevention trial for conduct problems: ll. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648-657.Davidson, M. L., & Kmelkov, V. T. (2006). A global portrait of social and moral health for youth. http://www.cortland.edu/character/instruments.aspDavis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 193-221.Durlak, J. A. & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after school programs that promote personal and social skills. Retrieved March 18th, 2008, http://www.casel.org/pub/articles.phpEichinger, J. & Downing, J. E. (1996). Instruction in the general education environment. In J. E. Downing (Ed.), Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore:

39


Paul H. Brookes.Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303-320.Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C., & Kimm, C. (1996). What do I do Monday morning? In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion - A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41, 227-232.Graczyk. P. A., Weissberg, R. P., Payton, J. W., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Zins, J. E. (2000).

Criteria for evaluating the quality of school-based social and emotional learning programs. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence: The theory and practice of development, evaluation, education, and application--at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 391-410). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: The researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5, 5-13.Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, Article 1a. Retrieved February 13th, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/psycarticles/Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117-136. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hippe, J. (2004). Self-awareness: A precursor to resiliency. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 12, 240-243.Hymel, S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Miller, L. D. (2006). Reading, ‘riting, and relationships: Considering the social side of education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 16, 149-192.Jaouen, P. (1990). Fostering students' awareness of learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 14.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). The three cs of promoting social and emotional learning. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp.40-58). New York: Teachers College Press.Karangwa, E., Miles, S., & Lewis, I. (2010). Community-level responses to disability and education in Rwanda. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57, 267 — 278.Kawabata, Y., Crick, N. R., & Hamaguchi, Y. (2010). The role of culture in relational aggression: Associations with social-psychological adjustment problems in Japanese and US school-aged children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 354-362.Keogh, B. K. (1998). Classrooms as well as students deserve study. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 313-314, 349.Kim, M. H. & Cha, K. H. (2008). Traveling with MI education in a turbulent sea: stories of South Korea. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 389 — 405.Kutcher, S., & Davidson, S. (2007). Mentally ill youth: meeting service needs. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176, 417.Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024.Levine, M. (2001). Educational care. Cambridge, MA.: Educators Publishing ServiceLevine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.Liang, H., Flisher, H. J., & Lombard, C. J. (2007). Bullying, violence, and risk behavior in South African school students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 161-171.Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1-23.Mantzicopoulos, P. (2006). Younger children’s changing self-concepts: Boys and girls from preschool through second grade. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 289-308.Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L., & Caes, P. (1987). Loneliness in pre- through late adolescence: Exploring the contributions of a multidimensional approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 561-577.Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42.McCombs, B. L (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing academic achievement and social-emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 23-39).

40


New York: Teachers College Press.Modrcin-McCarthy, M.A., & Dalton, M. M. (1996). Responding to healthy people 2000: Depression in our youth, common yet misunderstood. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 19, 275-290.Mowat, J. G. (2010). Inclusion of pupils perceived as experiencing social and emotional behavioural difficulties (SEBD): affordances and constraints. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 631 — 648.Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J. (2004). Crossnational consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730-736.Peavey, K., & Leff, D. (2002). Social acceptance of adolescent mainstreamed students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 808-811.Reicher, H. (2010). Building inclusive education on social and emotional learning: challenges and perspectives - a review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 213 — 246.,Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F. Zoccolillo, M. & Pagani, L. (2001). Prevalence of psychiatric diagnosis and the role of perceived impairment: Findings from an adolescent community sample. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 42, 451-461.Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687-699.Schirmer, B. R., & Casbon, J. (1995). Inclusion of children with disabilities in elementary school classrooms. Reading Teacher, 49, 66 - 69.Schonert-Reichel, K. A., Smith, V. & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2006). Can an infant be a catalyst for change? Effectiveness of the “Roots of Empathy” program in fostering the social-emotional development of primary grade children. Manuscript submitted for publication.Smith, L. (1999). True diversity. Education Week, 18, 33.Somersalo, H., Solantaus, T., & Almqvist, F. (2002). Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 285-291.Song, M. (2004). Two studies on the Resilience Inventory (RI): Toward the goal of creating a culturally sensitive measure of adolescent resilience. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B - The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4089.Sprott, J. B. (2004). The development of early delinquency: Can classroom and school climates make a difference? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 553-572.Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple intelligences for every classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 80-85.Taylor, R. D., & Dymnicki, A. B. (2007). Empirical evidence of social and emotional learning's influence on school success: A commentary on "Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say?," a book edited by Joseph E. Zins, Roger P. Weissberg, Margaret C. Wang, and Herbert J. Walberg. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 225-231.Temur, O. D. (2007). The effects of teaching activities prepared according to the Multiple Intelligence Theory on mathematics achievements and permanence of information learned by 4th grade students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2, 86 – 91. Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207-225.Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (2004) (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 3-22). New York: Teachers College Press.Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201.Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers College Press.Zins, J.E., & Elias, M.E. (2006). Social and emotional learning. In G.G. Bear & K.M. Minke (eds.), Children's Needs III, (p1-13). National Association of School Psychologists.

41


CREATING SUCCESS FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES IN POSTSECONDARY FOREIGN LANGUAGE COURSES

Michael E. Skinner, Ph.D.Allison T. Smith, Ph.D.

College of Charleston

The number of students with learning disabilities (LD) attending postsecondary institutions has increased steadily over the past two decades. Many of these students have language-based learning difficulties that create barriers to success in foreign language (FL) courses. Many institutions have responded by providing these students with exemptions or alternative courses. Although exemptions and alternatives are needed by some students with severe language difficulties, the literature is increasingly indicating that many of these students can successfully complete FL curricula. This is especially true when accommodations and specialized teaching methodologies are implemented in sections of FL courses designed specifically to meet the needs of students with LD. The purpose of this article is to describe FL course accommodations supported by existing literature and field-based experiences. The article also highlights the benefits of successful FL experiences for student with LD.

As the number of students with LD involved in traditional, four-year education continues to grow (Gregg, 2007; Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2003), colleges must confront the challenges created. They must, for example, determine how to provide reasonable accommodations to facilitate success while not substantially altering curricula. Nowhere are these challenges more evident than in the area of foreign language (FL) instruction. FL courses are required in approximately two-thirds of postsecondary institutions in the U.S. (Brod & Huber, 1996). Problems with language-related skills are the most common learning difficulties identified among students with LD at all age levels (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the FL courses required by high school and college curricula present particular difficulties for students with LD. Vogel (1998) found that approximately 52% of adults with specific language-based learning disabilities experienced significant problems learning a FL.

Many colleges have responded to this challenge by allowing students, with proper documentation, to substitute courses for the FL requirement. In studying one institution, for example, Sparks, Philips, & Javorsky (2002, 2003) found a that FL substations had tripled over a fiver year period. The underlying assumption for providing course substitutions or waivers for students with learning disabilities is, of course, that students who struggle with the acquisition of their native language will necessarily experience difficulties mastering a FL. Anecdotal and case study data from the late 1980s and early 1990s, in fact, supported this hypothesis (Sparks, Philips, & Javorsky, 2002). Recent research at the postsecondary level, however, casts doubt on the validity of this assumption. Several studies conducted by Sparks and his colleagues (e.g.,Sparks, 2006; Sparks, Philips, & Javorsky, 2002; Sparks & Javorsky, 1999; Sparks, Philips, Ganschow, & Javorsky, 1999a,b) indicate minimal differences on multiple variables ( IQ, performance on the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), grade point average, etc.) between college students with LD who received FL exemptions and those students with LD who did not. Furthermore, research indicates questionable validity for the MLAT when used as a predictor of success in a FL course (Goodman, Freed, & McManus, 1990; Sparks, Javorsky, & Ganschow, 2005). Finally,

42


several researchers have found evidence that college FL courses that integrate appropriate accommodations made it possible for many students with LD to succeed (Arries, 1999; Demuth & Smith, 1987; DiFino & Lombardino, 2004; Downey & Snyder, 2001; Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003).

It is important to note here that, considering the language-based problems associated with most learning disabilities, these students are more likely than their non-disabled peers to struggle when learning a second language. However, given the recent doubt shed on the validity of procedures for identifying postsecondary students with distinct language learning disabilities in need of FL substitutions, combined with growing evidence that teaching strategies exist that produce successful FL learners among LD college populations, a strong case can be made for providing these students with FL courses that integrate research-based accommodations in place of course waivers or substitutions. Above and beyond validity and pedagogical justifications for providing accommodations for students with LD, however, Kleinert, Cloyd, Rego, and Gibson (2007) provide several additional reasons. First, studying a FL can produce a better understanding of a student’s native language. Second, FL study provides a sensitivity toward and tolerance of cultural differences. Third, students gain confidence by mastering challenging material – the same material required of their peers without LD. Finally, the rigorous nature of FL courses will increase the probability of success for students with LD as they undertake other challenging courses. It is important to note that students are receptive to FL courses with accommodations. In their descriptive study of college students who were granted course substitutions for their FL requirements, Ganschow, Phillips, and Schneider (2000) found that 89% of their respondents would have enrolled in FL courses adjusted for their specific learning needs if they had been available.

Grounded in existing literature and based on experiences of the authors in developing and implementing college-level FL courses for students with LD, the purpose of this article is to describe accommodations in FL instruction at the postsecondary level that facilitate success for students with LD. Unlike modifications and adaptations, course accommodations provide instructional adjustments without substantially altering existing curricula or difficulty level (Miller, 2009; Wood, 2002). Although accommodations can involve assessment (extended time on tests) and method of student performance (note-taker), emphasis in the present article is placed on instructional methodology. Affective aspects of the foreign language classroom are also discussed.

Instructional Accommodations in the Postsecondary FL ClassroomPedagogical accommodations are a major emphasis of FL courses that are designed to meet the needs of students with LD (Downey & Snyder, 2001; Demuth & Smith, 1987; Skinner & Smith, 2007). Specific instructional methodologies described in the literature and implemented successfully in sections of FL courses designed for students with LD at the authors’ institution include: (a) reduced class size; (b) explicit and highly structured instruction with an emphasis on the elements of language, especially phonemic; (c) the use of total physical response; (d) integration of multi-sensory instruction; (e) frequent use of learning strategies; (f) frequent review and repetition; (g) use of the same or similar instructors and materials across courses; and (h) a focus on affective aspects of the class. The remainder of this section describes and cites relevant literature supporting these instructional accommodations. These are summarized, along with relevant professional literature, in Table 1.

Small Class SizeA precondition to providing many of the accommodations described in the remainder of this article is reduced class size. Classes with limited enrollments (15 students) for sections of FL courses designed to meet the needs of students with LD are typical among successful programs (Downey & Snyder, 2001; Demuth & Smith; 1987; Skinner & Smith, 2007) and are advocated by experts in the field such as Shaw (1999). In addition to allowing instructors to implement effective pedagogy, smaller classes facilitate other benefits, including creation of a more positive learning environment, facilitation of high levels of accountability, more frequent student response opportunities, promotion of individualized instruction and evaluation, and provision of immediate feedback and error correction.

Explicit and Highly Structured Instruction with an Emphasis on the Elements of LanguageSpecific elements of explicit instruction include frequent opportunities to respond, frequent and descriptive feedback and review, proportional responding (equal response opportunities for all students), and rapid pacing of lessons. A plethora of research-based literature exists supporting the use of explicit instruction, sometimes referred to as direct instruction (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988), with students who exhibit problems learning in elementary, middle, and high schools (Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, & Carta, 1994; Hudson, 1996, 1997; Kroesberger, Van Luit, & Maas, 2004; Rinehart &

43


Welker, 1992; and Rivera & Smith, 1987.). Although frequently containing limited data and sometimes based on anecdotal reports, a small but growing literature base exists that supports the use of explicit instruction specifically in the context of accommodation-based FL courses at the postsecondary level (Castro & Downey, 1996; Demuth & Smith, 1987; Hill, Downey, Sheppard, & Williamson, 1995; & Sheppard, 1993).

Table 1Instructional Accommodations that Facilitate FL Acquisition

Among Postsecondary Students with LD

__________________________________________________________________________________Accommodation Potential Benefits Relevant Literature__________________________________________________________________________________Small Class Size (i.e., 12 to *positive learning environment Shaw (1999), Forness et. al15 students) *high level of accountability (1997), Downey & Snyder

*frequent opportunities to (2001), Demuth & Smithrespond (1987), Skinner & Smith*individualized instruction and (2007)evaluation*immediate feedback and errorcorrection

Explicit & Highly Structured * increased achievement Demuth & Smith (1987), Instruction with an Emphasis on *increased opportunity to respond Castro & Downey (1996),the Structure of Language (e.g. *proportional responding Hill et. al (1995), Sheppardphonics, syntax, grammar) *increased attention (1993), Van Luit & Mass

(2004)Total Physical Response (TPR) *increased achievement Asher (1969), Conroy (1999),

*use of visual and auditory Davidheiser (2002), Klienert*increased attention (2007), Marlatt (1995), Zink de*increased opportunity to respond Diaz (2005)

Multi-sensory Instruction *increased achievement Bilyeu (1982), Downey et. al*use of multiple modalities (2000), Ganschow & Mayer*increased attention (1988), Ganschow & Sparks

(1995) Sparks et. al (1996)Learning Strategies *increased achievement Jitendra et. al (2000), Kotsonis

*increased memory & Patterson (1980), Torgesen*better cognitive organization (1979), Borkowski & Burke

(1996), Demuth & Smith (1987), Downey & Snyder (2001), Sheppard (1993), Deshler, et. al (1996), Black & Black (1990), Bromley et. al (1995), Lenz et. al (2007), Forness et. al (1997), Kleinert et. al (2007)

Frequent Review & Repetition *increased achievement Swanson & Ashbaker (2000),*increased retention Swanson & Sachse-Lee (2001),

Hulme & Snowling (1992), Robertson et. al (2004)Carnine et. al (2004), Sutherlandet. al (2003), Downey et. al (1991), Downey & Snyder (2001)

Same Instructor Across *increased achievement Stokes & Baer (1977), AlbertoCourses *consistent pedagogy & Troutman (2009), Downey &

44


*increased understanding Snyder (2001)

Affective Aspects/Classroom *increased achievement Javorsky et. al (1992), SkinnerClimate *increased likelihood of respond- (2007), Demuth & Smith (1987),

ing Downey & Snyder (2001),*increased feedback Javorsky, et. al (1992), Hill et. al*increased confidence (1995), Hill (1996)*reduced anxiety modalities

All elements that comprise a language can be taught using an explicit instructional approach, including phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar, and semantics. When teaching Spanish possessive adjectives (e.g., mi, tu, nuestro(a), vuestro(a), etc.), for example, the following sequence might be used: Provide an advance organizer (e.g., discuss the goal of the lesson, review relevant past

learning, make sure you have student’s attention, use a visual organizer [see Figure 1 – to be discussed later]).

Provide multiple models of possessive adjectives, emphasizing the need for agreement in number and gender with the nouns they describe. Make sure to solicit frequent student responses (e.g., mis amigos, nuestros vecinos, etc.).

Provide students with guided practice. That is, provide a practice exercise while providing frequent feedback to all student responses. Again, make sure to solicit frequent student responses with your feedback (e.g., Es mi libro. Es su cuaderno. etc).

Provide a check of student understanding. Students complete a brief assignment by themselves while you monitor and provide feedback (e.g., ¿Es tu cuaderno o es su cuaderno?, etc.).

Provide independent work for students who responded at an 85% correct rate or higher on the check. Provide additional instruction for students not reaching this criteria and/or provide independent work on a previously taught skill at which the student is functioning above the 85% correct criterion (e.g., past participles as adjectives – e.g., abierto, dicho, descubierto, escrito, frito, hecho, impreso, Mi respuesta está equivocada, nuestras ventanas están abiertas. etc.).

Provide a post organizer (review, preview, and/or assign homework).

As stated previously, some authors (Castro & Downey, 1996; Demuth & Smith, 1987; Sheppard, 1993) recommend that explicit instruction be used to teach specific language elements for postsecondary students with LD. In the context of an alternative sequence of language courses for students with LD at Boston University, for example, a large portion of coursework focuses on teaching students how to learn a foreign language and is based heavily on the explicit instruction of phonetics, grammar, and syntax (Demuth & Smith, 1987). Data collected on a pre- and post-course basis from students enrolled in this program indicated a significant increase in language aptitude. A comprehensive guide to teaching FL to students with dyslexia using an explicit, elements-of-language approach to instruction, along with other techniques, can be found in Dyslexia and Foreign Language Learning (Crombie & Schneider, 2004). Although the book is targeted for secondary students, many of the strategies described are readily generalized to a postsecondary language setting.

Phonetic analysis of a language, based on a modified Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach (Gillingham & Stillman, 1965), is used in special sections of the Spanish and French courses at the authors’ home institution. Often used successfully with students with specific learning disabilities in reading (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002), the OG approach utilizes highly structured lessons to explicitly teach sound-symbol relationships. Students progress from mastery of individual consonant and vowel sounds (e.g., o) to: (a) consonant-vowel combinations (e.g., no); (b) identification of syllables in words (e.g., mono); (c) practice with irregular and problematic sound-spelling relationships (e.g., guapo); and (d) practice with sentences and paragraphs (e.g., El mono es guapo. Los monos son tontos.).

Total Physical ResponseFirst developed by James Asher (1969), total physical response (TPR) is based on the premise that humans are biologically programmed to learn language — including a second language. Much of Asher’s original procedures were based on the interactions he observed between parents and their young

45


children during the language learning process. According to Asher, infants and small children react physically to parental speech and are reinforced for their efforts.

Much the same process is involved in classroom language learning based on TPR. That is, students are encouraged to respond physically to teacher verbalizations. This can be accomplished through simple gaming formats such as Simon Says, or may involve higher forms of grammar or syntax in activities such as reenacting a story read in the second language.

A Spanish instructor, for example, may request, in the target language, that her students perform tasks such as: (a) Place the textbook in your desk. (manipulation), (b) Place the picture of the market in Madrid next to the picture of the Spanish family. (use of pictures), or (c) Shake you head yes. (use of body movement). As outlined by Conroy (1999), a typical TPR sequence in a language class includes five steps. These would be applied to the previous commands and include:

1. The teacher gives the command and then models the action while the students listen and watch (e.g., Toque la cabeza tres veces y levante el brazo.).

2. The teacher gives the command and models the action; the students copy the action.3. The teacher gives the command without modeling; the students perform the action.4. The teacher gives the command without modeling the action; the students repeat the

verbal commands and perform the action.5. One student gives the command; the teacher or other students repeat the verbal

commands and perform the action. (p. 315)

To date, the TPR literature focuses primarily on procedures for use with people learning English as a second language (Asher,1969, 1970, 1982; Segal, 1994). More recently, however, the technique has been used to teach traditional foreign language courses (Conroy, 1999; Davidheiser, 2002; Klienert et. al, 2007; Marlatt, 1995; Zink de Diaz, 2005). Dos Mundos (Terrell, Andrade, Egasse, & Muñoz, 2002), a textbook frequently used in introductory college courses, incorporates many activities consistent with a TPR-based approach (Pérez, 2003).

Multi-sensory Instruction Several authors have emphasized the use of multi-sensory approaches to FL instruction (Bilyeu, 1982; Downey, Snyder, & Hill, 2000; Ganschow & Myer, 1988; Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, & Little, 1996). Often referred to as VAKT (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile), multi-sensory techniques for teaching people with learning difficulties have shown various degrees of success starting in the 1940s (Fernald, 1943; Orton, 1937; Kirk, 1976).

The foundation of multi-sensory approaches is the belief that the more modalities used during instruction, the more likely it is that the learner will master what is being taught. In the TPR procedures discussed in the previous section, for example, students not only hear the command and see the teacher modeling it (e.g., Put you textbook in your desk.), but they also perform the action (kinesthetic – body or muscle feeling). As applied to FL learning, students learning the Spanish word generalmente (i.e., generally) using a multi-sensory approach would adhere to the following steps:

1. The instructor pronounces the new word and provides its English equivalent (auditory).2. The instructor writes the word on the board. Students trace the written word with their fingers

(visual, tactile).3. Students repeat the word (auditory, kinesthetic).4. Students write the new word as a whole and then break it into syllables (visual, kinesthetic).

These steps would be repeated until students demonstrated mastery of the word generalmente.

Strategic Approaches to LearningEducators have known for quite some time that many students with LD struggle with assignments that require organizational skills (Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin, 2000; Kotsonis & Patterson, 1980; Torgesen, 1979). Tasks such as organizing materials to study for a test, rehearsal strategies used to remember vocabulary words, procedures for reading and comprehending written material, and organizing materials for note-taking often prove to be major obstacles to learning. Cognitive psychologists refer to this ability to organize thinking as metacognition. Borkowski & Burke (1996) divide metacognitive skills into two components: (1) an awareness of specific strategies, skills, or resources needed to succeed in a task; and (2) the ability to monitor one’s performance and make adjustments as needed.

46


Obviously, students who struggle to organize learning tasks will experience difficulty in all academic learning, including FL learning. Authors who focus on teaching FL to students with LD emphasize the need to teach students how to organize themselves for successful FL learning (Demuth & Smith 1987; Downey & Snyder, 2001; Sheppard, 1993). They emphasize the how of learning as essential to the ultimate goal of content mastery. Further, although instructors may provide guidance on how to implement strategic approaches to learning, the ultimate goal is for students to create and use these strategies independently.Educators and psychologists have developed a wide range of learning strategies to assist students with metacognitive skills. The most comprehensive learning strategies model to date, the Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC), was developed by Deshler, Schumaker, and their colleagues during the late 70s at the University of Kansas (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996). (Special training is required to obtain and use these strategies. The reader should contact the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (www.ku-crl.org, (785) 864-4780) for additional information.)

Although not an exhaustive list, examples of specific learning strategies that can be used effectively in FL courses include visual organizers, mnemonic devices for memorizing information, strategies that facilitate the acquisition of new information and color coding. Visual organizers come in many forms, such as Venn diagrams, compare/contrast charts, flowcharts, graphs, concept maps, and branching diagrams. These graphics are also referred to as content enhancements. Figure 1 illustrates a simple branching diagram designed to help students remember Spanish demonstrative pronouns. Although instructors can design these and distribute them to students, it is typically more efficacious for students to construct the diagrams themselves. Instructors can also make empty diagrams for use during instruction. Students are required to fill in the empty diagrams as material is presented. Textbooks that make frequent use of visual organizers should be a priority when selecting books for FL courses. Black & Black (1990) and Bromley, Irwin-DeVitis, and Modlo (1995) provide excellent and extensive collections of visual organizers that can easily be adapted to the FL classroom.

Figure 1: Example of a Visual Organizer (Branching Diagram) Designed to Help Students Remember Demonstrative Pronouns

Mnemonic devices assist students when memorization is needed. Many students, for example, learned the notes of the musical staff using the acronym Every Good Boy Does Fine – or, E, G, B. D. F. They remembered the great lakes using the acronym HOMES – or, Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior.

A first letter mnemonic strategy, combined with a visual prompt, for remembering countries of Central America where Spanish is spoken is illustrated in Figure 2.

First letter mnemonics, keywords, reconstructive elaborations and other mnemonics devices, such as pegwords, have proven to successfully facilitate retention when implemented with students with LD. Comprehensive discussions of mnemonic procedures can be found in Hallahna et. al (2005) and Mastropieri & Scruggs (1991). Studies using meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the relative

47

Singularésteése

aquél

Pluraléstosésos

aquéllos

Masculine

Singularéstaésa

aquélla

Pluraléstasésas

aquéllas

Feminine

DemonstrativePronouns

http://www.ku-crl.org/


effectiveness of interventions with students with learning problems highlight mnemonic strategies as highly effective procedures (Forness, Kavale, Blum, & Lloyd, 1997).

In addition to using mnemonic devices to assist with retention of information, students with LD also need to learn strategies that facilitate the acquisition of new information and that can be used across a variety of situations.

Figure 2: Example of a First Letter Mnemonic Strategy, Combined with a Visual Prompt, to Help Students Remember Countries of Central America where Spanish is Spoken

For example, the DISSECT word identification strategy, developed by Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals (2007), and included in the aforementioned LSC, assists students with decoding unknown multi-syllabic words. Although this strategy was developed for decoding words in English, the procedure works with many FL words. This strategy, as applied to a Spanish word, is illustrated in Table 2. Note that the DISSECT strategy makes use of first-letter mnemonics to facilitate student memory of strategy steps. As mentioned above, training through the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (contact information provided previously) is required to use the LSC strategies. While strategies such as DISSECT provide ready-made, research-based approaches to strategic instruction, Marks, Laeys, Bender, and Scott (1996) developed procedures that guide teachers in the creation of strategies to fit specific student needs that may not be available in commercially produced materials.

Consistent with the explicit instruction of the phonetic elements of a foreign language, Kleinert et. al (2007) suggests teaching FL vocabulary using a color coding system for highlighting aspects of words that may prove confusing to students with LD. Practice cards can be constructed that include color-coding for specific language components such as vowels, prefixes, suffixes, and morphemes that determine gender. This procedure is even more effective when the cards are constructed by students (Arries, 1999).

Frequent Review and Repetition

48

Countries of CentralAmerica where Spanish

is Spoken

Costa Rica

Guatemala

Honduras

Panamá

Nicaragua

El Salvador

Belice

College Graduates Have Plenty of

New, Exhilarating Books


Problems with short-term memory among students with LD are well documented in the literature (Swanson & Ashbaker, 2000; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001). Auditory memory – a skill essential to the successful learning of a language – is especially problematic for many students (e.g., Hulme & Snowling, 1992).

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that many students with LD need frequent repetition and review of material in order to reach mastery. Information that may take a typical student five repetitions to remember may require thirty to forty repetitions, and the use of learning strategies such as mnemonics procedures, for a student with LD. The challenge, of course, is to provide needed review and repetition while maintaining student attention and interest.

Table 2:DISSECT Word Identification Strategy (Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals, 2007) for Decoding

Unknown Multisyllabic Words **

Strategy Step Student Task(s) Example

Discover the Sounds & Context * look at the letters in the word – try to En enero se realiza el Context sound out Primer Congreso

(If Unsuccessful) * skip word – read rest of sentence - Hondureño de determine a word that makes sense in Inventores Jóvenes*context

Isolate the Beginning * look at first few letters – recognizable In ventores(If Unsuccessful) prefix?

Separate the Ending * look at the last few letters – recognizable In ventor es(If Unsuccessful) recognizable suffix?

Say the Stem * look at letters left after deleting prefix and In ventor es(If Unsuccessful) prefix and suffix – if recognizable, add

suffix and prefix and pronounce

Examine the Stem * use rules to read the stem:(If Unsuccesful) (1) if the stem (or, any part of the stem) In ven tor es

begins with a vowel, separate the first two letters(2) if the stem (or, any part of the stem) (Rule 2 Applies)begins with a consonant, separate the firstthree letters(3) if two vowels appear together, try saying each vowel

Check with Someone * ask someone how to pronounce the word(If Unsuccessful)

Try the Dictionary * if nobody is available, look in the dictionary

*Excerpt taken from ¡Avancemos! – 3. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell, Page186.**Special training is required to obtain and use these strategies. The reader should contact theUniversity of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (www.ku-crl.org, (785) 864-4780) for additional information.)

Explicit instructional procedures, discussed previously, were developed to provide frequent opportunities for repetition and review. These procedures are seen in the opening of the instructional period, during instruction, and as an integral part of the closing the lesson. Assuming that mastery of the imperfect form of the irregular Spanish verbs ser, ir, and ver is the lesson objective, instructors should provide two kinds of review during the opening of the instructional period: (1) review of material taught during the

49

http://www.ku-crl.org/


most recent previous class (e.g., regular verbs in the imperfect tense such as hablar, comer, and vivir); and (2) review of prerequisite skills and knowledge that will be needed for mastery of new content (e.g., How do irregular and regular verbs differ? What does the imperfect tense mean and how is it used?). In addition to providing students with much needed repetition and review, both of these procedures allow the instructor to determine if students are ready to proceed to new material or if continued review is needed.

During instruction the instructor provides repetition of material by programming for frequent opportunities to respond (OTR). OTRs are simply the number of times that students are provided with requests that require active responding. A wealth of research supports the positive effects that multiple OTRs have on student achievement and attention (Robertson, Woolsey, Seabrooks, & Williams, 2004; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002). A variety of methods can be used to provide frequent OTRs, including questioning requiring individual and group responses, response cards, visual signals (e.g., thumbs up for correct), and the use of individual slates on which students write responses – holding them up on cue. For example, referring back to the irregular/regular verb lesson, students could hold up irregular or regular cards in response to teacher prompts. As a further development of the use of the imperfect compared to the preterite, students could hold up imperfect or preterite cards in response to teacher prompts. The key is to provide frequent OTRs for all students at an appropriate level of correct responding (85% to 90% success rate). Although frequent choral and individual responding is commonplace in most FL instruction, it is important to check periodically that all students are participating proportionally at a high level of success. Research also supports the use of a rapid pace when providing OTRs in order to maintain student attention (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004).

The close of an instructional session using explicit instruction typically includes three opportunities to provide review and repetition. These include: (a) review material introduced during the present lesson; (b) assign independent work; and (c) preview material to be covered during the next class. As mentioned earlier, independent work includes only material to which the student is responding at an 85% to 90% or above correct rate (Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003). It is quite possible that, although irregular verbs were introduced in the imperfect during the present lesson, independent work might focus on regular verbs in the imperfect – material that students are close to mastering but need additional repetitions for retention and fluency. In addition to paper-pencil independent work assignments, instructors may also consider using computer-based programs to increase variety and interest. Most FL texts used at the postsecondary level now provide CDs and internet-based programs with frequent OTRs for student independent practice.

In addition to the pedagogical reasons summarized above, review and repetition can also have positive attitudinal effects on students struggling with FL courses. As reported by Downey, Hill, and Bever (1991), students with LD stated that, although they began FL courses feeling like they were doing well, they quickly became confused and felt overwhelmed. Reviewing information that had already been mastered resulted in increased confidence and readiness to proceed to new material (Downey & Snyder, 2001).

Same Instructor and Similar Course Materials Across CoursesIt is quite common for FL students to demonstrate mastery of information in one course (e.g. changes in the spellings of vocabulary words based on gender), and struggle with the very same knowledge in a follow-up course. These are problems with generalization and maintenance. While common among learners at all ages, generalization and maintenance of knowledge are particularly problematic among adult learners with LD – especially among postsecondary populations. In the context of education, generalization refers to a student’s ability to demonstrate knowledge mastery across settings and time (Spanish 101 and Spanish 102, classroom and discussion in the streets of Madrid, Instructor A and Instructor B, etc.). Maintenance, a prerequisite for generalization, occurs when students remember information after formal instruction is discontinued. A student’s ability to respond to material correctly on an examination means little if they are not able to produce that same skill or knowledge in the next unit, during oral conversations, or with next semester’s instructor in a higher level course.

From an instructional point of view, we often make the assumption that, once taught, knowledge and skills will naturally generalize and maintain. While in some cases this unplanned generalization occurs, it frequently does not. A better tack, especially when teaching students with LD, is to structure courses to facilitate generalization and maintenance. Fortunately, educational psychologists have developed

50


specific procedures that research shows increases the likelihood that generalization and maintenance will occur (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). Although it is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss all procedures, one of the most potentially effective for FL courses for students with LD relates to the principle of programming common stimuli (PCS) (Alberto & Troutman, 2009; Stokes & Baer, 1977). When designing FL courses with PCS in mind, instructors design instructional conditions in an initial setting to be as similar as possible to instructional conditions in the setting to which they wish knowledge to generalize in the future. Most factors involved in designing PCS-based instruction (format of textbooks, procedures for testing, instructional techniques, etc.) are related to the style of specific instructors. Students who experience similar instructional styles across college FL courses are more likely to generalize and maintain knowledge. The ultimate in PCS, of course, is to provide the same instructor using the same textbook series across a sequence of FL courses. Although unfeasible at many institutions, the extensive model of accommodation-based FL courses at the University of Colorado at Boulder for students with LD provides the same instructor to students across three courses (Downey & Snyder, 2001). Special sections of courses are offered in Spanish, Italian, and Latin in this program.

Affective Aspects/Classroom Climate Even with the best-planned FL courses with accommodations for students with LD, students’ probability of succeeding is lessened considerably if attention is not given to designing a positive classroom environment. Research indicates that students with LD enter FL college courses perceiving themselves as less capable, more anxious, and as possessing fewer skills to master oral and written requirements as compared to their non-LD peers (Javorsky, Sparks, & Ganschow, 1992). Furthermore, most students with LD enter into FL instruction with the baggage of a history of failure and frustration.

FL courses with accommodations, however, provide instructors with the opportunity to create positive learning experiences for students with LD. Such experiences can transpose students who view language study as a negative endeavor into students who are legitimately interested in and motivated to learn a FL. Methods for creating a positive classroom climate for students with a history of language-learning problems include: (a) designing and implementing well-planned, research-based instruction; (b) providing and supporting the legitimacy of accommodations; (c) establishing a strong sense of the classroom as a community; (d) implementing procedures that lessen anxiety.

Perhaps the most efficacious strategy for creating a positive view of and motivation for FL learning among students with LD is to implement the research-supported pedagogical procedures outlined in this article. Instructors who use explicit instruction linked to specific elements of language, active instruction based on TPR, learning strategies, and frequent review and repetition – and who use these procedures consistently across FL courses – will provide success experiences that most of their students heretofore have not experienced. Their achievement will, in turn, increase their motivation to learn a FL and positively impact their confidence.

Second, instructors should make sure that students use accommodations for which they qualify. For example, students who qualify for extra time to take exams and take full advantage of this accommodation are more likely to experience success (Skinner, 2000), potentially altering their negative view of FL learning in the process. It is also imperative that instructors communicate a sense of acceptance and understanding when providing accommodations to students. A qualitative study of college graduates with LD who utilized various accommodations conducted by Skinner (2007) indicated that, although most instructors appeared to be accepting of accommodations, some made students feel as if they were getting special privileges for which there was no justification.

Third, create a classroom learning community wherein students support each other as they work to meet goals. Creating such an environment, of course, is more easily accomplished in reduced-sized classrooms. As mentioned previously, the specialized FL courses at the authors’ institution are capped at 15 students. Other modified FL classes described in the literature also reported the use of downsized classes of between 12 and 15 students (Downey & Snyder, 2001). The smaller group of students allows instructors to implement pedagogical approaches that support peer assistance and collaboration in the learning process, such as peer tutoring. Providing the same instructor to a group of students across a FL course sequence, as discussed earlier, also serves to reinforce the classroom as a community of learners.

Finally, and inextricably linked to the first three aspects conducive to the creation of a positive learning environment, classroom procedures should be implemented that lessen anxiety. One of the most common themes in the literature relating to students with LD involved in FL courses is their struggle

51


with anxiety and a lack of confidence (Demuth & Smith, 1987; Downey & Snyder, 2001; Javorsky, et. al, 1992). Demuth and Smith (1987), for example, asked students with LD to record their feelings about a FL course as they were taking it. Analysis of the journals indicated that many of the students ... experienced great frustration and a feeling of hopelessness (p. 73). In their sample of 200 students, Downey and Snyder (2001) found themes relating to the stressors created by FL courses such as fear of being called on, too much too fast, and a perception that everyone is getting it (p. 58). They also found evidence that, despite perceived success early in the semester, feelings of failure were prominent as the term progressed, even though students demonstrated good attendance and effort. Procedures described earlier in this discussion (i.e., implementation of research-based pedagogy, insuring that students are making proper use of accommodations, and the creation of classrooms as supportive learning communities) all serve to increase confidence and lessen anxiety. Student feedback from ten years of specialized FL courses at the authors’ institution substantiates these procedures as effective. Additional suggestions to increase confidence and reduce anxiety provided by Downey & Snyder (2001) include: (a) elicit voluntary responses during the first semester of a FL sequence (versus mandatory and random); (b) use frequent repetition and review to allow students to gain confidence and lower stress by responding to material they mastered previously (see also Hill et. al, 1995): (c) pay close attention to student verbal and nonverbal behavior for signs of stress and take steps to deal with it as needed; (d) progress at a slower pace if warranted – this may result in less material covered, however, the benefits of taking the course outweigh the small amount of missed information; (e) provide study guides; (f) use pretests; and (g) teach specific test-taking strategies (see also Hill, 1996).

DiscussionWith the continuing increase in the number of students with LD pursuing postsecondary education comes the concomitant challenge of meeting the needs of these students while keeping programs of study intact. As applied to foreign language requirements, the most common means for accomplishing this task to date has been to allow students to take alternative courses or to waive the FL requirement entirely. Although an efficient means of allowing these students to progress through programs and obtain degrees, alternative courses deny students with LD the opportunity to gain the many benefits that accrue to students who successfully complete these courses. In keeping with the true spirit of curricular inclusion, students with LD should be encouraged to take language courses that incorporate accommodations to account for their learning differences.

This article described a host of evidence-based accommodations that have proven successful in the context of FL courses in a variety of postsecondary settings, including the home institution of the authors. Accommodations specific to specialized sections of courses included (a) reduced class size; (b) explicit instruction that targets specific elements of a FL, with an emphasis on phonological components; (c) total physical response; (d) multi-sensory instruction; (e) strategic approaches to learning; (f) frequent review and repetition; (g) use of the same instructor across courses; and (h) creating positive learning environments through attention to affective aspects of the classroom. When integrating accommodations for students with LD into courses, it is essential that FL instructors adopt an eclectic frame of reference. That is, the success of a program will be determined largely by the use of multiple accommodations as opposed to the implementation of one approach to the exclusion of others. As important as explicit instruction of specific elements of language may be, for example, a successful course will capitalize on a variety of accommodations such as learning strategies and the use of TPR.

Although limited, data collected from language programs designed specifically for students with LD using all or some of these instructional methodologies indicate positive outcomes. Downey and Snyder’s (2001) evaluation of the model program at the University of Colorado, for example, indicated that: (a) the program had administrative and faculty support; (b) the need for course substitutions and exemptions decreased significantly; (c) students were receptive to the courses; (d) most students successfully completed the three-course requirement; and (e) there was no significant difference between end-of-semester grades and scores on a proficiency test between students enrolled in the regular classes and students taking the modified courses. Similarly, Demuth and Smith (1987), reporting on a program at Boston University, found that of the 24 students completing the first in a sequence courses, 20 posted significant increases on the MLAT. Increases for these students ranged from 5 to a very impressive 45 percentile ranks. Qualitative data collected from students’ journals indicated a clear increase in confidence in relation to their perceptions of their ability to study a FL. It is clear from these results that, with programs in place that include accommodations to compensate for their learning weaknesses, students with LD can successfully complete modified FL courses at the postsecondary level.

52


As positive as the results from these two model programs may be, however, significant issues exist that need attention before specialized FL courses for students with LD become commonplace in postsecondary settings. First, and perhaps foremost, additional supporting research is needed. Many published descriptions of model programs (Demuth & Smith, 1987; Downey & Snyder, 2001; Arries, 1994; Block, 1996, etc.) present either limited data, provide data that is anecdotal, and/or are antiquated. Also, some of the pedagogy suggested for use in special courses, such as explicit instruction focused on the phonological aspects of FL, is based largely on research completed with elementary, middle, and secondary school students. Given the life-span nature of LD, it is very likely that methodologies that work with younger students will also prove to be successful with adults. However, experimental studies with postsecondary students with LD need to be conducted before we can confidently generalize the findings from younger students. Given the time, resources, and money involved in offering specialized FL courses, additional empirical support is imperative.Second, regardless of the number of research-based accommodations implemented in special sections of FL courses, some students will not experience success (Downey & Hill, 1994; Hughes & Smith, 1990: Shaw, 1999). It is important, therefore, that the option of FL course waivers and alternative curricula for students with significant language-related disabilities be retained. Section 504 does not require colleges to provide alternatives or waivers if they consider specific courses to be essential to the integrity of a program. University Northwest (Milani, 1996) and Boston University (Lewin, 1998) prevailed in court cases dealing with this issue. The courts in these cases affirmed the right of colleges to require all students to take a sequence of FL courses, regardless of disability status. The law and these cases notwithstanding, however, most colleges provide FL course waivers and/or alternative course options for students providing documentation of a relevant disability. Although special courses are more consistent with the principle of inclusive education, at least from a curricular perspective, course waivers and alternative course options should be retained for use by students with significant language related difficulties.

Third, the accommodations discussed above require a considerable investment of time and resources for colleges. Reduced class size, for example, mandates additional sections to be added to already strained faculty workloads. Implementation of instructional procedures such as TPR, multi-sensory instruction, and learning strategies require training and feedback during initial implementation. The strategies developed by Lenz et. al (2001), referenced previously and illustrated in Table 2, for example, require formal training before materials can be purchased and used. Consequently, administrative support is essential to the development and implementation of modified sections of FL courses.

Finally, collaboration between special educators and language instructors is vital for the development of efficacious specialized FL courses. DiFino and Lombardino (2004) lament the lack of training among many language instructors, especially graduate teaching assistants, in dealing with students with LD. Many may not even be aware of the signs of a specific learning disability and procedures for referring these students to offices of disability services. Conversely, special educators typically understand pedagogical approaches that are likely to be successful with struggling FL learners, while lacking the FL content knowledge needed to adapt these procedures to the classroom. The perfect situation is, of course, an instructor who has expertise in both working with students with LD and teaching a FL. In lieu of this scarce combination, special educators and FL instructors can work together to create specialized courses. Both areas of expertise are typically present at most postsecondary institutions.

ConclusionAlthough considerable research remains to be conducted, the existing literature and instructor experiences provide an initial foundation for integrating efficacious pedagogical accommodations into FL courses that facilitate success for students with LD at the postsecondary level. As opposed to shutting students out of FL experiences through the use of waivers and alternatives, providing opportunities for students to successfully participate in FL courses allows students with LD to experience the benefits that come with learning a second language. Perhaps just as important, it sends the message that many students with learning disabilities can participate successfully in the mainstream of the postsecondary curriculum.

ReferencesAlberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.hArries, J.F. (1999). Learning disabilities and foreign languages: A curriculum approach to the design of inclusive courses. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 98-110.

53


Arries, J.F. (1994). An experimental Spanish course for learning disabled students. Hispania, 77, 110-117.Asher, J.J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17.Asher, J.J. (1970). The total physical response technique of learning. Journal of Special Education, 3(3), 253-262.Asher, J.J. (1982). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook (2nd ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.Bilyeu, E. (1982). Practice makes closer to perfect: Alternative techniques for teaching foreign languages to learning disabled students in the university. Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education Project #116CH 1035. Ellensburg, Central Washington University.Black, H., & Black, S. (1990). Book II: Organizing thinking – Graphic organizers. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.Block, L. (1996, August). Effective language teaching for students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Consortium on Foreign Language and Learning Disability, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Borkowski, J.G., & Burke, J.E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: An information processing perspective. In G.R. Lyon & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 235-262). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Brod, R., & Huber, B.J. (1996). The MLA survey of foreign language enhance and degree requirements, 1994-95. ADFL Bulletin, 28(1), 35-43.Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.J., & Tarver, S. (2004). Direct Instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Castro, O., & Downey, D. (1996) Learning disabilities and Spanish as a second language: The University Experience. Paper presented at the Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, Orlando, FL.Conroy, P. (1999). Total physical response: An instructional strategy for second-language learners who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93(5), 315-318.Crombie, M., & Schneider, E. (2004). Dyslexia and foreign language learning. United Kingdom: David Fulton Publisher.Davidheiser, J. (2002). Teaching German with TPRS storytelling. Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35(1), 25-35.Demuth, K.A., & Smith, F. (1987). The foreign language requirement: An alternative program. Foreign Language Annals, 20(1), 67-77.Deshler, D.D., Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver: Love.DiFino, S.M., & Lombardino, L.J. (2004). Language learning disabilities: The ultimate foreign language challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 37(3), 390-400.Downey, D.M., & Snyder, L.E. (2001). Curricular accommodations for college students with language learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 21(2), 55-67.Downey, D.M., Snyder, L.E., & Hill, B. (2000). College students with dyslexia: Persistent linguistic deficits and foreign language learning. Dyslexia, 6(2), 101-111.Downey, D.M., & Hill, B. (1994, August). The foreign language modification program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Paper presented at the meeting of the Rocky Mountain Language Associatin Convention, Colorado Springs, CO.Downey, D.M., Hill, B., & Bever, K. (1991). The University of Colorado’s foreign language modification program. Paper delivered at the Orton Dyslexia Society, Portland, OR.Engleman, S., Becker, W.C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direct Instruction Follow Through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303-317.Fernald, G.M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Blum, I.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analysis: What works in special education and related services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4-9.Ganschow, L., & Meyer, B. (1988). Profiles of frustration: Second language learners with specific learning disabilities. In J. Lalande (Ed.), Shaping the future of foreign language education (pp. 32-53). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Ganschow, L., Philips, L., & Schneider, E. (2000). Experiences with the university foreign language requirement: Voices of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 111-128.Gamschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effects of direct instruction in phonology on the native language skills and foreign language aptitude of at-risk foreign language learners. Journal of Learning

54


Disabilities, 28, 107-120.Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1965). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship (7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.Goodman, J., Freed, B., & McManus, W. (1990). Determining exemptions from foreign language requirements: Use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 131-141.Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 22, 219-228.Bromley, K., Irwin-De Vitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for active learning. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.Greenwood, C.R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Carta, J.J. (1994). Identification and translation of effective teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 140-151.Hallahan, D.P., Lloyd, J.W., Kauffman, J.M., Weiss, M.P., & Martinez, E.A. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics, and effective teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2003). Students in higher education institutions, 2002/3. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/disab0203.htm.Hill, B. (1996, April). Integrating students with learning difficulties into the Latin classroom. Paper presented at Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Nashville, TN.Hill, B., Downey, D., Sheppard, M., & Williamson, V. (1995). Accommodating the needs of students with severe language learning difficulties in modified language classes. Broadening the frontiers of foreign language instruction. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Hughes, C., & Smith, J. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of literature. Learning disabilities Quarterly, 13, 66-79.Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (1992). Phonological deficit in dyslexia: A “sound” reappraisal of the verbal deficit hypothesis. In N.N. Singh & I.I. Beale (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Nature, theory, and treatment (pp. 270-301). New York: Springer-Verlag.Hutson, P. (1996). Using a learning set to increase the test performance of students with learning disabilities in social studies classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 78-85.Hutson, P. (1997). Using teacher-guided practice to help students with learning disabilities acquire and retain social studies content. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 23-32.Javorsky, J., Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1992). Perceptions of college students with and without specific learning disabilities about foreign language courses. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 31-44.Jirwnse, A.K., Hoppes, M.K., & Xin, Y.P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127-139.Joshi, R.M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading in an inner city school through a multi-sensory teaching approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 229-242.Kirk, S.A. (1976). In D.P. Hallahan & J.M. Kauffman (Eds.), Teaching students with learning disabilities: Personal perspectives (pp. 238-269). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Kleinert, H.L., Cloyd, E., Rego, M., & Gibson, J. (2007). Students with disabilities: Yes, foreign language is important. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 24-29.Kotsonis, M.E., & Patterson, C.J. (1980). Comprehension-monitoring skills in learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 16, 541-542.Kroesberger, E.H., Van Luit, J.E.H., & Maas, C.J.M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. Elementary School Journal, 104, 233-251.Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Beals, V.L. (2007). The word identification strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Lewin, T. (1998, May 31). Students lose on last issue in bias suit. The New York Times, p. A12.Marks, J.W., Laeys, J.V., Bender, W.N., & Scott, K.S. (1996). Teachers create learning strategies: Guidelines for classroom creation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(4), 34-38.Marlatt, E.A. (1995). Learning language through total physical response. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 13(4), 18-20.Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonic strategies. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Milani, A. (1996). Disabled students in higher education: Administrative and judicial enforcement of

55


disability law. The Journal of College of University Law, 22, 989-1043.Miller, S.P. (2009). Validated Practices for Teaching Students with Diverse Needs and Abilities (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Mull, C., Sitlington, P.L., & Alper, S. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97-118.Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New York: Norton. Pérez, L. (2003). Review of the book Dos Mundos. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 494-495. Rinehart, S.D., & Welker, W.A. (1992). Effects of advance organizers on level and time of text recall. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(1), 77-86.Rivera, D.M., & Smith, D.D. (1987). Influence of modeling on acquisition and generalization of computational skills: A summary of research findings from three sites. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 10, 69-80.Robertson, L., Woolsey, M.L., Seabrooks, J., & Williams, G. (2004). An ecobehavioral assessment of the teaching behaviors of teacher candidates during their special education internship experiences. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 264-275.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112 as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794.Segal, B. (1994). Practical guide for the bilingual classroom (2nd ed.). Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions. Scott, S.S., McGuire, J.M., & Foley, T.E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(1), 40-49.Shaw, S. (1999). The case for course substitutions as a reasonable accommodation for students with foreign language learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 320-328, 349.Sheppard, M. (1993). Proficiency in an inclusive orientation: Meeting the challenge of diversity. In J.K. Phillips (Ed.), Reflecting in proficiency from the classroom perspective. Northeast Conference Reports. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook .Skinner, M., & Smith, A. (October, 2007). Designing foreign language instruction for students with learning disabilities: “Modify” or “substitute?” 29th International Conference on Learning Disabilities, Council for Learning Disabilities, Myrtle Beach, SCSkinner, M.E. (2007). Faculty willingness to provide accommodations and course alternatives to postsecondary students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 32-45.Skinner, M.E. (2000). The college-bound student with a learning disability: Research-based strategies for success. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Learning Disabilities, Austin, Texas.Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, N., & Little, S. (1996). An exploratory study on the effects of Latin on the native language skills and foreign language aptitude of students with and without learning disabilities. Classical Journal, 91 (165-184).Sparks, R.L. (2006). Is there a “disability” for learning a foreign language? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 544-557.Sparks, R.L., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2002). Students classified as LD who receive course substitutions for the college foreign language requirement: A replication study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 482-499, 538.Sparks, R.L., & Javorsky, J. (1999). Students classified as LD and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 329-349.Sparks, R.L., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999a). Comparison of students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 553-565.Sparks, R.L., Phillips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999b). Students classified as LD and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 566-580.Sparks, R.L., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2003). Students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the foreign language requirement – Are they different?: A replication study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 348-362.Sparks, R., L., Javorsky, J., & Ganschow, L. (2005). Should the Modern Language Aptitude Test be used to determine course substitutions for and waivers of the foreign language requirement? Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 201-210.Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349-367. Sutherland, K.S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P.L. (2003). The effects of varying rates of opportunity to

56


respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113-121.Sutherland, K.S., Wehby, J.H., & Yoder, P.J. (2002). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise and opportunities for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 5-13.Swanson, H.L., & Ashbaker, M.H. (2000). Working memory, short-term memory, speech rate, word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: Does the executive system have a role? Intelligence, 23, 1-30.Swanson, H.L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematics problem solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294-321.Terrell, T., Andrade, M., Egasse, J., & Muñoz, M. (2002). Dos Mundos (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Torgensen, J.K. (1979). Factors related to poor performance in reading disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 17-23.Vogel, S. (1998). Adults with learning disabilities. In Vogel, S. & Reder, S. (Eds.). Learning disabilities, literacy and adult education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Wood, J.W. (2002). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Zink de Diaz, L. (2005). TPR foreign language instruction and dyslexia. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.dyslexia.com/library/tprlanguage.htm

57


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTAL PARAMETERS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS: INCLUSIVE SETTINGS’ AND GENDER DIFFERENCES ON PUPILS’ AGGRESSIVE AND SOCIAL

INSECURE BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISABILITY

Athina ArampatziKaterina MouratidouChristina Evaggelinou

Eirini KoidouVassilis Barkoukis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

The aim of the present study was to examine whether gender and inclusion settings are associated with elementary school pupils’ aspects of social development such as aggression, social insecurity and attitudes toward disability. The sample consisted of 658 pupils (Μage=11±1 years) of 15 primary schools (306 boys and 352 girls). Three hundred and fifty three of the participants attended schools with inclusive settings while the rest 305 attended typical schools. The participants of the study completed the Checklist of Aggressive Behaviour (CAB), the Checklist of Social Insecure Behaviour (CSIB), and the Children’s Attitudes Towards Integrated Physical Education - Revised (CAIPE-R). Results indicated that girls showed less aggressive behaviour compared to boys, and pupils in typical schools displayed higher attitudes toward disability compared to pupils in inclusion schools. These findings imply that gender is a significant factor just for students displaying aggression but not social insecurity and/or adopting positive attitudes towards disability. Furthermore, inclusive setting is not a sufficient condition for the promotion of typical pupils’ social behaviour.

IntroductionStudents’ social development constitutes - in many countries, including Greece – an essential educational goal both in elementary and high school. This also stands in both typical and inclusion schools (school where children with mild disabilities attend) (Ministry of Education and Religion Affairs, 2003; 2008). This can be largely attributed to the fact that social development constitutes one of the most significant predictors of students’ future adjustment in society, as well as their affective and behavioral problems (Asher, 1983; Parker & Asher, 1987; Rubin, 1983; Sandstrom, Cillessen, & Eisenhower, 2003). In addition, a student’s social developmental level affects directly the interpersonal situations, and consequently, the performance of the whole school class (Greenberg, Weissberg, O’Brien, Zins, Fredericks, Resnik, & Elias, 2003).

Special education and related issues constitute part of social and typical school reality. Students with disabilities and special educational needs (SEN) are those who demonstrate, for the whole or a specific period of their school life, significant education difficulties due to sensory, cognitive and developmental problems, and neuropsychological disturbances that affect the process of school adjustment and learning (Zoniou-Sideri, 1998). Recently, securing and constantly updating the obligate character of special education as an integral part of obligatory education in Greece and caring for provision of education in all individuals with disabilities of any age and for all levels of education, is a basic aim of both elementary and secondary education in Greece (Ministry of Education and Religion Affairs, 2008). A series of studies conducted to examine issues relevant to inclusion of students with disabilities in school framework, revealed that inclusion plays an important role in education of children with

58


disabilities and SEN (Diamond, 2001; Diamond, Hestenes, Carpenter, & Innes, 1997; Favazza, Phillipsen, & Kumar, 2000; Forlin & Cole, 1994; Frederickson, Simmonds, Evans, & Soulsby, 2007; Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994; Hepler, 1998; Lieber, Capell, Sandall, Wolfberg, Horn, & Bechman, 1998; Peck, Staub, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 2004; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). According to Block (2007) inclusion is defined as a philosophical apprehension of supporting the educational needs of students with disabilities in typical school. The aim of inclusion is the creation of a school for students with and without disabilities, who are allowed and must live different lifestyles, have different goals and want to reform together school and society (Zoniou-Sideri, 1998).

Furthermore, it is worth noticing that in the case of schools with inclusive settings, students’ social development without disabilities has a determinant role for the successful or unsuccessful inclusion of children with SEN. Typical students who are characterized by a more mature social developmental level are expected to display more positive behaviour towards their classmates, even when the latter have different characteristics, such as different developmental features (Lieber et al., 1998).

Social developmentThe term social development refers to concepts, emotions and attitudes that children develop and to the way that they change throughout age (Schaffer, 1996). The study of social development, beyond the quality and quantity of social interactions, concentrates on the person itself considering both cognitive and emotion sides of development (Schaffer, 1996). As children grow older, they mature and enhance their social abilities, such as the competence of recruiting their thoughts, their emotions, their attitudes, and their behaviours in order to achieve interpersonal goals and social results in a given frame. Particularly, social competence in children can be defined as their effectiveness of interaction with other children and adults (Mouratidou, Barkoukis, Zahariadis, & Arampatzi, 2007). Consequently, the more a child adopts positive attitudes toward his/her classmates and effectively interacts with them the more competent he/she is. On the contrary, a child who confronts with problems during his/her social interaction, could probably demonstrate problematic behaviours, such as attention disruption and aggressiveness (external behaviour), isolation and social anxiety, and social insecure behaviour (internal behaviour) (Rose-Krasnor, 1997). On the basis of the above evidence, then, it could be argued that aggressive and social insecure behaviours constitute parameters of social competence and/or social development and refer to the quality of interpersonal contacts, namely to the way children interact with other people.

Petermann and Petermann (2003) supported that a child’s behaviour could be characterised as social insecure behaviour in case of social isolation and demonstration of social anxiety, excessive shyness, withdrawal and social avoidance. Generally, social insecurity is synonymous with: a) separation anxiety (the child refuses to be separated from one specific adult, to get out of the house, and to correspond to any social invitation), b) social anxiety or phobia (it concerns anxiety towards less familiar persons, and anxiety for evaluation regarding child’s behaviour in performance’s circumstances), and c) generalized anxiety disorder (the child is characterized by generalized anxiety concerning his/her skills, success and competence on handling problems during every day life) (Mouratidou et al., 2007). Furthermore, findings of previous studies have shown that, insecure children display more hostile and antisocial behavior (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985) and more dependent behavior to their peers (Turner, 1991) than did secure children.

On the other hand, aggressive behaviour is defined as the behaviour that intends to induce painful stimulants to other people or to perform a catastrophic behaviour to objects (Citrome & Volanka, 2001). Aggressiveness can be verbal (wordy attack) or non verbal (shooting objectives) and has not always direction to external world (to other child or adult), as sometimes can be transformed to indifference or directed to the person itself (Papadopoulos, 1994). It should be mentioned that social insecure and aggressive behaviour are important for the inclusion of children with disabilities in typical school, as they define the latter’s quality of interaction with students of regular class. A social insecure behaviour or an aggressive behaviour is not in favor of the development of a positive coexistence and communication among students with and without disabilities, but unfavorably is dysfunctional for the process of inclusion.

Another parameter of social development, important for the inclusion of children with SEN in school, is the attitude that their classmates develop towards these children. According to Allport (1935) an attitude is defined as a person’s mental and psychological state which composes from his/her experiences. These experiences in tern exert a guided or a dynamic impact on his/her reactions for all objects and conditions

59


that the person confronts. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined attitude as a stable behaviour that comes up with a positive or a negative way concerning a particular fact or condition cognitive-emotional-behavioral. According to the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) the individual’s attitudes toward a specific behaviour, the subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control are the three parameters of his/her intention to perform that behaviour. Furthermore, attitudes are referred to a person’s disposition to approach or avoid something (a person, an idea, a disability, a behaviour, etc.) and constitute the key for the behavioral change towards people with disabilities (Sherrill, 2004). It should be mentioned here that, as the study of Tsorbatzoudis and Emmanoulidou (2005) showed, students’ attitudes toward moral behaviour were significant predictors (54%) of their intention towards moral behaviour.

Therefore, attitudes, aggressive and social behavior are three socially developmental parameters, which are important indexes for children’s interactions in the educational framework – especially in cases of schools with inclusive settings. Their assessment is important as through the latter teachers could draft conclusions about the nature and the frequency of children’s interpersonal relations and the relative problems the latter affront during these interactions; then teachers could utilize these information in order to improve classmates’ social interactions as well as their personal social development which in turn would lead to more positive behaviours and less problematical ones in the educational framework.

Empirical findings Typical school students’ attitudes toward disability influence their behavioural intentions to befriend and interact with classmates who display some type of disability and severely affect the social and emotional health and the longitudinal positive adjustment of the latter (Gilmore & Farina, 1989). However, understanding children’s development of positive or negative attitudes is not a simple procedure (Scheepstra et al., 1999), as both perceptions and attitudes are acquired under the impact of many parameters, like parents’ and educators’ beliefs (Nikolaraizi, Kumar, Favazza, Sideridis, Koulousiou, & Riall, 2005), curriculum and school environment (Nikolaraizi & Reybekiel 2001), and direct and indirect experiences with incidents and people, such as contact with children with SEN (Diamond et al., 1997; Favazza & Odom, 1997).

Furthermore, it is crucial to this point to consider that perception for disability is affected by age. As in Hodkinson’s study (2007) was showed, primary school students perceive disability as physical one. Hence, research on attitudes of primary education students could be done in the frame of physical education (PE), since on one hand this subject is characterized through intensive interactions among all pupils with and without disabilities and on the other hand a physical disability is more apparent throughout physical activities comparing with other educational subjects (for example math, history etc.). Therefore, the evaluation of students’ attitudes toward disability in PE could be more representative.

In general, the majority of studies supports that typical class students’ coexisting with classmates with some type of disability leads to adoption from the former positive attitudes towards the latter (Gash & Coffey, 1995; Κishi & Meijer, 1994; Laws & Kelly, 2005; Lipsky & Gartner, 1995; Margalit, Mioduser, Al-Yagon, & Neuberger, 1997; Nikolaraizi & Reybekiel, 2001; Nikolaraizi et al., 2005; Rapier, Adelson, Carey, & Croke, 1972; Roberts & Lindsell, 1997; Roberts & Smith, 1999; Shelvin & O’Moore, 2000; Siperstein, Bak, & O’Keefe, 1988). Furthermore, in a more recent study, Cambra and Silvestre, (2003) have confirmed the important role of coexistence, between children with typical development and their classmates with disability, regarding the conception that first configure for the seconds. Therefore, inclusion seems to have a positive influence on attitudes and perceptions of students of typical class towards their classmates with SEN. On the contrary, a series of other studies reports that inclusion has no or even negative influence on the adoption of positive attitudes of students towards their classmates with SEN (Gotlieb, Cohen, & Goldstein, 1974; Hodkinson, 2007; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Scheepstra, Nakken, & Pijl, 1999; Siperstein, Parker, Bardon-Norins, Widaman, 2007). Moreover, most studies examining students’ attitudes towards children with disabilities and SEN in the framework of PE showed that these attitudes were positive (Block, 1995; Butler & Hodge, 2001; Loovis & Loovis, 1997; Panagiotou, Evaggelinou, Doulkeridou, Mouratidou, & Koidou, 2008). Yet, Ellery and Rauschenbach (2000) supported that inclusion of students with disabilities in PE led to the adoption of negative attitudes. As it can be seen, the role of inclusion on students’ attitudes toward disability has been examined thoroughly; however the findings resulted from these studies are bivalent, so that it is still unclear whether coexistence of children with and without disabilities change positively the attitudes toward disability.

60


Similar contradictory results have been found concerning the question whether the two genders differ in their attitudes towards disability. On one hand, a number of relevant studies reported that girls, compared to boys, adopt more positive attitudes towards their classmates with SEN (Hodkinson, 2007; Krajewski & Flaherty, 2000; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Siperstein & Chatillon, 1982; Townsend, Wilton, & Vakilirad, 1993). On the other hand, other studies supported that there was no significant gender difference (Abrams, Jackson, & Claire, 1990; Cohen & Lopatto, 1995; Cohen, Nabors, & Pierce, 1994; Colwell, 1998; Diamond, 2001; Diamond et al., 1997; Nikolaraizi et al., 2005). Therefore, the impact of gender on students’ attitudes toward disability needs further study, since there are contradictious findings.

Regarding the empirical findings for social development, relevant research revealed the positive impact of children’s without disabilities coincidence in the classroom with peers with disabilities and SEN on different aspects of social competence/behaviour. More specifically, a series of studies reported that students who coexist with children with SEN develop empathy and acceptance of personal differences (Diamond, 2001; Diamond et al., 1997; Favazza et al., 2000; Helmstetter et al., 1994; Hepler, 1998; Lieber et al., 1998), enhance their consciousness and their responsibility towards other kids’ needs (Frederickson et al., 2007; Peck et al., 2004) and acquire better knowledge regarding disability (Diamond, 2001; Diamond et al., 1997; Favazza et al., 2000). In addition, inclusion’s positive implications on social development of typical class students are reported also in studies where respective intervention programs were implemented (Frederickson & Turner, 2003; Frederickson, Dunsmuir, Lang, & Monsen, 2004; Vaughn, Elbaum, Schumm, & Hughes, 1998). Therefore, it seems that inclusive settings in the educational framework promote the social behaviours of students with and without SEN and disabilities.

Furthermore, the examination of gender differences concerning aggressive behaviour (one parameter of social development) in educational frameworks, revealed contradictory result. Some studies showed that boys tend to be more aggressive than girls (Block, 1983; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Farmer, Farmer, Estell, & Hutchins, 2007; Kanfman, Jaser, Vaughan, Reynolds, Donato, Bernard, & Hernandez-Brereton, 2010; Tomada & Schneider, 1997; Zegarra, Barra, Marques, Berlanga, & Dallas, 2009). However, others supported that both girls and boys display equally levels of aggressive behaviour (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Kuppens, Grietens, Onghena, Michiels, & Subramanian, 2008). Moreover, several other studies claimed that both girls and boys are aggressive but tend to exhibit distinct forms of aggression. Specifically, boys appear more physically and verbally aggressive than girls (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Giles & Heyman, 2005; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001), but girls are expected to exhibit more relational aggression (Crick, 1995; Crick & Werner, 1998; French, Jansen, & Pidada, 2002; Galen & Underwood, 1997; Giles & Heyman, 2005; Paquette & Underwood, 1999; Xie, Farmer, & Cairns, 2003). In addition, as Turner’s study (1991) revealed, insecure boys tend to behave in a different manner during peer interactions compared to insecure girls: boys display more aggression, disruption, assertion, control, and attention-seeking, while girls are less assertive and controlling, and express a more positive behavior and compliance. Moreover, gender is not a significant factor for predicting insecurity about self in children and adolescents (Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1997).

Aims and hypothesesFrom the literature reviewed so far it seems that although there is substantial evidence concerning the role of gender and inclusion on students’ attitudes toward disability, the findings are bivalent. The same goes for the effect of gender on children’s aggressive behaviour. In addition, although there were empirical research concerning the inclusion and several aspects of social behaviours, none of them examined aggression and/or social insecurity. Therefore, more research is needed in order these topics to be clarified. Hence, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether there are differences between gender and inclusion settings in students’ aggressive and social insecure behaviour and their attitudes toward disability. Since the findings of previous relevant research were bivalent, no specific hypotheses were set on the role of gender and type of school (with or without inclusive settings) on the social parameters examined in our study.

MethodParticipantsThe overall sample comprised 658 students without SEN, of fifth and sixth grade (Μage=11±1 years) of 15 primary schools (ten urban and five rural). Three hundred and six of the participants were boys and the remaining 352 were girls. Seven schools of them implemented inclusive settings (which means that their students with or without SEN coexisted in all educational lessons, except math and Greek

61

http://www.scopus.com/scopus/search/submit/author.url?author=Farmer%2C+T.W.&authorId=7005226443&origin=recordpage



language), while the rest 8 schools were typical. Three hundred and five students (149 boys, 156 girls) attended the typical schools (i.e. without inclusive setting). The rest 353 of the students (156 boys, 197 girls) attended the schools with inclusive settings and coexisted during physical education – among other lessons- with classmates with SEN; the latter had different forms of disability, like learning difficulties, mental retardation and motor disabilities (one student on a wheelchair, one student with severe vision impairment, 11 students with mental retardation and 30 students with learning difficulties). MeasuresFour scales were used to assess students’: (a) demographic characteristics, (b) attitudes toward disability, (c) aggressive behaviour, and (d) social insecure behaviour. The first two questionnaires were completed by the participants, with an exception concerned the type of school (which is a demographic characteristic), which was answered by the administrator of the elementary educational office. Those questionnaires concerned students’ aspects of social behaviour (i.e. aggression and social insecurity) were completed by the teachers separately for each student.

Demographic characteristics. The demographic questionnaire regarded age, gender, class (5th, 6th), and type of school (with or without inclusive settings). More specifically, concerning the type of school, the researchers - before visiting the schools participated in the study - were informed by a list conducted from the respective administrator, which school was with inclusive setting and which was not.

Attitudes toward disability. In order to assess children’s attitudes towards students with disabilities during physical education the Children’s Attitudes Towards Integrated Physical Education Revised (CAIPE-R) (Block, 1995) was used. CAIPE-R includes some personal attributes, for example, having a friend or family member with a disability or having someone with a disability in a regular education class. Furthermore, there is a drawing of a student, John, in a wheelchair and a text follow with the description of the child. The questionnaire is consisted of 13 items. The first 2 items are comprehension questions and the other 11 items are classified in two factors: a) general statements for having a student with disability in regular physical education (6 items, example item: ‘If we would play a team sport like basket, it would be OK if I have John in my team’) and b) specific statements for eliciting students’ reactions to modifications that would accommodate John in a basketball game (5 items, example items: ‘It would be OK to allow John shoot the ball in a lower racket?’). Answers were given in a four-point Likert scale: no, rather no, rather yes, yes, with four corresponding on most positive and one on most negative attitude. Therefore, the most negative total score (i.e. the most negative attitudes towards disability) would be 11 (1 x 11items), while the most positive score would be 44 (4 x 11items).

Αggressive behaviour. The Checklist of Aggressive Behaviour (CAB) by Peterman and Peterman (2001; Mouratidou et al., 2007 for Greek version) was used in order to assess students’ aggressive behaviour. The CAB is consisted of 14 items comprising three subscales: a) verbal behaviour (example item: Child screams, scolds, and insults adults and children), b) non verbal behaviour (example item: Child eats his nails, pulls his hair, hits his head) and c) positive behaviour (example item: Child is characterized by readiness of cooperation and compromise). The items assessing positive behaviour in CAB are inverted. Answers were given in a five-point Likert scale, ranging from never appears (1) to always appears (5).

Social insecure behaviour. The Checklist of Social Insecure Behaviour (CSIB) by Peterman & Peterman (2003; Mouratidou et al., 2007 for Greek version) was used in the present study to assess students’ social insecure behaviour. CSIB is consisted of 16 items, which are classified in five factors: a) verbal reactions (example item: Child cannot complete a word or a sentence with coherence), b) body language (example item: Child’s hands shake, eats his/her pencil and/or his/her nails, plays with his/her hands nervously), c) activities (example item: Child quits when he/she fails in a game or when he/she does not correspond to a social task), d) social contact (example item: He/she does not participate in any group of playing children, refuses to correspond to a social invitation) and e) self-defence (example item: He/she can put logical demands, he/she can express his/her view or use critic). The self-defence items in CSIB are reverse-scored. Answers were given in a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never appears) to 5 (always appears).

For both aforementioned checklists a composite score results from teachers’ evaluation regarding children’s behaviour. A low total score reveals high positive behaviour, while a high score indicates high negative social behaviour (in table 1 the interpretation of the aggressive and/or social insecure behaviour, according to the total score respectively, is represented). Furthermore, both checklists were chosen since,

62


according to Petermann and Petermann (2001; 2003), are appropriate for clinical and/or educational assessments in children in the age of elementary school.

Table 1:Assessment of Checklist of Aggressive Behaviour (CAB), and Checklist of Social Insecure Behaviour

(CSIB)

CAB / CSIB Assessment of behaviour14-21 No problematical behaviour. Seldom apparent22-35 Most times no problematical behaviour. Sometimes apparent36-49 Behaviour that appears sometimes or/and regularly50-63 Particularly apparent behaviour. It is observed in many circumstances64-70 Excessively apparent behaviour

Procedure The demographic questionnaire and the CAIPE-R were completed from all the participants, in their classes and under the researchers’ supervision. The teachers of the students, as well as their classmates with SEN were not present, while two of the investigators remained during the completion to help with any questions or problems that arose. In the beginning, it was emphasized to all students that the questionnaires did not evaluate their educational progress and that there were no right or wrong answers. Moreover, it was emphasized the importance of working individually. Further, the students were assured that their responses were confidential and anonymous. For CAIPE-Rs and demographic questionnaire’s completion students were engaged for about one teaching hour.

CAB and CSIB were completed by the teachers separately for each student, apart from teaching hours. They had been given instructions earlier for the completion for both checklists by the investigators. No difficulties emerged as far as answering the items of all questionnaires. Finally, in order all four questionnaires to be corresponded with each other, and students’ anonymity to be ensured, a code was utilized instead of their names (the initial of the first and last name, the class grade and the initial of teacher’s last name).

Data analysis The effects of gender (male, female) and the type of school (with or without inclusive settings) on the scholars’ social parameters, were examined with a 2(sex) x 2(type of school) ANOVA, where attitudes toward disability, aggressive and social insecure behaviour functioned as the dependent variable in each case. In order to investigate the significance of the differences between the group means t-tests for independent samples were used. In all analyses significance was set at p < .05.

ResultsDescriptive statistics Descriptive statistics of the study’s variables are shown in Table 2. Regarding the evaluation of students’ social developmental aspects, results showed that levels of aggressive and social insecure behaviour were low. Particularly, the mean score in CAB was 22.35 (SD = 8.07). Similarly, the low mean score was found in CSIB (M = 25.91, SD = 9.49). Regarding the attitudes toward disability of students who attended primary schools, results showed that the score was high (M =38.16, SD = 4.52).

Table 2:Means and Standards Deviations of Aggressive and Social Insecure Behaviour and Attitudes

Subgroup without inclusive setting

Subgroup with inclusive setting

Total

M SD N M SD N M SD NAggressive behaviour 22.71 8.44 299 22.03 7.74 346 22.35 8.07 645Boys 24.55 9.7 146 24.52 8.83 155 24.54 9.25 301

63


Girls 20.96 6.6 153 20.01 6.03 191 20.43 6.3 344Social insecure behaviour

25.20 9.01 281 26.58 9.91 294 25.91 9.49 575

Boys 25.40 9.25 137 27.46 10.51 132 26.41 9. 269Girls 25.01 8.79 144 25.87 9.36 162 25.46 9.09 306Attitudes 38.75 4.74 304 37.65 4.26 349 38.16 4.52 653Boys 39.05 4.17 149 37.44 4.71 155 38.23 4.52 304Girls 38.46 5.23 155 37.81 3.87 194 38.10 4.53 349

Inclusion, gender, and parameters of social development The results of the 2 Χ 2 ANOVA on aggressive behaviour revealed a significant main effect on gender [F(1,641) = 42.849, p < .001]. No main effect for inclusion or an interaction between gender and inclusion was found for pupils’ aggressive behaviour [F(1,641) = .614, p > .05 and F(1,641) = .551, p > .05 respectively]. Follow up, independent samples t-test on gender revealed [Τ(518.412)= 6.494, p < .001)] that girls were less aggressive (M = 20.43) than boys (M = 24.54).

With respect to insecure behaviour, the results of the 2 X 2 ANOVA showed no significant main effect for gender and inclusion or significant interaction between them [F(1,641) = 3.366, p > .05 and F(1,641) = 1.569, p > .05 and F(1,641) = .569, p > .05 respectively].

Finally, the results of the 2 Χ 2 ANOVA on attitudes revealed a significant main effect on inclusion [F(1,649) = 10.194, p < .001]. No significant main effect on gender or a significant interaction between gender and inclusion was found on pupils’ attitudes [F(1,649) = .097, p > .05 and F(1,649) = 1.836, p > .05 respectively]. Follow-up independent samples t-test revealed [Τ(651)= -3.128, p < .01)] that pupils attending typical schools had more positive attitudes toward disability (M = 38.75) compared to their mates who coexisted with classmates with SEN (M = 37.65).

DiscussionThe aim of the present study was the examination of whether there are gender and type of school (with or without inclusive settings) differences on pupils’ aggressive and social insecure behaviour and their attitudes toward disability. Regarding social developmental parameters, results showed that students of primary school with or without inclusive settings are characterised of low aggressive and social insecure behaviour and high positive attitudes toward disability (independently whether the pupils participate in typical schools or in schools with inclusive settings). Specifically, from their scores in CAB and CSIB it is evident that any form of aggressiveness, that pupils perform, is characterised as no problematic and that behaviours as screams, shooting objects, slashing people and objects, rarely appear. Similar results were found for social insecure behaviour. Behaviours like silence, stutter, crying, reduced social contact and incapacity of self-defence, appear sometimes and in most of the cases are not problematic. These findings could probably be attributed to the power of school as a mean for children’s socialization; in the educational framework the interaction between peers, the instructional teaching methods, and the organizational dimensions promote pupils’ social competencies and can determine their attitudes toward other children and/or adults (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000; Shelvin & O’Moore, 2000; Siperstein et al., 1988; Wentzel, 1991).

Concerning the question whether there are inclusion and gender differences on pupils’ aggression, social insecurity and attitudes towards disability, the results of the analysis revealed diverse findings: significant gender differences were found in only one parameter of social development that is aggressive behaviour. Nevertheless this fact does not apply for students’ displaying social insecure behaviour and for their configuration of attitudes toward their classmates with disability and SEN. However, regarding inclusion, differences were found only for pupils’ attitudes toward disability but not their aggressive and social insecure behaviours. Moreover, the interaction between gender and inclusion was not significant for all three aforementioned variables of the study.

More specifically, results showed that boys tend to be more aggressive than girls (independently whether the former attended a typical school or a school with inclusive settings). The findings concerning the effect of gender on scholars’ aggression are in contrast with those reported by Kuppens’s et al. (2008), which supported that there are no differences between the two genders regarding aggressiveness. Yet, they are in accordance with a series of previous studies (Block, 1983; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Farmer et al., 2007; Kanfman et al., 2010; Tomada & Schneider, 1997; Zegarra et al., 2009), which have shown that boys display higher verbal and non verbal aggressive levels than girls. This difference between the

64



two genders could be attributed to the different social norms concerning the social behaviour of the gender (Campbell, Muncer, & Coyle, 1991; Shaffer, 2009), since generally it is expected that boys will be more aggressive than girls. Yet, further research is needed for substantiating such an explanation.

Moreover, results imply that the type of school doesn’t change the existing difference in aggressive behaviour between male and female pupils. Yet, there is no clear explanation for such findings, which are in contrary with those reported by previous studies indicating that children who attend a school with inclusive setting are characterized by higher levels of social development (Diamond, 2001; Favazza et al., 2000; Frederickson et al., 2007; Helmstetter et al., 1994; Hepler, 1998; Lieber et al., 1998; Peck et al., 2004). However our results could be due to the fact that inclusive settings in the schools participated in our study had been implemented for a short term period of seven months (earlier these schools were typical). It is commonly accepted that it needs time in order changes on children’s aspects of social development to be accomplished; on the contrary, in short time frames, as in our case, it is expected that a person would display negative behaviours as defensive mechanisms towards the ‘different’ (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Probably, more methodical plans, wider informing about disabilities and more available time are required in order for children to get familiar with disability and interact more efficiently with their classmates who appear a type of disability. In addition, it must be reported that the aforementioned studies examined other parameters of social development, such as acceptance of difference, empathy, higher level of responsibility and acceptance of disabilities, and not aggression and/or social insecurity.

In addition, results have shown that the main effects of inclusion and gender, as well as the interaction between them weren’t significant for students’ social insecure behaviour. So far there is no research evidence examining the role of sex and type of school on the above parameter of social behaviour. Thus, it is difficult to explain such findings. A probably interpretation could be found in conjunction with the aforementioned findings of the present study, which concern the role of the school as a medium of socialization and the short term implementation of the inclusive settings in the particular schools. Clearly, more research is needed concerning the effect of inclusion and/or gender on scholars’ social insecurity.

Furthermore, results indicated that there are no gender differences with respect to pupils’ attitudes towards their classmates with disability. Therefore, both male and female pupils are characterized from similar attitudes towards disability. Previous research has shown that girls have more positive attitudes toward disability compared to their male classmates (Hodkinson, 2007; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002). However other relevant studies indicated that gender is not a significant factor for children’s attitudes towards their classmates with SEN (Diamond, 2001; Diamond et al., 1997; Nikolaraizi et al., 2005). It seems that further research on this topic is necessary in order to be clarified whether girls adopt more positive attitudes toward disability in comparison with their classmates who are boys.

In addition, our results concerning the role of inclusion on pupils’ attitudes toward disability indicated that children who attend schools with inclusive settings differ significantly regarding their attitudes compared to those students who attend typical schools, but the attitudes of the former are more negative than those of the latter. This means that inclusion doesn’t improve typical pupils’ perceptions of their classmates with disabilities and SEN. This finding is in contrast with other studies which supported that the coexistence of children with and without disabilities enforces positive perception of persons with disability (Butler & Hodge, 2001; Laws & Kelly, 2005; Margalit et al., 1997; Nikolaraizi et al., 2005; Roberts & Smith, 1999; Shelvin & O’Moore, 2000). However, our findings are consistent with several other studies (Ellery & Rauschenbach, 2000; Hodkinson, 2007; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Scheepstra et al., 1999; Siperstein et al., 2007). These studies claimed that inclusion does not lead to the adoption of more positive attitudes towards disability and moreover, in some cases, it has even a negative influence on students’ attitudes towards their classmates with SEN (Gotlieb et al., 1974; Hodkinson, 2007; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Scheepstra et al., 1999; Siperstein et al., 2007). Probably, as in case of aggressive behaviour, the short term implementation of inclusive settings in the participated schools, is the reason for these findings of our study. Hence, further research deems necessary in order to be clarified whether inclusion is really effective for the educational process for all students (with or without disabilities).

Conclusions The results of the present study cannot be generalized for all pupils without disabilities, who attend educational frameworks with inclusive settings. This inability is due to the fact that there was not

65


unevenness regarding the sample of the study and the latter was conducted only in schools of a suburban district, where the institution of inclusion was short-term.

Finally, from the results, it can be concluded that inclusion per se, as well as gender, do not work positively regarding students’ aggression, social insecurity and attitudes toward disability. This means that in order students’ with disabilities and SEN inclusion to be successful and useful for all students, it is crucial that practices of inclusion, teaching and implementation to be considered and well controlled for the avoidance of whichever negative effects (both for students with and without disabilities). Hence, future research could examine, through intervening programs, issues concerning pupils’ social behaviour and attitudes toward disability in educational frameworks, where inclusive settings function with a more structured manner and the interaction of pupils with and without disabilities take place systematically and continuingly.

ReferencesAbrams, D., Jackson, D., & Claire, L. S. (1990). Social identity and the handicapping functions of stereotypes: Children’s understanding of mental and physical handicap. Human Relations, 43, 1085–1098.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Munchinson (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology (pp. 798-844).Worchester, MA: Clark University Press.Asher, S. R. (1983). Social competence and peer status: Recent advances and future directions. Child Development, 54, 1427-1434.Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54, 1335-1354.Block, E. M. (1995). Development and Validation of the Children’s Attitudes Toward Integrated Physical Education – Revised (CAIPE-R) Inventory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12 (1), 60-77.Block, E.M. (2007). A teacher’s guide to including students with disabilities in general physical education (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Butler, S. R., & Hodge, R. S. (2001). Inclusive physical education: attitudes and behaviors of students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Supplement, Abstracts of Completed Research, 72 (1), A-99.Cambra, C., & Silvestre, N. (2003). Students with special educational needs in the inclusive classroom: social integration and self-concept. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18 (2), 197-208.Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Coyle, E. (1991). Social representation of aggression as an explanation of gender differences: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 95-108.Citrome, L. & Volanka, J. (2001). Aggression and violence in patients with schizophrenia. In M. Hawng, & P. Bermanzohn (Ed.), Schizophrenia and comorbid conditions. Diagnosis and treatment (pp. 149-185). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press Inc.Cohen, T. & Lopatto, D. (1995). Preschool children’s comprehension of the word ‘handicapped’. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 747–750.Cohen, R., Nabors, L. & Pierce, K. (1994). Preschooler’s evaluations of physical disabilities: A consideration of attitudes and behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 19, 103–111.Colwell, C. (1998). Effects of information on elementary band students’ attitudes toward individuals with special needs. Journal of Music Therapy, 35, 19–33.Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology 3: Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 779−862). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313−322.Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115 (1), 74-101.Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social-Psychological Adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response decision processes in relational and overt aggression. Child Development, 69, 1630−1639.Diamond, K. (2001). Relationships among young children’s ideas, emotional understanding, and social contact with classmates with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 104–113.Diamond, K., Hestenes, L., Carpenter, E., & Innes, F. (1997). Relationships between enrollment in an inclusive class and preschool children’s ideas about people with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 520–537.

66


Εllery, J. P., & Rauschenbach, J. (2000). Impact of disability awareness activities on nondisabled student attitudes toward integrated physical education with students who use wheelchairs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Supplement, Abstracts of Completed Research, 71 (1), A-106. Erickson M. F., Sroufe L. A., & Egeland B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1/2), 147-166Farmer, T. W., Farmer, E. M., Estell, D. B., & Hutchins, B. C. (2007). The developmental dynamics of aggression and the prevention of school violence. Journal of Emotional and behavioral Disorders, 15 (4), 197-208.Favazza, P., & Odom, S. (1997). Promoting positive attitudes of kindergarten-age children towards people with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 405-418.Favazza, P. C., Phillipsen, L., & Kumar, P. (2000). Measuring and promoting acceptance of young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 491–508.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Readings MA: Addison-Wesley.Forlin, C., & Cole, P. (1994). Attributions of the social acceptance and integration of children with mild intellectual disability. Australia and New Zeland Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20, 11-23.Frederickson, N., Dunsmuir, S., Lang, J., & Monsen J. J. (2004). Mainstream–special school inclusion partnerships: pupil, parent and teacher perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (1), 37-57.Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34 (2), 105-115.Frederickson, N., & Turner, J. (2003). Utilizing the classroom peer group to address children's social needs: an evaluation of the circle of friends intervention approach. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 234-245.French, D. C., Jansen, E. A., & Pidada, S. (2002). United States and Indonesian children's and adolescents' reports of relational aggression by disliked peers. Child Development, 73, 1143−1150.Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 598−600.Gash, H., & Coffee, D. (1995). Influence on attitudes towards children with mental handicap. European Journal of Special Needs, 10, 1–16.Giles, J. W., & Heyman, G. D. (2005). Young children's beliefs about the relationship between gender and aggressive behavior. Child Development, 76, 107−121.Gilmore, J. L., & Farina, A. (1989). The social reception of mainstreamed children in the regular classroom. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 33, 301-311. Gottlieb, J., Cohen, L., & Goldstein, L. (1974). Social contact and personal adjustment as variables relating to attitudes toward EMR children. Training School Bulletin, 71 (1), 9–16.Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58 (6/7), 466–474.Helmstetter, E., Peck, C. A., & Giangreco, M. F. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe abilities. Journal of the Association for persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 263-276.Hepler, J. B. (1998). Social integration of children with emotional disabilities and nonhandicapped peers in a school setting. Early Child Development and Care, 147, 99-115.Hodkinson, A. (2007). Inclusive education and the cultural representation of disability and Disabled people: recipe for disaster or catalyst of change? An examination of non-disabled primary school children's attitudes to children with disabilities. Research in Education, 77, 56-76.Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children's attachment representations: Longitudinal relations to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33 (4), 703-710. Kanfman, J. S., Jaser, S. S., Vaughan, E. L., Reynolds, J. S., Donato, J., Bernard, S. N., & Hernandez-Brereton, M. H. (2010). Patterns in office referred data by grade, race/ethnicity and gender. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12 (1), 44-54.Kishi, G. S., & Meijer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: a six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-287.Kostelnik, M., Whiren, A. P., Soderman, A. K., & GreGory, K. (2005). Guiding children’s social development: Theory to practice. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning.Krajewski, J. J., & Flaherty, T. (2000). Attitudes of high school students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 38, 154-162.

67


Kuppens, S., Grietens, H. , Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with relational aggression in elementary-school aged children: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639–660.Laws, G., & Kelly, E. (2005). The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in United Kingdom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52 (2), 79–99.Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Bechman, P. (1998). Inclusive preschool programs: Teacher beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 87–106.Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1995). The evaluation of inclusive education programs. Bulletin of National Center of Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 2, 1-9.Loovis, E. M., & Loovis, C. L. (1997). A disability of awareness unit in physical education and attitudes of elementary school student. Perception and Motor Skills, 84 (3), 768-770.Margalit, M., Mioduser, D., Al-Yagon, M., & Neuberger, S. (1997). Teachers’ and peers’ perceptions of children with learning disorders: consistency and change. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 12, 305–316.Mouratidou, K., Barkoukis, V., Zahariadis, P., & Arampatzi, A. (2007). Evaluation of students’ social ability: Greek version of checklists for aggressive behaviour and social insecurity in elementary education. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 495-508.Ministry of Education and Religion Affairs. (2003). Analytical educational programs. Athens: Greece.Ministry of Education and Religion Affairs. (2008). Special education of persons with disability or special educational needs. Athens: Greece.Nikolaraizi, M., & Reybekiel, N. (2001). A comparative study of children’s attitudes towards deaf children, children in wheelchairs and blind children in Greece and in the U.K. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 167–182.Nikolaraizi, M., Kumar, P., Favazza, P., Sideridis, G., Koulousiou, D., & Riall, A. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of typically developing children’s attitudes toward individuals with special needs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52 (2), 101-119.Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes towards persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49 (3), 243-265.Panagiotou, A. K., Evaggelinou, C., Doulkeridou, A., Mouratidou, K. & Koidou, E. (2008). Attitudes of 5th and 6th grade Greek students toward the inclusion of children with disabilities in physical education classes after a paralympic education program. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 31–43.Papadopoulos, Ν. (1994). Λεξικό της ψυχολογίας (Dictionary of Psychology). Athens.Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents' experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology, 45, 242−266.Parker, J. G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29 (2), 135-143.Petermann, F., & Petermann, U. (2001). Training mit aggressiven Kindern (10te Aufl.) (Training with aggressive children). Weinheim: Beltz. Petermann, F., & Petermann, U. (2003). Training mit sozial unsicheren Kindern (8te Aufl.) (Training with social insecure children). Weinheim: Beltz. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social–psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479−491.Rapier, J., Adelson, R., Carey, R., & Croke, K. (1972). Change in children’s attitudes toward the physically handicapped. Exceptional Children, 39, 219–223.Roberts, C. M., & Lindsell, J. S. (1997). Children’s attitudes and behavioural intentions toward peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44, 133–145.Roberts, C. & Naylor, F. (1994). Loneliness and causal attributions about peer rejection in integrated students with mild intellectual disabilities. In Children's peer relations: Conference proceedings (pp. 305-316). Adelaide: The University of South Australia, The Institute of Social Research.Roberts, C. M., & Smith P. R. (1999). Attitudes and behaviour of children towards peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 35–50.Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and socio-emotional development: a summary of research findings. The Elementary School

68


Journal, 100 (5), 443-471.Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6 (1), 111-135.Rubin, K. H. (1983). Recent perspectives on social competence and peer status: Some introductory remarks. Child Development, 56, 253-264.Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H., & Eisenhower, A. (2003). Children’s appraisal of peer rejection experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12 (4), 530-550. Schaffer, Η. Ρ. (1996). Social development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Scheepstra, A. J.M., Nakken, H., & Pijl, S.G. (1999). Contacts with classmates: the social position of pupils with Down's syndrome in Dutch mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14 (3), 212-22.Shaffer, D. R. (2009). Sex differences in aggression. In Social and personality development (pp. 303-316). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Sherrill, C. (2004). Adapted Physical Activity, Recreation, and Sport: Crossdisciplinary and Lifespan. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Shevlin, M., & O’ Moore, M.A. (2000). Fostering positive attitudes: reactions of mainstream pupils to coctact with their counterparts who have severe/profound intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 206-217. Siperstein, G. N., Bak, J. J., & O’Keefe, P. (1988). Relationship between children’s attitudes toward and their social acceptance of mentally retarded peers. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 24-27.Siperstein, G. N., & Chatillon, A. C. (1982). Importance of perceived similarity in improving children's attitudes toward mentally retarded peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 453-458.Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon-Norins J., & Widaman, K. F. (2007). A National Study of Youth Attitudes toward the Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 435-455.Stainback, S. B., & Stainback, W. C. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Independent integrated education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Turner P. J. (1991). Relations between attachment, gender, and behavior with peers in preschool. Child Development, 62, 1475-1488.Tomada, G. & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational Aggression, Gender, and Peer Acceptance: Invariance Across Culture, Stability Over Time, and Concordance Among Informants. Developmental Psychology, 33 (4)601–609.Townsend, M. A., Wilton, K. M., & Vakilirad, T. (1993). Children's attitudes toward peers with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37, 405-411.Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Emmanouilidou, M. (2005). Predicting moral behavior in physical education classes: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 1055-1065.Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (5), 428-436.Wentzel, R. W. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61 (1), 1-24.Xie, H., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Different forms of aggression among inner-city African-Psychology, 41, 355-375.Zegarra, S. R., Barra, R. G., Marques, C. M., Berlanga, J. F., & Dallas, C. M. (2009). Behavioural gender differences in school relationships. Psicothema, 21, (3), 453-458.Zoniou-Sideri, A. (1998). Οι ανάπηροι και η εκπαίδευσή τους (Persons with disabilities and their education). Athens: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

69

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/browse_R_E008

http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Jennifer%20Norins%20Bardon&dcontributors=Jennifer%20Norins%20Bardon


LET’S HAVE FUN! TEACHING SOCIAL SKILLS THROUGH STORIES, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND ACTIVITIES

Kaili Chen ZhangThe University of Hong Kong

This article concerns social skills interventions for children with emotional/behavioral disorders. Drawing on the author’s teaching experience and the findings of research on social skills training in schools, and exploring effective ways to facilitate children’s social skill development, the paper describes how social skills interventions can be accomplished through the use of a story-based method that employs telecommunications, cooperative learning and gaming, and various other activities. The article concludes that as teachers explore innovative ways to enhance students’ social competence; they also need to consider the complexity of learning social competence and how difficult it is for students to gain mastery. Finally, researchers in the field are encouraged to carry out both theoretical and empirical studies to explore the overall efficacy of social skills training in general, the effectiveness of particular approaches, and to identify more proven strategies that promote students’ social competence. Social competence is essential to the quality of life of each individual. The development of

social skill allows individuals to build positive and rewarding relationships (Chen & Bullock, 2004; Dennison, 2008). Unfortunately, teachers consistently report that poor social skills and classroom discipline have been primary concerns of schools (Corso, 2007; Richardson & Shupe, 2003; Wood, 2006). Indeed, behavioral challenges not only often negatively affect students’ learning and their relationships with peers and adults (Chen & Bullock, 2004; Clough, 2005; Wright, 2006), deficiencies in social competence have been found to be associated social maladjustment (Gresham, 1995) and psychopathology that may carry over into adulthood (e.g., Meadows, Neel, Parker, & Timo, 1991).

Researchers (e.g., Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995) have noted that by providing formal and informal social skills training (SST), the school can become a potential optimal setting that fosters the development of social competence in students with behavioral problems. Indeed, learning to get along with people is one of the most important skills that we can teach students. However, in the United States, for example, most school curricula do not place achievement in social skills on a par with achievement in academic subjects (Janney & Snell, 2006). For students with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD), social skills intervention is as critical as, if not more critical than, an academic curriculum and more effort should be devoted to improving current SST practices and to identifying more proven strategies (Regan, 2009; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Drawing on the author’s teaching experience and the findings of research on SST in schools (Chen & Bullock, 2004; Chen & Estes, 2007; Chen, 2006), and exploring effective ways to facilitate children’s emotional and behavioral development, this paper describes how social skills interventions can be accomplished through the use of a story-based method that employs telecommunications (which refers to communications through the international computer network via electronic mail), cooperative learning and gaming and various other activities. Why Stories, Telecommunications, and Activities?

70


In a comprehensive review of research evidence on the effectiveness of SST programs, Gresham (1998) concluded that the SST programs studied did not seem to be very effective for students with E/BD. Gresham and colleagues (Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001) concluded that one of the most important reasons for this was that the skills learnt by students during the training were often not maintained or generalized. Other researchers (e.g., Nelson & Rutherford, 1988) echoed this, pointing out that social skills tended to be taught in artificial settings, and students were not able to use the skills in natural environments. Teachers also often lack time and training in teaching social skills (e.g., Janney & Snell, 2006). The need to know how to socialize our children to participate successfully in school and society is tremendous (Chen & Estes, 2007; Goldstein, 1999; Jenney & Snell, 2006).

More teachers would be interested in teaching social skills if they were able to integrate SST into their existing classroom activities. This can be done, for example, through the ways that a teacher organizes and manages learning and activities in class. Social skill literature strategy (SSLS) programs provide a model for integrating social and emotional skill development into the elementary and middle school language arts curriculum (Anderson, 2000). Using children’s literature and stories has been found to be effective in improving friendship skills in young students with learning disabilities (DeGeorge, 1998). Some of the scenes from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet lend themselves to discussions of various social skills such as problem-solving and alternatives to aggression (Anderson, 2000). Indeed, although story-telling alone will not teach social skills, literacy experiences are tools that can be an integral part of the behavioral training process. One only has to review the body of existing children’s literature in order to realize that many stories were designed to help children form socially approved behaviors and values.

In recent years, some researchers (e.g., Parsons, Mitchell, & Leonard, 2004) have promoted the use of educational technology as a tool for the training of social skills to children and individuals with disabilities.

Cobb et al. (2002) created social scenarios within virtual environments and constructed games to support the learning of social interaction skills in users with Asperger’s Syndrome. Randel, Morris, Wetzel, and Whitehill’s (1992) review of research on instructional games and simulations indicated that students showed more interest in games than in traditional classroom instruction. Randel and colleagues maintained that technology such as computer games resulted in improved content retention over time, possibly because of the opportunity for greater student participation.

Educators such as Dewey, Erikson, and Piaget (Holton, Ahmed, Williams, & Hili, 2001) all emphasized the importance of play in learning, and it is generally recognized that play offers opportunities for children to learn about one another and facilitates friendship development. Various methods have been employed to teach students how to develop socially approved behaviors through play. For example, Barry and Burlew (2004) encouraged students to play by combining Social Stories and teacher prompts. Also, play training with Pivotal Response Training (Koegel, Schreibman et al., 1989) has been validated with children with autism. Play activities also give the learner many opportunities to reinforce their current knowledge and to try out new skills. In the context of social skills training, activities and games allow for creativity and opportunities for students to practice and generalize acquired skills in natural settings. According to Goldstein (1999), cooperative learning and gaming can enhance the likelihood of future cooperation and channel behaviors in pro-social directions. In addition, the use of games and activities encourages students to develop new skills such as organization and leadership skills. Indeed, when used appropriately, stories, educational technology, and fun activities can increase student motivation and participation, support positive attitudes toward social skills intervention, and encourage connections among different skills (Chen & Bullock, 2004; Walker et al., 1983).

Authorities in the field of E/BD generally agree that a common model for social skills instruction involves a series of steps that include: (a) modeling, (b) role-play or rehearsal, (c) feedback, and (d) generalization training (e.g., Goldstein, 1999; Melloy, Davis, Wehby, Murry, & Leiber, 1998). In addition, in order to maximize its effectiveness, a SST program must be motivating and personally relevant enough for students to want to learn and use the skills. It must also provide opportunities for skills to be practiced under varying conditions and in as close to natural situations as possible in order to enhance the generalization of skills (Chen & Estes, 2007; Chen, 2006). Based on these frameworks and the preliminary success of a SST study that employed stories, telecommunications, and activities (Chen & Bullock, 2004; for a summary of the study, please refer to Appendix A), the following sections present a framework for developing a SST program using a story-based method that employs telecommunications and activities. Strategies presented in this article are appropriate for most

71


elementary classrooms and can be used as interventions for children with emotional and/or behavioral challenges. However, as social skills instruction is an important aspect of the curriculum for all students, not only for students with E/BD, the approaches selected and described here are not exclusively relevant for students with E/BD only; they can also be easily adapted for students without disabilities in general education classrooms.

Planning and Implementing the SST ProgramIn planning the program, the teacher must first identify students’ major behavioral challenges and needs and decide what skills to target. Individual assessments; teacher observations; interviews with teachers, students, and parents; as well as Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and other education and psychological evaluation records often provide rich information with which to identify social skills deficits and strengths.

To set the stage for SST, teachers can consider a small group setting as a means of formal instruction as it allows the teacher to focus on the most important behavioral characteristics and individual needs. In a previous study by the author (Chen & Bullock, 2004), for example, the SST class was divided into two groups: Group I (five students aged 6-8) and Group II (four students aged 9-12), and lessons for each group were conducted separately. Typically, each session consisted of story-reading/listening, discussions, modeling and rehearsal of skills, telecommunications, and activities and games that were used to reinforce skills. The pace of introducing new skills was determined by the teacher’s judgment of the students’ readiness and the relatedness to the story in the text.

Integrating Stories and Social Skills: The Use of the TextbookIn planning the program, teachers need to choose a book that has story elements and themes that are relevant and make sense within the context of the students` lives. As mentioned, students’ needs and the targeted skills as well as the length of the story are also important factors to consider. In the author’s study mentioned above, an age-appropriate storybook, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe written by C. S. (Clive Staples) Lewis (1950) was chosen (Chen & Bullock, 2004). A brief synopsis of the story is found in Appendix B. Teachers may also find that other books in Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series can also provide good platforms for SST. Other children’s books such as Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and Eleanor H. Porter’s Pollyanna can also be considered. No matter which text is used, one should bear in mind that what matters most in the story-telling process is that the teacher takes advantage of every opportunity to encourage and reinforce the learning of social skills. If students’ reading ability is a concern, teachers can use books that have audio versions, or adapted versions that provide additional explanations and controlled vocabulary. Reading aloud and watching video clips of the scenes are other ways to increase learning and address the issue of different reading levels. Once the text is selected, the teacher then develops objectives for each lesson. In each lesson, the teacher identifies the main events of the story, discusses characters’ different perspectives, and when appropriate, encourages students to describe the characters’ emotions and the consequences of their actions.

The Use of Telecommunications and other Web-based ActivitiesThe story in the text provides a platform for telecommunications and other web-based activities. After dividing the class into two smaller groups, the teacher then sets up a website and two group-email accounts which are accessible during the training. The author’s study also used character impersonation by incorporating the online mimicking of the language and persona of the major fictional characters (Chen & Bullock, 2004). The older group (Group II) portrayed the main characters online by using character impersonation. Group I used telecommunications to question the characters about events of the story, while Group II answered the questions and explained those events in more detail by using their imagination. Corresponding with the characters/readers via emails was an exciting and fun thing to do for the students.

At the beginning of the SST, the teacher can present a mini-lesson on Internet etiquettes and telecommunication rules (e.g., share the email account with the group; messages should be related to the story). If impersonation and online mimicking are used, teachers need to explain clearly what they are as well. Teachers should encourage students to pose any questions they have about the story, while at the same time making sure that every student has a voice in the telecommunication process. In this way, not only do students have to carry out their responsibilities—asking appropriate questions and handling replies, but each group also needs to speak with a common voice on issues of fact, such as things connected to events in the story. They are also required to respond accurately to questions dealing with

72


different aspects of the characters’ lives, such as how they like a certain food and how certain things are possible. In this way, group members learn to work together as a team to achieve their common goals.

The children in one of the author’s studies (Chen & Bullock, 2004) were first interested in all aspects of the characters’ life in the land of Narnia. They also tried to test the reality of the creatures. Answering positively and in a believable way was sometimes a challenge for the youthful portrayers. The following are samples of dialogues between the two groups.

Student B was very concerned about the freezing cold weather in Narnia, since Narnia had been under the control of the White Witch and there had been no spring for one hundred years. He wrote to Lucy, the first human visitor to Narnia: Since it is so cold there, do you get frost bite? Lucy replied, To CB (Student B’s initials), yes I did get frost bite when I first got to Narnia, but I enjoy [sic] my visit so much that I almost forgot about it!

Students in the younger group were fascinated by the Faun’s appearance and life in the cave, so they wrote to Mr. Tumnus the Faun: Are you really half goat and half man? How do you clean your house? After considerable thought, Mr. Tumnus replied: My dear friends, Yes, I do have horns, goat legs, and a tail! You asked me how I clean my house, well, I use a broom. How do you clean your house?

In addition to the use of emails, other web-based activities can also be integrated into the SST. For example, students can work in teams to research information about topics related to the story or access internet resources such as music or movies about the story. During these activities, students may need to be reminded to use the skills they learn (e.g., disagreeing appropriately, accepting feedback) and should be reinforced for using them appropriately. In addition, teachers can publish students’ work (e.g., pictures of characters, stories boards) related to the story on the SST website. Recognizing students’ efforts is an effective way to raise their self-esteem. The application of technology resources provides an enjoyable alternative to the traditional lesson format, motivates students to participate, and enhances their learning experience.

The above sections outline a creative approach to bringing technology into elementary classrooms, which can be utilized by teachers who may have only minimal knowledge of computer systems and programs. It would also be an attractive project for teachers to develop in conjunction with district technology support teams or local universities who can provide technology support.

Integrating Activities in Social Skills Lessons At this stage, the teacher combines the social skills with an appropriate cooperative structure that includes activities and games for each lesson. There are various activities and games that can be used for teaching social skills, and the following sections present and show teachers how some of the activities can be implemented.

Cooperative learning activities. As indicated earlier, cooperative activities and games can be incorporated into the SST so as to promote positive interactions and generalize the new-learned skills. For example, an activity called Thingamajig can be used to teach the students cooperative problem-solving skills. Small teams are formed, and each team is given a Ziploc bag of materials such as color cardboard squares, pipe cleaners, and paper clips. Students are then asked to brainstorm ideas and work together creatively to make something out of the materials. When all the teams have finished their projects, the teacher states that in real life there are often multiple ways to solve problems, and these problems require teamwork and cooperation. Through activities such as the Thingamajig, students learn to work with their teammates and evaluate solutions to problems as a means of testing and enriching their understanding. Examples of cooperative activities for teaching social skills can be found in Appendix C.

Activities based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some strategies based on CBT help students to modify their thinking patterns and develop more functional behaviors. Students with E/BD often need to be taught how use cognitive strategies such as self-evaluation and self-recording to mediate their behaviors. Teachers can use contracts to teach students how to assess their own behaviors according to a predetermined goal. The contract is an agreement between the teacher and student, stating a behavioral goal that the student will work towards and the reward that will be earned for achieving that goal. For younger students, teachers can use some simple self-recording forms, which require them to color an object (e.g., a balloon) when they use a certain skill.

73


Because of the long-term stability of cognitive and behavior problems in children with E/BD, according to Camp and Bash (1981), it is important to increase their repertoire of alternatives. Therefore, the teacher may introduce the concept of think of as many ideas as you can to the students. The companion concept that can be used to help the students brainstorm is: That is one idea. What is a different idea? The teacher can also help students to build up a vocabulary that helps them to identify emotions and to learn the use of phrases such as what...if, what may happen next, and what are the consequences. This type of lesson is illustrated by the following example:

Teacher: Since the children came back to the professor’s house, there are no more kings or queens in the land of Narnia, so who is going to rule the country?Student 1: If I were Aslan, I would ask Mr. Tumnus the Faun to be the King.Teacher: Thank you. What may happen if Mr. Tumnus became the king?Student 2: Mr. Tumnus is a very nice faun and he helped in the battle against the Witch, he should be the king.Student 3: I think Mr. and Mrs. Beaver should be the king and queen.Teacher: Thank you. How would you feel if you lived in Narnia under the governance of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver? What is a different solution Aslan can use to solve the problem?Student 4: The Beavers are not strong enough to protect Narnia. The giants should be the kings.Teacher: Thank you for sharing your ideas! Of all these solutions, which one do you think resolves the problem best? The teacher can then continue pairing solutions and consequences and let the students evaluate each solution.

Maintenance activities. As mentioned, an important emphasis of SST is on increasing generalization in real-life situations. This may involve discussing other situations in which the skills may be helpful and provoking behaviors and responses which typically occur in social situations. In addition, to help students continue to use the skills over time and in other settings, maintenance activities such as friendship songs and art activities can be presented in the form of typical classroom activities. Opportunities can also be created for students to teach the skills they learned to the class or younger children in the school.

Other games and social activities. A variety of group games can be used to facilitate the social skills practices and generalization. Group games such as Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey often require students to practice a variety of social skills, which include taking turns, sharing, and showing good sportsmanship. Teachers can also use social activities such as parties creatively to promote positive interactions and generalize skills in real life situations. For example, in the study (Chen & Bullock, 2004) mentioned previously, when the class was reading the chapter about Lucy having tea with the Faun, a tea party was held to teach students table etiquette. As the class read the story, teachers can ask students to portray pro-social behaviors described in the book. In this way, characters with pro-social behaviors serve not only as models, but also as a springboard for more in-depth discussions of the target skills and how they can be used in a given situation. Furthermore, skits, dramas, and role-plays predicting how characters will deal with specific situations can also be used to enhance students’ ability to investigate different behavioral strategies and experience the outcomes in a safe environment.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the SST ProgramAs mentioned previously, in planning the program, the teacher will first need to conduct a needs assessment (i.e., a pretest) of each student’s social skill deficits and strengths by using individual assessments, and/or teacher observations, interviews, as well as education and psychological evaluation records. Following the completion of a SST program, for the purpose of gaining information about possible progress in terms of the students’ social skills, the teacher could do a posttest of each student’s social skills utilizing a reliable instrument such as an effective rating scale. Typically speaking, the ratings of the same student by the same individual (e.g., a teacher) at two different times (before and after the intervention) provide information on the stability of ratings over time. Test reliability is considered to be high when more than one respondent rates the same person in a consistent manner on the different occasions (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004).

Teachers can conduct post-interviews with the same teaching staff, students and/or parents who were interviewed before the implementation of the curriculum. Interviews across sources allow for the specific identification and delineation of the students’ behaviors. They also bring about insights and perspectives that rating scales cannot otherwise accomplish, and they therefore enhance the reliability of

74


the intervention. Observations across time (before and after the intervention) can also provide useful information.

Conclusion Building upon practice and related research on SST for students with E/BD, this article describes how social skills interventions can be accomplished through the use of a story-based method that employs telecommunications and activities. By providing intensive, literature-based training in small groups, social skills lessons provide students opportunities to practice skills in a natural, real-life environment and therefore increased the likelihood of generalizing these new-learned skills in other settings. It links cooperative learning arrangements with social skills instruction to accelerate student learning and to improve students' social competence. The use of telecommunications also enhanced students’ acquisitions of the skills and motivates their interests to learn.As teachers explore innovative ways to enhance students’ social competence, they may want to consider the complexity of learning social competence and how difficult it is for students to gain mastery (Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998). Although stories, technology, and activities motivate students to participate in class and offer a fun alternative to reinforce learning, schools should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the SST programs as part of the instructional curriculum. Otherwise, a SST curriculum for these exceptional learners can degenerate into a situation of fun and play with beans and sticks.

In today’s modern societies, the demands of a fast-changing society put a great deal of pressure both on children and youth as well as their families. Indicators of mental health among students in the U.S.A (and some other countries alike) suggest that the issue of providing education and services for students with emotional and behavioral challenges should be examined more closely. More research, both theoretical and empirical, should be carried out to explore the overall efficacy of social skills training in general, the effectiveness of particular approaches, and to identify more proven strategies that promote students’ social competence.

ReferencesAnderson, P. L. (2000). Using literature to teach social skills to adolescents with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 271-279.Barry, L. M., & Burlew, S. B. (2004). Using social stories to teach choice and play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(1), 45-51.Camp, B. W., & Bash, M. S. (1981). Think aloud: Increasing social and cognitive skills—A problem-solving program for children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Chen, K. (2006). Social skills intervention for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: A literaturereview from the American perspective. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(3), 143-149. Chen, K., & Bullock, L. (2004). Social skills intervention for students with emotional/behavioral disorders aged six through twelve years: A combination of a literature-based curriculum and telecommunications. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 9(4), 231-236. Chen, K., Estes, M. (2007). Social skills training in schools: Where we have been and where we can go. Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 9, 1-31.Clough, P. (2005). Handbook of emotional and behavioral difficulties. London: SAGE.Cobb, S., Beardon, L., Eastgate, R., Glover, T., Kerr, S., Neale, H., et al. (2002). Applied virtual environments to support learning of social interaction skills in users with Asperger’s Syndrome. Digital Creativity, 13(1), 11-22.Corso, R. M. (2007). Practices for enhancing children’s social-emotional development and preventing challenging behavior. Gifted Child Today, 30(3), 51-56.DeGeorge, K. L. (1998). Friendship and stories: Using children’s literature to teach friendship skills to children with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 157-162.Dennison, S. (2008). Measuring the treatment outcome of short-term school-based social skills groups. Social Work with Groups, 31(3-4), 307-328.Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. (1998). Teaching social skills to students with learning and behavior problems. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 131-140.Goldstein, A. P. (1999). The prepare curriculum: Teaching prosocial competencies (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.Gresham, F. M. (1995). Best practices in social skills training. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.1021-1030). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

75


Gresham, F. M. (1998). Social skills training: Should we raze, remodel, or rebuild? Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 19-25.Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 331- 344.Holton, D., Ahmed, A., Williams, H., & Hili, C. (2001). On the importance of mathematical play. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32, 401-415.Janney, R., & Snell, M. (2006). Social relationships and peer support. Baltimore: Brookes.Koegel, R. L., Schreibman, L., Good, A., Cerniglia, L., Murphy, C., & Koegel, L. K. (1989). How to teach pivotal behaviors to children with autism: A training manual . Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.Lewis, C. S. (1950). The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (1994 reprint). New York: HarperCollins. Meadows, N., Neel, R. S., Parker, G., & Timo, K. (1991). A validation of social skills for students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16(3), 200-210.Melloy, K. J., Davis, C. A., Wehby, J. H., Murry, F. R., & Leiber, J. (1998). Developing social competence in children and youth with challenging behaviors. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Second CCBD mini-library series: Successful interventions for the 21st century. Reston, VA: CCBD.Nelson, C. M., & Rutherford, R. B., Jr. (1988). Behavioral interventions with behaviorally disordered students. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. (Vol. 2, pp. 125-153). New York: Pergamon. Parsons, S., Mitchell, P., & Leonard, A. (2004). The use and understanding of virtual environments by adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 449-466.Pearsall, J., & Trumble B. (Eds.). (1996). The Oxford English reference dictionary. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261-276.Regan, K. S. (2009). Improving the way we think about students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(5), 60-65.Richardson, B. G., & Shupe, M. J. (2003). The importance of teacher self-awareness in working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36 (2), 8-13.Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2004). Assessment: In special and inclusive education. Indianapolis, IN: Houghton Mifflin.Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259. Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Walker, H. M., McConnell, S., Holmes, D., Todis, B., Walker, J., & Golden, N. (1983). The Walker social skills curriculum: The ACCEPTS program. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Wright, D. (2006). Classroom karma: Positive learning, positive behavior, positive learning. London: David Fulton.Wood, J. W. (2006). Teaching students in inclusive settings: Adapting and accommodating instruction. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

76

http://www.textbookland.com/books/waitpage.php?ISBN=0618273999&Name=Assessment+%3A+In+Special+and+Inclusive+Education&Authr=Frances+M.+Hunt&Year=January%2C+2004


Appendix ASummary of the social skill training (SST) study (Chen & Bullock, 2004)

The purposes of the study reported here were to investigate the social competence of students aged from six to twelve, diagnosed with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD) in a public self-contained school setting, and to increase the students’ social competence by using a literature-based method that employed multiage grouping, impersonation, and telecommunications. By providing intensive, literature-based training in a multiage classroom, the social skills training (SST) gave students opportunities to practice skills in a natural, real-life environment and, therefore, increased the likelihood of generalizing these skills in other settings. The employment of impersonation and telecommunications also enhanced students’ acquisition of social skills and their interests to learn.

The subjects (eight males and one female) for this study were students from one of the most comprehensive regional programs for students with E/BD in north central Texas. Students who attended the research site had a history of significant behavioral, emotional, social, and school related problems at their home campuses, and all of them were eligible for and received special education services.

Analysis of the Behavior Dimensions Rating Scale (BDRS; Bullock & Wilson, 1989) data and interviews revealed that the majority of subjects (66.7% of the subjects, according to data from the BDRS and, 77.8% according the data from interviews) had demonstrated evident improvement in their social competence. The aim of investigating and enhancing the social competence of young students (aged from six to twelve) with E/BD was achieved.

Appendix BSynopsis of the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

The story, in this first of seven Chronicles of Narnia, begins when four sibling children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy are sent to an unusual house in the English countryside during World War II to live with a kind old professor. During a game of hide-and-seek with her brothers and sister, Lucy, the youngest of the four, finds that the big wardrobe in the professor’s house leads to the land of Narnia. Lucy meets and befriends Mr. Tumnus the faun, and eventually brings her siblings through the wardrobe to Narnia.

After learning that an evil White Witch has ruled the land of Narnia for one hundred years and made sure that it is always winter and never Christmas, the children become involved in saving Narnia from her evil curse with the help of the land’s resident deity, a lion-god named Aslan. However, Edmund betrays his siblings to the White Witch, who knows she must capture the siblings because it has been foretold that Narnia will return to its true form when four Kings and Queens sit upon the four thrones at the castle of Cair Paravel. Aslan does return to Narnia, and Edmund knows that he has wronged all of Narnia, but only by Aslan’s sacrifice of death (killed by the White Witch) can Edmund be forgiven. The Witch slays Aslan at the Stone Table, but Aslan rises from the dead. Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, along with Aslan’s army of Narnians defeat the White Witch and her evil followers in the battle. Narnia is saved. The siblings are appointed the Kings and Queens of Narnia. Many years pass and the siblings all grow up, and one day while hunting a White Stag, they find themselves stumbling back through the wardrobe in the professor’s house, and find that they are all children again. Throughout the story, these ordinary boys and girls learn extraordinary lessons in courage, self-sacrifice, friendship, and honor when faced with peril.

Appendix CExamples of Cooperative Activities for Teaching Social Skills

1. Marketing Narnia. This activity can be adapted for any age. Students are asked to create akid’s meal package for a fast-food restaurant to promote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. They will need to decorate it with scenes from the book (pictures of the scenes, a lunch bag, glue, scissors, tapes, and markers will be provided). They will also design a toy that would be included with the meal as a free gift. There will be ten minutes for them to work together in small groups. Finally, they are to present their packages to the class and give the teacher their opinions as to why she should take their ideas.

77


2. The friendship recipe. (Background: In the story The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mr. Tumnus has become Lucy’s good friend. He risks his life to let Lucy go. He was kind, honest, and faithful. Today we are going to talk about what it means to be a friend. Here are some questions for us to discuss : What is a friend? How would you define a friend? Students will be given a chance to think about the questions presented. Different group members will be assigned to play different roles—the scribe who will be writing down the group’s ideas on the worksheet, the spokesman who will be responsible of reporting their project to the class, and the coach who will give instruction and make sure everyone in the group agrees with the procedures (there will be no coach if there were only two people in the group). The friendship worksheets will be designed to elicit the characteristics that the students feel are important in being a good friend. The students will be asked to come up with four traits that they look for in a friend and share with the class what they had decided to be positive characteristics of a friend. The final question on the friend recipe worksheet deals with friendship traits that the students felt would spoil friendship. Each group will be asked to write the traits on a chart (one side of the chart said Good Friend Traits and the other said Bad Friend Traits). The students will be given about 15 minutes to express their thoughts and ideas to their groups and present their charts to the class. The spokesmen reads all the items listed in the chart aloud and elaborates on what each trait means to them as far as what they look for in a friend. The teacher will give stars to students who were on task. In the meantime, the students will then be invited to share their stories of being a good friend to others. Throughout the session stars will be given to students.

3. Toothpaste time. (Materials: paper plates, small tubes of toothpaste, $5 bill)

Procedures: A. Divide the class into groups of 3. Pass out paper plates and toothpaste tubes. B. Explain the rules of the activity. C. No one is allowed to open the toothpaste until directed to do so. D. No one is allowed to touch the toothpaste with his or her fingers or to spread the toothpaste around the tube or anywhere outside the plate. E. Ask the students to squeeze some of the toothpaste out of the tube onto the plate. F. After the students are finished, the teacher holds out a real $5 bill and tells the class that this will be given to the group which can put back every bit of toothpaste back into the tube. Of course, it is impossible to do this; therefore, the teacher gets to keep the money. The teacher then explains to the class that hurtful words are like the toothpaste. Once the words leave our mouth, we can’t take them back or make them go away. No amount of money can erase the hurtful feelings of the person we said those words to. You may be able to apologize for what you said, but that does not erase the feelings of hurt that the person experienced. The teacher reminds the students of what was learned through the story. They are asked to recall how hurtful it was when Peter calls Edmund a beast in the story. The students are also asked to recall how the traits of a good friend include acceptance and tolerance.

78


PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSION AND SCHOOLING OF STUDENTS WITH ANGELMAN SYNDROME: SUGGESTIONS FOR EDUCATORS

Yona Leyser Ph. D.Rea Kirk Ed. D

Northern Illinois UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-Platteville

This study examined perspectives on inclusion and schooling of a sample of 68 parents of children with Angelman Syndrome (a severe and complex disability), and solicited their suggestions and recommendations for educators. Participants responded to a scale titled, Perceptions of Parents of Children with Angelman Syndrome toward School adapted from two instruments developed previously (Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Salend, 2001). Parents also responded to several open-ended questions. Findings revealed not only a strong support of the philosophical and legal principles of inclusion, but also major concerns such as a lack of knowledge and skills by teachers and possible rejection of the child. A sizable number of parents still supported the education of their child in segregated special education settings. Most parents were satisfied with the child’s schooling, but were concerned about the lack of services and difficulties of communication with the school and the district. Parents offered helpful insights about their children and families. A discussion of the study results and implications for pre-service and in-service training are provided.

Introduction Educational systems around the world in developed and developing nations are undergoing school reforms. One of these reforms is related to the progressive inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms and school environments (Ainscow & Miles, 2008; Mittler, 2002; Smith-Davis, 2002). The extent to which inclusive practices are implemented is influenced by cultural, political, social and economic contexts and by various interpretations of the concept. Implementation therefore differs among nations, states, regions, and school districts (Friend, 2011; Gabel & Danforth, 2008; Jenkinson, 1998; Rouse & Florian, 1996; Vazins, 2009). Parents have a major role in the development of successful inclusion programs. Indeed, special education reform acts and regulations in many countries provide guidelines for the active participation and involvement of parents in the education of their child. For example, in the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act P.L. 94-142, most currently revised in 2004 as P.L. 108-446 (U.S. Congress, 1997; U.S. Congress, 2004) has strong provisions for parent participation. Furthermore, research has demonstrated the benefits of collaborative relationships between home and school which include higher academic achievements, positive attitudes, improved behavior, and more successful programs (Yssel, Engelbrecht, Oswald, Eloff, & Swart, 2007). Parent reactions are also vital in the evaluation of inclusive programs. Their evaluation of curriculum, training of teachers and administrators, and their child’s education can provide valuable feedback to schools (Garrick, Duhaney, & Salend, 2000; Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Seery, Davis, & Johnson, 2000). Results from studies which examined views of parents of children with disabilities about inclusion and integrated educational programs are mixed. For example, several investigators examined the views of parents of children with mild or moderate disabilities in elementary and pre-school programs. Several of these studies reported that parents were supportive of inclusion practices and were satisfied with these programs and the benefits for their child (Bennett, DeLuca, & Bruns, 1997; Miller, Strain, Boyd, Hunsicker, McKinley, & Wu, 1992; Seery et al., 2000). However, results from other studies report less support (Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997).

Several studies of parents of students with severe disabilities in integrated programs from pre-school to high school supported their child’s placement and expressed satisfaction with the educational outcomes, in particular the social benefits (Davern, 1999; Freeman, Alkins, & Kassari, 1999; Gallagher, Floyd, Stafford, Taber, Bronzovic, & Alberto, 2000; Hanline & Halvorsen, 1989; Palmer, Borthwick-Duffy, & Widaman, 1998; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995; Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, Smith, & Leal, 2002). A few investigators, however, suggested that some parents of children with severe disabilities do not favour inclusion (Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001).

79


Although the evidence presented suggests that many parents were in favour of inclusive education, they often expressed a number of doubts and concerns. For example, Hanline and Halvorsen (1989) identified six areas of pre-transition concerns: safety; attitudes of other students; staff and program quality; transportation; district commitment; and potential for failure. Other concerns mentioned by parents included worries about possible verbal and physical abuse by peers, social isolation, and loss or reduction of services and of quality of instruction (Pivik, Mccomas & Laflamme, 2002; Runswik-Cole, 2008); Palmer et al. (2001) reported that parents were concerned that the severity of the child’s disability precluded benefits from inclusion, that inclusion would overburden general education teachers or students, and that the child was too behaviorally disruptive and could hurt others. Similar concerns by Australian parents were reported by Jenkinson (1998).

Some parents still harboured anxieties and concerns after their children were placed in inclusive programs. These included worries about inadequate training, attitudes of general education teachers, lack of appropriate support and resources, and lack of specialized instruction, as well as concerns about the social integration and academic progress of their child (Bennett et al., 1997; Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Frederickson, Dunsmuir, Lang & Monsen, 2004; Garrick Duhaney, & Salend, 2000; Grove & Fisher, 1999; Pivik, Mccomas & Laflamme, 2002; Runswik-Cole, 2008; Seery et. al., 2000).

One of the areas of much concern often cited by parents of students with disabilities often cited is their unhappiness with the relationship, communication and partnership between home and school (Davern, 1999; Frederickson et. al., 2004; Lovitt & Cushing, 1999). Parents were often found to express frustrations with the process used to develop the Individualized Education Program (IEP), reporting a lack of respect and receptivity toward their views, feelings of intimidation, and a lack of understanding of their needs. They also reported the feeling of being less than equal partners (Childre & Chambers, 2005; Soodak & Ervin, 2000; Stoner, Bock, Thompson, Angell, Heyl, & Crowley, 2005; Tetreau, 1995).

Attitudes of parents toward inclusion are influenced by several variables such as satisfaction with the educational services their child receives and their beliefs about the educational goals. While parents who are interested in socialization opportunities favour inclusion, parents who are concerned with academic goals favour a continuum of educational placements aimed at meeting academic standards. Other variables related to attitudes include the child’s age, parent socioeconomic status and educational background, years of experience with an inclusive setting, number of children, and marital status (Freeman, Alkin, & Kasari, 1999; Garrick, Duhaney, & Salend, 2000; Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Palmer, Borthwick – Duffy, & Widaman, 1998; Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998).

Most of the studies reported in the literature examined attitudes of parents of students identified as having mild to moderate disabilities, or of students with severe disabilities. Some focused on a single etiological group of children or a particular type of disability, for example, parents of children with Down syndrome or with autism (Freeman et al., 1999; Kasari, Freeman, Bauminger, & Alkin, 1999), parents of children with a neuromuscular disease (Strong & Sandoval, 1999), and parents of children with mobility limitations (Pivik, Mccomas & Laflamme, 2002). The focus of this study was on parents of children with Angelman syndrome (AS).

The first three children with AS were diagnosed in England in 1965 by Dr. Harry Angelman. In the United States the first reports of AS were in the early 1980s. Most children however with AS have been diagnosed in the past 15 years. Because AS is a relatively new diagnosis, and it is so rare, its prevalence is not precisely known. It is estimated that between one per 12,000 and one per 30,000 people have AS. An incorrect diagnosis (usually of autism) has often been made.

For the majority of people with AS, the cause is a deletion in chromosome 15. This is true for about 70% of those diagnosed with AS. Another five to seven percent have a mutation of the chromosomal region in UBE3A. Two to three percent have no deletion or mutation, but the person is still missing the active UBE3A gene. Some have unusual chromosomal rearrangements and for the rest (about 15%), the cause is still unknown (Summers, Allison, Lynch, & Sandler, 1995).

Individuals with Angelman Syndrome are characterized by a developmental delay and intellectual disability. Communication problems include diminished or absence of speech. There are motor problems which include an inability to walk or walking with a stiff and jerky gait. Hand flapping is another symptom. EEG abnormalities and seizures are often reported. Physical and sensory

80


characteristics include a large jaw, large mouth, and eye abnormalities. A person with AS is also characterized by a loving, happy and excitable personality. Frequent laughter is typical (Clarke & Marston, 2000; Richard & Hoge, 1999; Summers, Allison, Lynch, & Sandler, 1995; Summers & Feldman, 1999).

Although studies on parents’ views regarding inclusion have been reported, their continued input and perspectives about inclusion and their educational experiences are crucial for the assessment and evaluation of inclusive school environments. Perspectives may also change over time as more successful inclusive practices are implemented. Furthermore as Kasari et al., (1999) reported, the diagnosis of the child impacted parent attitudes toward inclusive education. Studies should therefore be designed of parents of children with different disabilities such as parents of children with AS whose perspectives have not yet been examined.

This study was undertaken to explore the beliefs of parents of children with AS about inclusion and their experiences, satisfaction and concerns related to the child’s schooling. The study was also designed to solicit parents’ suggestions and recommendations for educators. This study also examined the association between parent and child demographic variables, namely age, educational level, and extent of inclusion, on attitudes toward inclusion.

MethodParticipantsParticipants were 68 parents of children with AS who responded to a survey instrument about inclusion and schooling. These parents were from across the United States who attended the Angelman Syndrome Foundation (ASF) conference and parents who responded to the on-line survey posted on the ASF website (see procedure). Surveys were completed mostly by mothers (80%). Over three-fourths (78.8%) were European American, and a similar percentage considered themselves to be middle income. About one-third reported that both mothers and fathers were high school graduates and/or had some college education. All others were college graduates. Most (87%) were married. The age range for children with AS was from three years to 18+. One-fourth were in the three to five year old age range; about 40% were ages six through twelve; and about one-third were age twelve or above. Fifty-six percent were boys. Most (65%) were included in regular school settings. Parents reported that about 45% were mainstreamed into regular classrooms for part of the day, 10% all day, 40% not at all, and 5% did not know.

ProcedurePermission to carry out the study was granted by the Angelman Syndrome Foundation (ASF). They also provided assistance in carrying out the study. Surveys were distributed in hard copy at the ASF conference held in 2007. Forms were also available on-line on the ASF website. A monthly reminder about the survey appeared on this website. Consent forms were available both on-line and in hard copy. The completed forms were submitted electronically or by hard copy to the researchers. No differences in the responses on the hard copies (color coded in blue) or on the electronic mail (color coded in white) were noted.

InstrumentThe instrument titled Perceptions of Parents of Children with Angelman Syndrome Toward School was administered. It included a brief introduction indicating the purpose of the survey, namely to learn about parents’ views, thoughts, and feelings and to solicit their input regarding inclusion and schooling of their child with AS. In Part One of the instrument, parents were asked to provide background information (i.e., race, community, marital status, occupation, education level, age of child and degree to which the child was mainstreamed). Part Two titled Thinking About My Child’s Education included a 20 item rating scale examining attitudes toward inclusion and schooling. The scale was adopted and slightly modified from a scale previously used by Leyser and Kirk (2004) and a scale developed by Salend (2001). This part had two sections. Twelve items explored attitudes toward inclusion, and eight items explored perspectives regarding their school experiences. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with a midpoint at 3 (undecided). Fifteen items were worded so that a response represented a favourable disposition toward inclusion and positive perceptions about the child’s schooling. Five items expressed a negative view about inclusion. Scores of these five items were reverse-coded during the statistical analysis so that a low rating on each item was interpreted as a

81


favourable attitude regarding inclusion and schooling. Cronbach alpha reliability analysis of the total scale (after item reversals) was .77. The reliability for the 12 items measuring attitudes toward inclusion was .75. The reliability for eight items measuring disposition toward schooling was .86.

In the third part, parents were asked to respond to four open-ended questions regarding the joys and challenges related to their child’s education, their goals and dreams, and about what they would like teachers and school districts to know regarding the family and the child, as well as any other information they would like to share. Ample space was provided for responses to each question.

Data AnalysisIn this study both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. This allowed the researchers to elaborate on the findings in greater depth and provided a richer understanding of the data (Creswell, 2009).

Quantitative DataFrequencies, percents, means, and standard deviations were calculated for the demographic variables and for each of the 20 items on the attitude questionnaire. Anova’s and t- tests were carried out on the demographic characteristics and parent attitude scores.

Qualitative DataThe investigators used a modified form of the Critical Incident Technique, which involves the collection of real-world examples of behavior that characterize either very effective or very ineffective performance of some activity (Stano, 1983). The technique does not consist of a single rigid set of rules but rather should be thought of as a flexible set of principles… (Flanagan, 1954, p.335; Stano, 1983, p.3). According to Creswell (2009), during the data analysis, raters build their categories from a large specific base into more general categories, going back and forth between categories and database until a comprehensive set of themes is achieved.

The qualitative rich data garnered from the four open-ended survey questions allowed the investigators to generate information based on first-hand accounts of actual, personally meaningful perceptions of the parents. By comparing the number of times each concept was cited, the relative importance of different factors was inferred.

Two raters, one of the investigators and a graduate assistant, independently sorted statements by grouping similar incidents together into piles. Summary statements were developed for each pile for which a category was developed. These categories were then collapsed into more general categories, again done independently by both the investigator and the graduate student. This process was repeated a third time until no new categories emerged. When the two raters disagreed, they met to determine the correct categorization of the disputed statements. Disagreements only happened on placement of six statements. As experts note, reliability of rating in this type of study by independent raters (or observers) is established when the use of the same procedures yields similar results (Flanagan, 1954; Yin, 1994). This was accomplished here. Creswell (2009) noted that validity is established when the researcher, participants, or readers perceive the results as accurate. Words such as authentic and credible establish validity. The Angelman Syndrome Foundation’s executive assistant and editor of Voices of Angeles (associated newsletter), after seeing the results of the study, indicated that she deemed this study to be accurate and credible.

ResultsTable 1 refers to Part Two of the survey and depicts the mean scores and SD’s of parents’ rating of items exploring attitudes toward inclusion and schooling. Responses to items about inclusion reveal that almost all (95.6%) believed that inclusion is a civil rights issue, namely that students with AS have the right to attend the same school as their peers without disabilities (item 1). Similarly, more than three-fourths (77.9%) responded that children with AS should be given every opportunity to function in the general classroom (item 3). A large majority (86.8%) felt that inclusion is advantageous for the socialization of their child (item 6). Almost all parents (91.2%) responded that they would like to see their child have contact in school with peers without disabilities (item 9). In addition, most parents

82


(92.7%) felt that inclusion is also advantageous for peers without disabilities by fostering acceptance of individual differences (item 8).

Table 1: Numbers, Percentages, Mean and SD’s for responses to Attitudes Toward Inclusion and Schooling

(N=68)

Item

1 2 3 4 5StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

DisagreeN ( %) N ( %) N ( %) N ( %) N ( %) M SD

1. Students with AS have the same right to be educated in same school as other students.

55 (80.9) 10 (14.7) 2 (2.9) ----- 1 (1.5) 1.26 .66

3. Children with AS should be given every opportunity to function in general classrooms.

33 (48.5) 20 (29.4) 7 (10.3) 7 (10.3) 1 (1.5) 1.87 1.06

6. Inclusion is socially advantageous for children with AS.

39 (57.4) 20 (29.4) 6 (8.8) 1 (1.5) 2 (2.9) 1.63 .92

9. I would like my child to have contact with typically developing children.

45 (66.2) 17 (25.0) 3 (4.4) 2 (2.9) 1 (1.5) 1.49 .83

8. The presence of children with AS promotes acceptance of individual differences.

38 (55.9) 25 (36.8) 4 (5.9) 1 (1.5) ----- 1.53 .68

4. Parents of children with AS prefer to place their child in inclusion.

6 (8.8) 24 (35.3) 28 (41.2) 8 (11.8) 2 (2.9) 2.65 .91

2. It is difficult to teach all students in a class if one student has AS.*

4 (5.9) 19 (27.9) 11 (16.2) 18 (26.5) 16 (23.5) 2.661 1.27

5. The needs of students with AS cannot be met by a regular classroom teacher plus an aide.*

15 (22.1) 14 (20.6) 12 (17.6) 4 (25.0) 10 (14.7) 3.101 1.39

7. Children with AS are likely to be

9 (13.2) 8 (11.8) 11 (16.2) 31 (45.6) 9 (13.2) 2.661 1.24

83


Item

1 2 3 4 5StronglyAgree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

DisagreeN ( %) N ( %) N ( %) N ( %) N ( %) M SD

isolated in inclusion.*

13. My child has been teased in school.*

1 (1.5) 6 (8.8) 23 (33.8) 22 (32.4) 16 (23.5) 2.321 .98

20. Parents of children without disabilities resent children with AS in the classroom.*

3 (4.4) 13 (19.1) 18 (26.5) 25 (36.8) 9 (13.2) 2.651 1.07

15. I like my child to be in inclusion next year.

23 (33.8) 12 (17.6) 16 (23.5) 13 (19.1) 4 (5.9) 2.46 1.29

17. This school year is going well.

22 (32.4) 28 (41.2) 13 (19.1) 4 (5.9) 1 (1.5) 2.03 .94

12. I feel school has been positive for my child.

32 (47.1) 29 (42.6) 4 (5.9) 3 (4.4) ----- 1.68 .78

18. My relationship with my child’s teacher and therapist is good.

27 (39.7) 28 (41.2) 10 (14.7) 3 (4.4) ----- 1.84 .84

11. I feel satisfied with school communication.

15 (22.1) 26 (38.2) 11 (16.2) 12 (17.6) 4 (5.9) 2.47 1.19

19. My relationship with the school district administration is good.

15 (22.1) 29 (42.6) 14 (20.6) 7 (10.3) 3 (4.4) 2.32 1.07

10. I feel satisfied with services my child receives.

15 (22.1) 24 (35.3) 14 (20.6) 12 (17.6) 3 (4.4) 2.47 1.15

14. I feel school dida good job explaining services.

15 (22.1) 31 (45.6) 4 (5.9) 16 (23.5) 2 (2.9) 2.40 1.16

16. The IEP process has been helpful.

16 (23.5) 25 (36.8) 10 (14.7) 10 (14.7) 7 (10.3) 2.51 1.28

*Negative items. Scores should be reversed. 1Mean scores after reversal. Lower scores are indicative of a more positive disposition

Despite that strong support for inclusion, responses to several other items revealed parental concerns and reservations. For example, about one-third (33.8%) responded that it is difficult to teach in a class if a child with AS is included, while another 16% were not sure (item 2). Forty-three percent felt that the needs of a child with AS cannot be met by a regular classroom teacher with an aide, while another 18%

84


were not sure (item 5). One-fourth also felt that the child with AS is likely to be socially isolated in an inclusive school while another 16% were not sure (item 7). On the question whether their child has been teased by others in school (item 13), about one-third of parents were not sure. One-fourth felt that parents of classroom peers resent children with AS in the inclusive classroom, while another one-fourth were not sure (item 20). Would these parents want their child to be in an inclusion setting next year? (item15) One-fourth said, No and another fourth were unsure. Interestingly, on the question whether other parents of children with AS favour inclusion, (item 4), only about 45% gave an affirmative response while another 45% of respondents were undecided and approximately 10% did not think so.

These ratings by parents showing support for inclusion, on the one hand, yet also, revealing concerns and worries were echoed in the many written comments given to the open-ended questions. Categorization of these responses revealed that almost half (45.6%) gave support for inclusion. Examples of this view were, I personally do not view inclusive education as a choice but as a human rights issue; segregation is wrong. A center program or self-contained classroom might have the best funded staff and intentions, but it’s the wrong thing to do; and Child has severe AS--want as much school inclusion as possible so child meets a variety of students and they better understand her as much as possible.

Other parents expressed concerns and were critical about inclusion. This was demonstrated in statements such as, Elementary school was a nightmare, our son was included in regular education classes. Most teachers had no clue what to do, the certified staff ignored any input from parents; The greatest joy has happened within the last year when my son went to a special school out of the public school district … where other individuals are like him; and Center-based schooling offers the opportunity to hone in on the emerging skills and maximize the education process that highly trained special ed. teachers are familiar with. More emphasis needs to be put on the quality of the services and not on the location of services.

A few parents expressed unhappiness with both inclusion and special education placements and chose to home school their child, i.e., We have given home education to our daughter for six years, with the guidance and therapeutic recommendations of the National Association of Child Development. Her function is already higher than is expected of a child with Angelman syndrome. This repeatedly causes us to question the focus and materials of the traditional education and therapy systems.

Responses to items about schooling showed that a majority (73.6%) felt that the current school year is going well for their child (item 17), and a large majority (89.7%) reported that school has been positive for their child (item 12). Most (80.9%) also reported good relationships with teachers and therapists (item 18). However, less satisfaction can be seen with school’s communication (item 11) where about 60% expressed satisfaction, but one-fourth stated no satisfaction and another 16% were not sure. Parents were also unhappy with their relationships with the district administration (item 19) where 66.7% were satisfied while all others were unsure or not satisfied. Only 57.4% were satisfied with school services (item10) while all others were unsure or not satisfied. While many (about 70%) felt school did a nice job explaining the services (item 14), one-fourth did not think so. Finally, about 60% felt the IEP process had been helpful, yet about 40% did not think so or were unsure (item 16).

These ratings were supported by parents’ comments on the open-ended questions. For example, They always give my child every opportunity to succeed with any of his goals or our goals. I am thrilled with my son’s achievement at this school, I have always been happy with his education, and he has always received services he needed. R. had teachers and therapists that cared for him and had his best interest in mind. On the other hand, several were not satisfied: I feel public schools should be able to provide more services and more semester hours of PT, OT, and speech. Many of the hours (my child receives) are on a consultant basis. I feel that is ridiculous.

Several parents expressed dissatisfaction with their relationships and communication with school and the district: District communication has been horrible since day one. District attentiveness to my daughter’s needs has been negligent at best. There were also some comments about positive communication: We have good communication with the school staff; we encourage them to treat her as normal [sic] as possible. She gets rewards and time-outs just like a regular eight year old.

Variables Influencing Parents’ Views about InclusionT- tests and Anova’s were carried out to examine the impact of two background variables on attitudes toward inclusion. The variables were attendance in a regular school building and extent of inclusion in a

85


regular classroom. The attitude score was the mean score of 12 items exploring attitudes toward inclusion on the questionnaire. Results are explained below.

Attending a regular school building Two groups were compared. Group 1 was composed of parents (N=44) who reported their child attended a regular school building ( as opposed to a special school), and group 2 were those who reported their child attended a regular school only part of the time or attended a segregated setting (N=23). The mean scores and SD’s for group 1 were M=2.06, SD=.46 and for group 2, M=2.41, SD=.58. The t-test between groups was significant (t65=-2.69, p<.009). Parents of children who were educated in regular public school buildings held more positive views about inclusion than those who reported their child attended a public school only part of the time or was educated in a segregated setting.

Extent of inclusion in regular classroomsTwo groups of parents were compared. Group 1 (N=36) was composed of parents who reported their child was mainstreamed or included all day or part of the day in a regular classroom, and Group 2 (N=28) contained those who reported their child was not at all mainstreamed or did not know (only three stated they did not know). The mean scores and SD’s for Group 1 were M=2.07, SD=.48 and for group 2 M=2.31, SD=.58. The t-test between the two groups was marginally significant (t62=-1.79, p<.078). Parents whose children were mainstreamed tended to hold more positive views about inclusion. No significant differences on attitudes were found for gender, occupation of parents (two levels), schooling (two levels) or child’s age (three levels).

Analyses of Responses to Open-ended QuestionsParents’ Goals and Dreams.Parents’ comments regarding their goals and dreams for their children were grouped into several major categories. Responses that were most common revealed that a major goal they wished for their child was to have social skills, a social life and friends (31 responses). This was followed by the dream of happiness and enjoyment in life (22 responses). Other common themes were: be as independent as possible (22 responses); be able to communicate (17 responses); and be safe and secure (15 responses). Parents also mentioned future goals such as: live independently or semi-independently or be taken care of by another person (16 responses); live in the community and be accepted and productive (16 responses); and live in a group home (seven responses). Also mentioned was a goal of reaching his/her potential (11 responses). These dreams were summarized by a parent who said, We all have the same basic hopes and dreams for our child: health; happiness; and safety. A few responses revealed worries and concerns, i.e., I don’t know; I am living one day at a time, and, I hope he will have some kind of skill to participate in society. He will never be able to live independently, but I’d like to hope that there will be a place for him in society.

What Educators Should Know about the Child and the FamilyThe question regarding what parents want educators and administrators to know about the child and their family revealed that a majority want educators to know that the child is more than his diagnosis. These statements included: do not underestimate, he/she can learn…is capable, more than the school realizes; has gifts; they are smart (41 responses). Additional remarks included, child has special gifts to share (five responses), is doing his best, he does not have bad behaviors; he is just trying to communicate. Other examples of statements by parents regarding the abilities of their children include: Just because our son does not speak, he still has great potential to learn; She may not talk but does have much to say, so true is this statement! and He can teach other regular kids tolerance, joy and perseverance.

In response to the question, what should professionals know about your family, the most often mentioned response was categorized as family devotion, love, and commitment (34 responses). Telling responses included: We love our son unconditionally and will do whatever we need to do to help him and give him the best life possible; I advocated relentlessly for my child because I know her needs and potential; and Our son was a blessing in the lives of our family members. Not only are we learning a lot from him, but our family is learning a lot from each other. We have become so creative and supportive of one another.

Several parents addressed the needs of the family for help, support, and understanding, i.e., We are not the experts; we are parents; We want you to help us to help our children; Our life is hard, and they should not judge us; and We just want to be like everyone else. But we’re not, so don’t make a big deal out of our special needs.

86


Information for District Personnel and Teachers Parents offered many suggestions and recommendations for school districts and teachers about their child’s education. Their responses were grouped into two major categories. These categories were partnership and curriculum/instruction. PartnershipA number of parents (12 responses) called for better partnerships and more teaming among the family, school, and other professionals. One parent reminded schools that, Parent/guardian rights are not always respected. Many stressed the need for staff development by districts (23 responses), and for school teachers to know what AS is and how to appropriately teach these students (26 responses), i.e., All individuals with AS are unique in personality, abilities, and health issues. There is no one-size-fits-all method. An educator must take the time to know the child’s uniqueness as a person and consider the disability secondary, and School districts need to train/educate all staff on how to work with and/or modify curriculum. Some suggested an outline for training, i.e., Characteristics of AS and specialness of the child. To what does the child respond most effectively (smiles, positive responses)? Understanding what child processes (not always easy) and to what she can respond. Other suggestions for districts included Communicate more with parents (10 responses) and Offer more services (17 responses).

Curriculum and Instruction Parents also offered suggestions about instruction, curriculum and pedagogy. These included suggestions to provide opportunities for consistency and repetition (six responses), to have patience and love, to believe in these children (nine responses), and to be accepting of alternative methods (seven responses). Some examples were, Talk to her - not down to her. Have lots of patience (and short hair, because she’ll pull it!), and Love working with these special children. Comments about curriculum were mainly about the need to develop communication skills (25 responses). The importance of life skills rather than academics (15 responses) was also stressed. Another was the need to teach socialization skills (10 responses). Others were general suggestions, such as provide opportunities for success, get something out of the school day, and make progress.

Finally, some parents offered advice to other families. Parents have to accept the special child they have. They need to accept the best in them and not disable them more. It’s not the PT’s, OT’s, or teacher’s responsibility; they are there to support repetition and consistencies. Love and hope will help you to raise your beautiful angels.

DiscussionResults from the quantitative and the qualitative analysis revealed that a large majority of parents in this study were in favour of their child’s inclusion in a regular school building and in regular classrooms for part of the day. Parents stressed that inclusion is a human rights issue, and segregation is wrong. Many mentioned the social benefit of inclusion, not only by providing opportunities for socialization and friendship for their child but also by fostering understanding and acceptance of individual differences by classroom peers. Similar findings were also reported in previous studies of parents of children with mild disabilities and especially children with more severe disabilities who value the benefits of socialization as an educational goal for their child (Freeman et al., 1999; Garrick Duhaney, & Salend, 2000; Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Palmer et al., 2001; Seery et al., 2000).

Despite the support for inclusion, parents expressed a number of concerns similar to those reported over the years in the literature. These included a concern over the lack of knowledge and instructional skills by general education teachers, lack of resources, and a fear that their child may be socially rejected and teased by classroom peers (Davern, 1999; Jenkinson, 1998; Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Lovitt & Cushing, 1999; Runswick-Cole, 2008). Some parents also expressed a concern about parents of students without disabilities who may resent the inclusion of their child. This concern may be related to a negative experience they have had at school with some parents or may be due to stressful encounters with members in their communities as reported by Worcester, Nelson, Raffaele-Mendez, and Keller (2008). Research studies on views of parents of children without disabilities about inclusion offer some mixed results. While these parents were often found to support inclusion, some parents were concerned that their children would not receive enough instruction from teachers. They also expressed concern about inappropriate behaviour of students with disabilities and that teachers were not trained to work with these children (Garrick, Duhaney, & Salend, 2000).

87


Interestingly, almost the same number of parents (about 45%) who thought that other parents of children with AS would favour inclusion responded that they were undecided. This response may suggest that parents of children with low incidence disabilities may have limited opportunities to interact with other similar families in their districts. Alternatively, it may be they are well aware that the decision whether to embrace inclusion by the family is based on a subjective evaluation of the attributes and needs of their child and on their values and experiences with school (Palmer et al., 2001). Indeed, findings revealed that a sizable percentage of parents did not think that inclusion is appropriate for their child, and they supported education in specialised settings. Several mentioned the benefits of specialised settings by observing that teachers are better trained, skilled, and more committed. Furthermore, they noted that their child will be with peers similar to him/her. Similar findings were also reported by other researchers (Kasari et al., 1999; Runswick-Cole, 2008).

However, findings also revealed that parents whose children attended a regular school building or were included in a regular classroom held more positive attitudes toward inclusion compared to parents whose children were mostly educated in segregated settings. Considering the views shared by many parents about the rights issue and the socialization benefits, this finding is not surprising. Still, as their responses revealed, many also shared concerns about inclusion. Other background variables were not found to be associated with more positive attitudes in this current study.

Input provided by parents about their feelings regarding their child’s schooling and their experiences with the school system revealed a mixed picture. They expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their child’s progress and the positive relationships with teachers they perceived as caring and committed, as well as with therapists. Yet, a sizable percentage (about 40%) of parents was critical about their relationships and communications with school and the school district administration. Many indicated that more services are needed. Parent dissatisfaction was also noted with the IEP process. These are further examples of unresolved issues and frustrations which parents continue to experience in their relationships with the school system that have been reported over the years in the literature (Davern,1999; Frederickson et al., 2004; Lovitt & Cushing, 1999; Pivik, Mccomas, & Laflamme, 2002; Runswick-Cole, 2008; Soodak & Ervin, 2000).

The study provided an opportunity for parents to share their personal feelings, thoughts, and insights about their child and about the family and to offer suggestions and recommendations for educators. Responses (some lengthy) revealed that their dreams and aspirations were not different from those of other parents of children both with and without disabilities (a statement made by several respondents). Most mentioned happiness, a rich life with enjoyment, having friendships, and being independent as much as possible. They also expressed the wish for their children to be safe and secure, to live and be accepted in the community, and to have people who will take care of them when they, as parents, will no longer be able to do so.

In their comments, parents wanted to send educators a message that their child is more than his/her diagnosis or label. They asked educators to not underestimate their children, that they are capable of learning, have a range of abilities, and should be treated as regular children. Most stated that the family has a strong commitment and love for the child, as well as high expectations, and will do all that is needed to provide the best care, education, and support. Only a few parents stated their own need to be accepted and welcomed, and their personal need for support. A number of other researchers are also reporting that many families of children with disabilities are resilient and cope effectively and positively with the demands of raising their child (Ferguson, 2002; McCloskey, 2010; Taunt & Hastings, 2002).

Parents provided suggestions and advice in several areas. They stressed a need for better communication and partnership between school and home and requested that schools and school districts provide better training about Angelman Syndrome. Many stated needs in the area of instruction and curriculum. For example, they called on teachers to be patient, to love and believe in their children, to have high expectations, and to accept alternative teaching methods. They suggested that more emphasis is needed in the curriculum on life skills, communication, and socialization.

ImplicationsFindings have several practical implications for pre-service and in-service training for educators and administrators. Although many universities and colleges offer some course work on disabilities for general educators, additional training in knowledge and skills is needed as more students with severe and multiple disabilities are educated in neighborhood schools and in regular classrooms. This knowledge

88


may be infused across the curriculum at the pre-service level and offered in workshops, meetings, and on the internet at the in-service level. Examples include characteristics of students with severe and multiple disabilities and curricular alternatives (i.e., functional curriculum, community-based education, instructional accommodations, and strategies to promote positive peer interactions and friendships). More emphasis is needed on family issues to facilitate more sensitivity and understanding of these families. Inviting parent speakers to the college classroom may be a valuable experience.

In addition to their other responsibilities, during student teaching, pre-service teachers should be encouraged to attend school events and parent nights to meet families of students with disabilities. If appropriate, students may also attend local meetings of parent organizations. Strong and Sandoval (1999) reported that practicing teachers asked for more in-service training and support that included more frequent consultation from other staff such as experienced special educators. As findings in this study also indicated, additional training on the needs of students with disabilities and their families should be required in programs preparing school administrators. Parent input also indicated that professional development activities are needed at the district level for administrators and staff.

There are several limitations of this study which need to be considered. The sample size of participating parents was relatively small. Furthermore, a majority of respondents were European American parents who are from middle income, college-educated (many with advanced degrees), and who have higher level occupations. These were parents who wanted to be heard and to share concerns and advice. They may not represent many other parents who are a silent majority.

Future research should continue to examine the perspectives of parents of children with different diagnostic characteristics and educational needs regarding inclusion. Furthermore, efforts by researchers should continue to explore strategies that will assure a higher response rate and a better representation of parents from different cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic levels.

ReferencesAinscow, M. & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: Where next? Prospects: QuarterlyReview of Comparative Education, 38 (1), 15- 34.Bennett, T. DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115-131. Childre, A. & Chambers, C. R. (2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP

meetings.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40 (3), 217-233. Clarke, D. J. & Marston, G. (2000). Problem behaviours associated with 15-q Angelman syndrome.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105 (1), 25-31. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Davern, L. (1999). Parents’ perspectives on personnel attitudes and characteristics in inclusive schoolsettings: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education. 22 (3), 165-182. Ferguson, P.M. (2002). A place in the family: An historical interpretation of research on parental reactions to having a child with a disability. The Journal of Special Education. 36 (3), 124-130, 147. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 54 (4). 327-359.Fox, N. E. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64. 81-98.Frederickson, N., Dunsmuir, S., Lang, T., & Monsen, J. J. (2004). Mainstreaming-special school inclusion partnerships: Pupil, parent and teacher perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (1), 37-57.Freeman, S. F. N., Alkin, M. C. & Kasari, C. L. (1999). Satisfaction and desire for change in educationalplacement for children with Down syndrome: Perceptions of parents. Remedial and SpecialEducation. 20 (3), 143-151. Friend, M. (2011). Special Education: Contemporary Perspectives for School Professionals. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Gabel, S. L. & Danforth, S. (Eds.). (2008). Disability & the Politics of Education: An InternationalReader. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.Gallagher, P. A., Floyd, J. H., Stafford, A. M., Tabr, T. A., Bronzovic, S. A. & Alberto, P. A. (2000). Inclusion of students with moderate or severe disabilities in education and community settings: Perspectives from parents and siblings. Education and Training in Mental

89


Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35 (2), 135-147. Garrick Duhaney, L. M. & Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remedial and Special Education, 21 (2), 121-128. Grove, K. A. & Fisher, D. (1999). Entrepreneurs of meaning: Parents and the process of inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (4), 208-215, 256.Hanline, M. F. & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integration transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55 (6), 487-492. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA) PL 105-17, 105th U.S. Congress. (1997). Washington, DC: Author.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) Amendments PL 108-446.108th U. S. Congress. Washington, DC: Author.Jenkinson, J. C. (1998). Parent choice of the education of students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 45 (2), 189-202. Kasari, C., Freeman, S. F. N., Bauminger, N., & Alkin, M. C. (1999). Parental perceptions on inclusion: Effects of autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29 (4), 297-305. Leyser, Y. & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,51 (3), 271-285. Lovitt, T. C. & Cushing, S. (1999). Parents of youth with disabilities: Their perceptions of school programs. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (3), 134-142. McCloskey, E. (2010). What do I know? Parental positioning in special education. International Journal of Special Education. 25 (1), 162-169. Miller, L. J., Strain, P. S., Boyd, J., Hunsicker, S., McKinley, J., & Wu, A. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12 (2), 230-246. Mittler, P. (2002, July). Moving toward inclusion: The role of the United Nations: Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Developmental Disabilities: Policy, Practice, and Research.

“Challenges and Opportunities.” Tel Aviv, Israel.Palmer, D. S., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., & Widaman, K. (1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67 (2), 271-282. Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67 (4), 467-484. Pivik, J., Mccomas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69 (1), 97-107. Richard, G. J. & Hoge, D. R. (1999). The Source for Syndromes. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems, Inc.Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (1996). Effective inclusive schools: A study in two countries. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26 (1), 71-85. Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Between a rock and a hard place: Parents’ attitudes to the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools. British Journal of Special Education. 35 (3), 173-180. Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R. & Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents’ perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 20, 147-157.Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.Seery, M. E., Davis, P. M., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21 (5), 268-278, 319. Smith-Davis, J. (2002). World initiatives for inclusive education. Teaching Exceptional Children. 35, (1), 77.Soodak, L. C. & Ervin, E. J. (2000). Valued member or tolerated participant: Parent experiences in inclusive early childhood settings. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe

Handicaps. 25 (1), 29-41.Stano, M. (1983, April). The critical incident technique: A description of the method. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Speech Communication Association, Lincoln, NE. Retrieved from ERIC Database.Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents and early childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (1), 107-124.

90


Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of the interactions between parents of young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, (1), 39-51. Strong, K., & Sandoval, J. (1999). Mainstreaming children with neuromuscular disease: A map of concerns. Exceptional Children, 65 (3), 353-366.Summers, J. A., Allison, D. B., Lynch, P. S., & Sandler, L. (1995). Behaviour problems in Angelman syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39(2), 97-106. Summers, J.A., & Feldman, M.A. (1999). Distinctive pattern of behavioral functioning in Angelman syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104 (4), 376-384. Taunt, H. M., & Hastings, R. P. (2002). Positive impact of children with developmental disabilities on their families: A preliminary study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.37 (4), 410-420.Tetreau, D. (1995). A principal’s personal view of navigating the special education system. The SchoolAdministrator (52, 27-29.Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M. Smith, S. & Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.Vazins, J. (2009, July 9). Changes urged in special education instruction: Too many students separated

citytold. The Boston Globe. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from http:www.boston.com/news/ education/k12/mcas/articles/2009/07/09/changes_urged_in_special_ed.Worcester, J. A., Nelson, T. M., Raffaele-Mendez, L. M., & Keller, H. R. (2008). Giving voice to parents of young children with challenging behavior. Exceptional Children, 74 (4). 509-525. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods . (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Yssel, N., Engelbrecht, P., Oswald, M. M., Eloff, I., & Swart, E. (2007). Views of inclusion: A comparative study of parents’ perceptions in South Africa and the United States: Remedial and Special Education. 28 (6), 356-365.

91


ENHANCING PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ SENSE OF EFFICACY AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOL DIVERSITY THROUGH PREPARATION: A CASE OF ONE U.S.

INCLUSIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM

Wei GaoDr. Gerald MagerSyracuse University

Conducted in one inclusive teacher education program in the United States, this study explored the trajectory of and the relationships between preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy and attitudes toward school diversity through the course of preparation. Findings revealed that, in general, changes of preservice teachers’ perceived efficacy, attitudes towards inclusion, and beliefs of socio-cultural diversity reflected the particular foci at different phases of the program. Overall, participants’ perceived sense of efficacy showed significant, positive associations with their attitudes towards inclusion and beliefs about socio-cultural diversity. However, regardless of their perceived levels of efficacy, participants were negative about teaching children with behavioral disabilities. On the one hand, the study suggests the effectiveness of the program to educate preservice teachers to positively respond to school diversity. On the other hand, it also indicates that preservice teachers across the board persistently hoarded negative feelings about children with behavioral disabilities. The study recommends that teacher educators may need to devote ample resources and employ effective strategies to improve preservice teachers’ attitudes towards children with behavioral challenges.

The U.S. society is characterized by its diversity. In a narrow sense, diversity refers to the racial and ethnic differences of the society (Simmons, 1998). More broadly, diversity pertains to the variations of race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, and people’s values and beliefs about the self-evident moral goods in the society (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). Increasingly, schools in the U.S. mirror the diversity of the broader society, the phenomenon of which is termed as school diversity this study. Earlier studies show that 30-40% of public school classrooms consist of children of color (Kuhlman & Vidal, 1993; Nel, 1992). More recent statistics predict that children of color will account for nearly half of the nation’s school-age population by 2020 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics [FIFCFS], 2005). Immigrants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds bring more diversity into the U.S. classrooms. According to FIFCFS (2005), from 1994 to 2004, the percentage of all children living in the U.S. with at least one parent who was foreign born rose from 15 to 20 percent, 19 percent of school-age children spoke a language other than English at home, and five percent of school-age children had difficulty speaking English. The growing complexity of family structures, discrepancies in parents’ socio-economic status and the emerging self-identification of sexual orientation of school-age youth also contribute to the diversity in schools. Furthermore, the growing trend of including children with disabilities in general classrooms renders schools more diverse. The National Center for Education Statistics (2005) showed that 3,900,000 students had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in the 2002-2003 school year. Nowadays, more than three million children with special needs spend 80 percent or more of the school day in the general education classroom, while only 25 percent could find themselves learning in general classrooms back to 1985 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

To serve all children from different backgrounds and with varied needs, teachers need to be highly cultural sensitive and responsive; in other words, they should develop the beliefs and capacities to cope with school diversity. Yet, this has been proved to be a tough goal, because teachers are inclined to stick to stereotypical views of school diversity that oftentimes result in unpleasant teacher-student relationships and poor student achievement (Gibson, 2004). Oftentimes, U.S. classroom teachers have both unfavorable attitudes towards and little confidence in teaching students with special needs in regular settings (Frankel, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Sadler, 2005).

92


As Banks and Banks (2001) argue, An important aim of teacher education in the first decades of the new century is to help [preservice] teachers acquire the knowledge, values, and behaviors needed to work effectively with students from diverse groups (p. xii). Nevertheless, researchers (Bradfield-Kreider, 2001; Irvine, 2003; Larke, 1990) have consistently noted that many teacher education programs have not adequately prepared preservice teachers to understand and act on school diversity.

For the purpose of preparing more diversity-minded educators, a number of inclusive teacher education programs have been remodelled to integrate special and general teacher preparation in the U.S. (Cook, 2002; Meyer & Biklen, 1992; Lombardi & Hunka, 2001; Villa, Thousand, & Chapple, 1996). It is worth exploring what changes these programs may bring about over the years of preparation with regards to preservice teachers’ attitudes towards school diversity and their confidence in educating all children.

Researchers (Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005) have found that preservice preparation experiences are key to the development of teacher efficacy, that is, teachers’ confidence in producing positive student learning (Ashton, 1985). Teacher efficacy has been identified as a stable and vital indicator of teacher motivation and practice (Pohan, 1996), teacher receptivity to innovative strategies (Guskey, 1988), student motivation (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), and student success (Bandura, 1997; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Studies show that teachers with a high sense of efficacy usually set challenging goals, maintain confident and motivated in face of demanding educational tasks, are abler to cope with stressors and negative feelings, and demonstrate greater willingness to choose tough environments (Bandura, 1997). With the emphasis on school diversity, inclusive programs may yield different impacts on teacher efficacy throughout the course of preparation.

This study took place in one Inclusive Elementary Teacher Education Program at a private university in an eastern state of the U.S., attempting to inquire into how preservice teachers’ attitudes towards school diversity and their perceived sense of efficacy shifted through the years of preparation in the inclusive program. We were also interested in the relationships between teacher efficacy and teachers’ attitudes toward school diversity: How preservice teachers with different perceived levels of teacher efficacy might view school diversity differently. To paint a historical picture, the study began with an overview of different models of inclusive teacher preparation programs designed in recent years.

Developing Inclusive Teacher Preparation ProgramsTo better educated preservice teachers for classroom diversity, two major approaches have been used to reform teacher preparation programs. Program restructuring is a large-scale method, which aligns all coursework and fieldwork with a common set of standards required of both special and general educators. As an alternative, program enhancement is a more flexible approach: revising existing courses, integrating field practicum, or adding new courses is common (Peterson & Beloin, 1998).

Selective Models of Program RestructuringVilla and his colleagues (1996) summarized four exemplary programs retool their teacher preparation programs in this fashion in the early 1990’s. The four places are Trinity College (Burlington, Vermont), Syracuse University (New York), the University of California at San Marco, and Arizona State University-West (Phoenix) in the early 1990’s. These institutions have been active in partnering with the local communities and school personnel to better ready graduates for meeting the challenges of inclusion and diversity in contemporary schooling. Earlier efforts can refer to the works by Kemple, Hartle, Correa, and Fox (1994), Meyer and Biklen (1992), and Pugach (1994).

Benner and Lesar (2000) illustrated how the faculty at the University of Tennessee restructured their teacher education program to address the themes of inclusion, diversity, and developmentally appropriate practices during the 1994 and 1995. These themes were covered directly, embedded into other courses, or built into field experiences. The researchers found preservice teachers in the pre-internship block were confused about constructivism and needed supports from professors, and considered the one-year full-time internship most beneficial. Several issues remained to be addressed. Among which are lacking coverage of special education during the pre-internship block, lacking guidance to interns in adjusting to schools where alternative instructional approaches are not present or accepted, and assigning too heavy work to interns. The program was also confronted with the difficulty in pairing up interns with classroom teachers demonstrating best practices. Apart from those local challenges, the state licensure requirements were too restrictive and prevented different programs from unifying.

93


Faculty members in the College of Education at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) worked with local schools and designed a dual licensure program in special education and elementary education (Jenkins, Pateman, & Black, 2002). The program was implemented in 1996 and established new school-university partnerships. Accordingly, the roles of university faculty members, school-level mentor teachers, and school administrators were redefined and specified. The authors shared four critical lessons learned from the restructuring experiences: a) recruiting schools and mentor teachers with greater emphasis on inclusion, 2) integrating special and general education practices and philosophies, 3) modifying coursework and assignments, and 4) increasing communication among all stakeholders.

In a similar manner, the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) managed to integrate the early childhood education major and the early childhood special education major into a single program (Heston, Raschke, Kliewer, Fitzgerald, & Edmiaston, 1998). They started by taking three steps. Firstly, initiating collaboration in the fall semester of 1995, they set up the Interdisciplinary Task Force with four faculty members and began meeting generally to develop an action plan. They engaged the faculty in discussions and some members revealed strong doubts about the value of inclusion. Secondly, identifying inclusive school settings that utilized effective inclusion practices were singled out for faculty members to observe how inclusion could be successfully implemented. By the end of the year, some professors once negative about inclusion seemed to take a more reflective posture. Thirdly, developing a list of competencies--the Task Force developed an extensive list of specific competencies in each major area and competencies related to child development, instruction, assessment, and professionalism were delineated. The program made promising progress. However, faculty members’ professional identities and ingrained beliefs about teaching obstructed the merger of teacher education programs.

Another curricular and organizational change was implemented in a teacher preparation program at the Miami University (Everington, Hamill, & Lubic, 1996). The faculty members first agreed upon the key activities to do: articulating a mission, having administrative support, conducting staff development, carrying out collaborative planning and implementation, and having sufficient meetings for constituents. Through the restructuring process, they documented the effectiveness of the training provided, identified competencies for preservice teachers, and established a team teaching model, the Distinguished Professional in Residence Project. Resonating with the experiences of other universities, the program also encountered similar obstacles in terms of resources and conflicting philosophies of faculty members. Consequentially, team teaching between professors was out of the question, time was lacking for implementing the change, and there was no qualified faculty to sustain and further the change.

A Dual License Teacher Preparation Program was designed at the University of New Mexico (Keefe, Rossi, de Valenzuela, & Howarth, 2000). Graduates of the Program are eligible for licensure in general education (K–8) and special education (K–12). Two faculty members formed a collaborative team and re-designed university-based courses and school-based field experiences. The professors modeled the collaboration between general and special education. They made specific academic and dispositional admission requirements, detailed student competencies, and streamlined the program structure, coursework, and staffing. Right from the start, inclusion of best practices for students with severe disabilities was emphasized as an integral part of curriculum development. Admittedly, they found it challenging to maintain collaborative relationships with all participants in the university and partner schools; moreover, some faculty members did not fully demonstrate the inclusive philosophy to the degree which they advocated.

The School of Education at the University of Colorado at Denver merged its special and general education programs in 2000 (Sobel, Iceman-Sands, & Basile, 2007). All students in all fields as a result would take the same core courses (23 credits in total). Before that change, the general education program had infused the issues on special education into multiple courses, but, no courses for students pursuing a special education license overlapped with their general education peers. Based on a shared philosophical foundation of social justice, inclusion, equity, and access, a more formal process was carried out to integrate special education, technology, and ELL in the curriculum. Thus, each syllabus was designed and reviewed by the content specialists from all three areas to meet respective professional standards. Key course activities and readings were identified to support those learning goals. The associate dean of the teacher education program initiated a structure that a lead instructor was selected from a course team. Together with the lead instructor, all instructors of a particular course met as a course team on a weekly or biweekly basis and addressed issues on special education, technology, and ELL. Lead instructors also met monthly as a group to ensure the program coherence, resolve student concerns, mentor new and honoraria faculty, and address program-level issues. Similarly, echoing the previous findings, the

94


program also suffered from meager resources available to them and inconsistent philosophies between the University and school sites.

Four faculty members at one university took a different approach (Smith, Frey, & Tollefson, 2003). In one graduate teacher education program, all courses were delivered in the field by all four professors to model collaboration to preservice teachers. The program consists of six-week student teaching, 10-week five graduate courses, and one 16-week internship. Preservice teachers can choose to take the campus-based track or the field-based collaborative one in which five courses into are integrated into one block and delivered every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon at two schools. Thirty students out of 160 candidates enrolled the collaborative cohort. The authors found that the collaborative group showed improved attitudes towards collaboration and was more confident to teach in inclusive settings. Yet their actual collaborative behaviors declined, because the schools did not actually value collaboration. The study indicates that positive school environments are essential to the development of favorable behaviors in preservice teachers.

Selective Models of Program EnhancementThe single course enhancement approach is often used to infuse content relating to teaching children with special needs into old courses. Peterson and Beloin (1998) reported an experiment at two universities to retool a course from one that exclusively provided information on disabilities to one that focused on the provision of instructional support and accommodation strategies. The revised course was more valued by students. The authors suggest that individual faculty can lay the foundation for change in their own departments by restructuring the typical mainstreaming course as a first step to begin developing an effective inclusive teacher education program.

More recently, preceding a program-wide restructuring, Van Laarhoven and colleagues (2007) launched a program entitled Project ACCEPT an Illinois university to enhance its teacher education programs. Eighty-four preservice special and general teachers were enrolled in an existing course entitled Collaborative Teaching in Inclusive Settings in the third year of the programs. A ten hour lab and a minimum of six hour field experience in an inclusive classroom were incorporated into the course. One student from each of the elementary, secondary, and special education programs formed a team and collaborated throughout the experience. The team delivered a co-planned and co-taught lesson at the exit point. Most Project ACCEPT participants (91%) felt positive about their experience. Collaboration with students from different programs and participation in simulations and hands-on experiences with assistive technologies were found beneficial to students.

Collaborative infusion is an alternative to the single course enhancement method. Instead of offering one or two courses on special education, collaborative infusion purports to infuse special education content throughout the teacher preparation program. Voltz (2003) surveyed the practice of collaborative infusion in 432 four-year teacher education institutions. Including both general and special education preparation programs, among the 252 (58.3%) returned completed survey instruments; approximately 25 percent of programs (63) used collaborative infusion in some form, primarily using it to supplement other approaches, such as a separate special education course. The majority found this approach beneficial both to students and to participating faculty. However, the disadvantages of the approach, such as time-intensiveness, faculty’s heavy workloads, and the lack of congruence within university structures, prohibit it from being widely implemented.

In the West Virginia University’s five-year preservice teacher education program, special education learning outcomes and competencies were incorporated into the core courses for all education majors (Lombardi & Hunka, 2001). The fourth year students reported acquiring more outcomes and competencies. But, only four of the 11 professors reported that they felt competent and confident to teach preservice teachers to work with special needs students in inclusive settings. The authors recommend that faculty from both general and special education should team teach core courses. In particular, special education faculty members should make themselves available to assist their colleagues in strengthening the special education core courses.

Cook (2002) studied one teacher education program at a large Mid-western university, which infused special education and inclusion curricula into four seminar courses that covered a variety of topics such as diversity, technology, educational psychology, and history and culture of American schooling. By surveying 136 undergraduate students, they found: (a) preservice teachers were more positive about including students with learning disabilities than about students with behavior disorders, mental

95


retardation, and multiple disabilities; and (b) preservice teachers’ preparation experiences and instructional skills related to inclusion were inadequate, and attitudes regarding inclusion did not typically improve along years of preparation. Students noted the lack of college coursework, preparation, and training, lack of classroom teaching experiences, and inclusive instructional techniques. It shows the limited effects of the approach by infusing special education content into a course or several courses. Preservice teachers cannot effectively develop the necessary attitudes and competencies to succeed in schools with increasing school diversity. To better the issue, probably all preservice general educators should take extensive coursework on educating children with disabilities.

Research QuestionsAs shown above, many innovations have been made in preparing preservice teachers for the increasing school diversity. Yet much remains to be known regarding how preservice teachers in inclusive teacher education programs perceive school diversity, such as educating children in general classrooms, equity, social justice, and multicultural issues, and how teacher efficacy interacts with teachers’ attitudes towards school diversity. This study made a preliminary effort to explore the preceding issues. Two main research questions guide our exploration:

1) How do preservice teachers’ perceived sense of efficacy and attitudes towards school diversity shift over the course of preparation?

2) How do preservice teachers with different degrees of perceived efficacy view school diversity?

MethodProfile of the Inclusive ProgramAn overview. The study was carried out in one four-year dual-certification inclusive teacher preparation program at a private university in one eastern state of the United States. The institution is accredited by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The program is designed with the overarching constructivist learning theory and embraces an inclusion philosophy. The emphasis is placed on school diversity by the program in order to enable preservice teachers to teach both typical and special children in today’s culturally pluralistic schools and classrooms. The program requires between 128 and 139 credits. Program requirements include liberal arts skills, a concentration or major of no less than 30 credits in an approved liberal arts and sciences area, and professional coursework. In addition to courses that aim at establishing the solid theoretical foundation for the prospective teachers, fieldwork serves as an integrated part of the preparation to enable preservice teachers to translate theories into practice. Supervised field experiences take place throughout the program at a variety of the University area settings, and include placements in schools that are at the forefront of inclusive education. Preservice teachers have nine placements in urban and suburban schools, general classrooms and pull-out resource rooms, and lower and higher grades, beginning from their first year of study. This program meets the academic requirements for Childhood 1-6 and Special Education/Childhood 1-6 initial certification.

Program philosophy, purposes, and proficiencies. The program upholds two core beliefs: a) all persons learn through active engagement in the process of learning, and b) every person is able to learn. The program aims at preparing skilled, reflective, and knowledgeable teachers that can engage all students. To materialize these beliefs and purposes, educational practitioners must be knowledgeable about and skillful in using different instructional and assessment approaches to educating learners with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and needs.

Throughout the program, the faculty across the fields of special education, mathematics education, science education, social studies education and educational leadership works around a consistent set of core beliefs that strive to advocate for equity for all students. Preservice teachers are cultivated in five professional dispositions. Firstly, they should show commitment to understanding and respecting diversity in order to address social injustices and inequalities related to race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language, religion, family, disability, etc. Preservice teachers should treat all students with dignity and respect, and should work patiently with student who demonstrates challenging behaviors or struggling learners. Secondly, they should enact the belief that all children can learn by using praise effectively and appropriately and expecting all students to participate and be involved in the lesson. Thirdly, they should promote professional self-growth by being open to constructive feedback from university supervisors, being an active participant in all post observation conferences, and attending annual and triennial meetings. Fourthly, preservice teachers also need to foster collaboration by developing interpersonal behaviors that promote partnerships with students, peers, university and school

96


staff, parents, and community members. Lastly, they should demonstrate professional and ethical conduct that is suitable to the profession throughout all stages of the program.

Preservice teachers in the program are expected to show high proficiencies in five interrelated aspects: critical reflection and explanation of practice, content knowledge, inclusive and culturally responsive pedagogy, assessment of student learning, and professional conduct and collaboration. The program prepares preservice teachers to critically reflect on their experiences with diverse students and refine their theories of practice in inclusion. Preservice teachers are intensively developed to obtain the knowledge, skills, and propensity to plan, implement, and adapt lessons that meaningfully engage all students regardless of their backgrounds. They also learn to use various assistive and instructional technologies to reach out to children with varied abilities and learning needs. Particularly, diversity is addressed in the overall assessment of preservice teachers’ proficiency in providing inclusive and culturally responsive pedagogy to all students.

Coursework and fieldwork. The program’s commitment to addressing the issues of diversity and equity for all students is woven into the gamut of coursework and fieldwork. The mission of cultivating preservice teachers to be culturally responsive inclusive educators is evident in the materials assigned in a variety of content and method courses. In classes, preservice teachers are encouraged to contest a wide range of issues from ethnicity, race, gender, disability, to sexual orientation. Preservice teachers are also involved in university-wide lectures and workshops with a focus on diversity. For instance, several national conferences on diversity, disabilities, and inclusion have been held by this institute to expose preservice teachers to up-to-date information on diversity issues.

The program requires all preservice teachers to have at least seven field placements and one 20-hour observation experience in pre-K settings. Each semester, preservice teachers have ample opportunities to work with diverse K-6 students in urban, suburban, and rural settings. More than 60 percent of placements were in the City School District, where nearly 70 percent of students are students of color.

The seven practicum experiences include: two with at least 20 hours, one with minimum two hours tutoring reading in an elementary setting, one with minimum 90 hours with students with special education needs, one with minimum 90 hours in elementary settings with a focus on reading and language arts, and two in a grade 1-3 and a grade 4-6 setting with focus on mathematics, science, and social studies (one with minimum 105 hours, and the other with minimum 175 hours). That is, preservice teachers should have a total of 522 hours of field experiences before student teaching. To exit, preservice teachers will have two more seven-week, full-time student teaching placements, respectively in a grade 1-3 and grade 4-6 setting.

According to particular emphases of the program, preservice teachers have seven major phases of preparation: Phase 1: beginning in the first semester, taking fundamental courses in special education and general education. They conduct 20-hour fieldwork in urban or suburban inclusive classroom settings. The courses aims to help them develop a basic understand of schools and inclusive education;Phase 2: taking introductory special education courses with one 20-hour fieldwork experience in general classrooms. Preservice teachers need to critically examine diverse perspectives on disabilities and multicultural issues;Phase 3: starting more fieldwork by taking one course on inclusive schooling and one 20-hour field practicum focused on children with disabilities; Phase 4: entering the first Professional Practice. They are required to teach lessons in mathematics, social studies, science, and adaptations in the 120-hour field placement;Phase 5: continuing the six-week second Professional Practice. In addition to taking university lectures, they need to teach a whole unit of mathematics, social studies, science, and adaptations in two field placementsPhase 6: engaging the Special Education Practicum and working with children with severe disabilities; Phase 7: student teaching full-time with one weekly seminar on university campus.

Following the completion of coursework and student teaching, preservice teachers are required to develop and present their portfolios which are judged based on four criteria: plans and lessons with clear purposes, plans and implement lessons to meaningfully engage all learners, plans and implements lessons to make effective use of technology, and plans for and sustains respectful, cooperative, challenging, culturally responsive academic environments.

97


ParticipantsTwo hundred sixteen preservice teachers in the Program from all seven phases were asked to participate in the study and 168 valid responses were received. The response rate of each cohort varies, ranging from 100% (Cohort 3) to 40% (Cohort 2), as shows in table 1. The majority of the participants were female (n = 160), Caucasian (n = 156), and the mean age was 19.4 years.

Table 1The Response Rate from the Cohorts

Stage Survey Distributed

Valid No. Percentage

Cohort

Introduction to Education 83 61 73.5% 1**

Introduction to Special Education 25 10 40.0% 2**

Special Education Practicum I 32 30 93.8% 2**

Professional Practice I 14 14 100.0% 3**

Professional Practice II 18 14 77.8% 4**

Special Education Practicum II 23 21 91.3% 5**

Student Teaching 21 18 85.7% 6**

Total 216 168 77.8%

MeasuresFour questionnaires, demographics, sense of teacher efficacy, attitudes towards inclusive education, and beliefs of diversity, were given to participants. School diversity is measured from both inclusive and multicultural aspects. Since including children with disabilities is particularly challenging to teachers in contemporary schools, a separate measure, attitudes towards inclusive education, was used to gauge inclusive diversity. The scale of beliefs of diversity focused particularly on teachers’ beliefs about multicultural diversity.

Demographic Questionnaire. The instrument was designed to obtain participants’ professional and demographic background. They were asked to provide information about gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The questionnaire further asked their disability exposure, such as contact with people with disabilities or having a disability in person. Information on multicultural experiences was also collected.

Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). This measure has 22 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale developed by Gibson & Dembo (1984). It is made up of two independent subscales, Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE). PTE represents teachers’ beliefs in their personal impact on student learning, and GTE refers to teachers’ general confidence in how teaching as a profession can affect student learning. PTE has 12 items and GTE includes 10. The total score of PTE ranges from 12 to 72 and GTE from 10 to 60. The reliability tests show that Cronbach’s alpha for the PTE Subscale was 0.80 and 0.65 for the GTE Subscale, indicating relatively high internal consistency of the scales.

Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES). Representing a narrow definition of inclusive education, the scale was selected to specifically measure how preservice teachers viewed educating children with specific disabilities in general classrooms. This instrument has 16 items on a 6-point Likert scale, with four subscales, respectively measuring teachers’ attitudes toward children with social, physical, academic, and behavioural disabilities. The total score for each subscale ranges from 4 to 24. A higher the score implies a more favourable attitude to inclusion. Adequate reliability and validity were established (Wilczenski, 1995). ATIES is used by researchers internationally (e.g., Sharma, Ee, & Desai, 2003).

Professional & Personal Beliefs of Diversity. This scale is a 40-item, self-report measure of teachers’ professional and personal beliefs of diversity (Pohan, 1996). The scale consists of two parts: the 15-item Personal Beliefs of Diversity (Personal BoD), and the 25-item Professional Beliefs of Diversity (Professional BoD). Both are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores for Personal BoD range from 15 to

98


75, and for Professional BoD from 25 to 125. Cronbach’s Alphas for Personal BoD and Professional BoD were 0.83 and 0.81 respectively, indicating high internal consistency of the scales.Procedure

The survey was implemented three weeks before the end of the semester. The participants had most major course requirements fulfilled and acquired nearly full experiences of the semester. The questionnaires took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Those few preservice teachers who straddled both phases and had completed the survey in another class were asked not to respond; hence, duplication of responses was avoided. In two classes, the course instructors asked students to respond the survey at home and collected it one day later. That arrangement caused the lowest response from Phase 2 participants. Besides, several students were enrolled in both Phase 2 and Phase 3, so the two cohorts were combined into one larger group.Data AnalysisThe mean scores of all subscales were calculated. One-way ANOVA tests were performed to identify mean differences of the variables of GTE, PTE, ATIES, and BoD, using gender, ethnicity, and cohort respectively as independent variables. Post hoc Scheffe’s tests were run to determine groups that were significantly different. Correlation analyses were performed to test for relationships between all subscales. Lastly, respondents were divided into two groups by a mean split, one with negative sense of TE and the other with positive sense of TE, one-way ANOVA tests were run to test for differences between these two groups in perceiving school diversity.

Results and DiscussionMeans and ANOVA of TE, ATIES, BoD by Gender and EthnicityTable 2 reports the mean scores, standard deviations, and significant tests of GTE, PTE, ATIES, and BoD. Overall, the participants in the program showed positive teacher efficacy, favorable attitudes towards inclusive education, and positive beliefs of diversity. The mean scores of GTE, PTE, ATIES showed no significant differences between male and female preservice teachers. Caucasian preservice teachers and Non-Caucasians showed no significant differences in any of the ratings. One-way ANOVA tests revealed that male preservice teachers were significantly lower in both Personal and Professional BoD than females. Noting that there were only eight male students, the small sample size of male participants in the study might contribute to the statistical significance reported here.

Table 2Analysis of Variance of TE,

ATIES, BoD by Gender, Ethnicity, and Cohort

GroupN

ATIESBehavioral Academic Physical SocialM SD M SD M SD M SD

FemaleMale

1608

16.64 15.75

3.63 3.33

17.66 18.13

3.77 1.46

18.83 18.50

4.08 3.78

19.89 20.50

3.16 2.51

F(1,166)p

0.47 0.12 0.05 0.29

CaucasianNon-

Caucasian

15612

16.67 16.60

3.31 3.64

18.33 17.63

2.53 3.77

19.33 18.77

3.924.08

19.75 19.94

3.25 3.12

F(1,166) 0.00 0.40 0.21 0.04

GroupN

Teacher Efficacy (TE)GTE PTE

M SD M SDFemale

Male160

841.56 40.75

5.70 4.40

49.56

46.75

6.79 4.83

F(1,166)p

.16 1.34

CaucasianNon-Caucasian

15612

43.67 41.35

5.52 5.63

49.75

49.40

6.41 6.76

F(1,166)p

1.89 0.03

Cohort1Cohort2Cohort3Cohort4Cohort5Cohort6Overall

614014142118

40.79 39.58 43.29 43.79 43.48 42.89 41.52

4.84 6.44 5.50 3.87 5.65 6.15 5.64

47.25

49.25

48.36

50.79

51.62

54.44

49.43

6.88 6.30 7.52 4.15 5.47 6.49 6.72

F(5,162)p

2.74* p<0.021

4.32* p=0.00

99


pCohort1Cohort2Cohort3Cohort4Cohort5Cohort6Overall

614014142118

15.70 15.68 16.36 19.43 17.71 18.39 16.60

3.06 3.51 2.82 3.18 4.01 4.17 3.61

16.41 16.65 17.07 20.07 20.05 20.11 17.68

3.32 3.65 3.08 2.13 3.41 3.72 3.70

17.25 17.98 19.00 21.14 20.81 21.67 18.81

4.014.203.282.072.913.794.06

18.72 19.48 19.14 21.50 21.86 22.11 19.92

3.19 2.58 3.21 1.99 2.57 2.85 3.12

F(5,162)p

4.78* p=0.00

7.97*p=0.00

6.94* p=0.00

7.43* p=0.00

Table 2 (Continued)Analysis of Variance of TE, ATIES, BoD by Gender, Ethnicity, and Cohort

*p<.05

TE, ATIES, and BoD by CohortTeacher Efficacy. Overall, the mean GTE scores displayed a complex growth pattern across the program. Cohort 2 showed the lowest score among all cohorts; GTE increased

GroupN

Beliefs of Diversity (BoD)Professional PersonalM SD M SD

FemaleMale

1608

98.53 90.88

9.21 12.57

63.28

54.25

6.90 11.42

F(1,166)p

5.07*p<0.026

12.13*p<0.01

CaucasianNon-Caucasian

15612

100.92

97.95

8.51 9.56

64.42

62.72

6.04 7.48

F(1,166) 1.09 0.58

Cohort1Cohort2Cohort3Cohort4Cohort5Cohort6Overall

614014142118

94.58 99.33 101.4

3 103.5

0 100.7

6 97.76 98.16

8.96 8.99 6.94 8.60

10.86 9.79 9.50

61.10

63.43

63.29

65.57

62.67

65.22

62.85

7.91 8.70 5.34 5.64 6.41 4.83 7.39

F(5,162)p

3.63* p<0.004

1.52 p<0.186

100


subsequently for two cohorts (Professional Practice I and Professional Practice II), but decreased again in Special Education Practicum and Student Teaching. Perhaps, GTE varied in accordance with the experience preservice teachers underwent. When preparation emphases differed, preservice teachers might reevaluate to what extent teaching matters to children. First year preservice teachers might be more idealistic owing to their limited experiences with children and teaching, and hold a high appreciation of the significance of teaching as a profession. Since Cohort 2 started working with children with disabilities in their fieldwork, they might encounter some real challenges and become less confident. Before entering Professional Practice I, always a number of preservice teachers quit the program. That might explain why GTE of Cohort 3 and 4 had increased. As they progressed to Special Education Practicum and full-time Student Teaching, having more teaching experiences with children with diverse needs, preservice teachers might become pragmatic about teaching.

Different from GTE, PTE showed almost a linear growth pattern from the phases of Introduction to Education to Student Teaching. GTE and PTE exhibited different growth patterns. Perhaps, GTE might be more context-dependent, while PTE be more individual. GTE might be affected by preservice teachers’ contingent exposures to different aspects of school diversity. When preservice teachers are confronted with children with special needs as they progress in the program, a challenging incident with students with severe disabilities might be discouraging enough for these burgeoning teachers to question about whether it is realistic for teachers to educate all children. They might breed concerns and beliefs about the importance of teaching in general might waver. As for PTE, as preservice teachers received more rigorous training, acquired more teaching strategies, and had a better knowledge of children, their confidence in their own competencies may grow accordingly. It may explain why GTE and PTE of those preservice teachers demonstrated different developmental patterns during the course of preparation.

Preservice teachers from different cohorts demonstrated significantly different perceived levels of GTE and PTE. Post hoc Scheffe’s tests were administered. Cohort 6 was identified to have significantly higher PTE than Cohort 1.

ATIES. Overall, all six cohorts held positive attitudes toward children with disabilities. The participants showed the most favorable attitudes towards inclusion of children with social disabilities. They were the least favorable (but still positive) to include children with behavioral disabilities.

Significant differences were found between different cohorts with regards to particular disabilities. Even though all six cohorts were favorable or strongly favorable to children with physical disabilities, significant differences were identified across the cohorts. As Table 3 tells, Cohort 6 showed the most positive attitudes, Cohorts 6, 5 and 4 showed much more positive attitudes than Cohort 1, and Cohort 6 was also more positive than Cohorts 2. Differences between cohorts were less distinguishable from Cohort 3 onwards. It suggested that preservice teachers’ attitudes to inclusion of children with physical disabilities in this program improved in early years and remained relatively stable afterwards.

Table 3Mean Differences of ATIES-Physical

1 2 3 4 5 61 0 -0.73 -1.75 -3.90* -3.56* -4.42*2 0 -1.025 -3.168 -2.835 -3.691*3 0 -2.143 -1.810 -2.6674 0 0.333 -0.5245 0 -0.8576 0

*p<.05

As for children with social disabilities, all six cohorts were positive to strongly positive. Cohort 1 had significantly lower willingness to teach children with social needs in general classrooms than Cohort 5 and Cohort 6. More advanced preservice teachers seemed to be more receptive to social inclusion.

All cohorts showed favorable attitudes towards children with academic disabilities in general classrooms. Cohorts 5 and 6 were more positive than the beginning two cohorts. It suggested that the program might have made distinctive impacts on participants over the course of preparation.

101


Table 4Mean Differences of ATIES-Social

1 2 3 4 5 61 0 -0.754 -0.422 -2.779 -3.135* -3.389*2 0 0.332 -2.025 -2.382 -2.6363 0 -2.357 -2.714 -2.9684 0 -0.357 -0.6115 0 -0.2546 0

*p<.05

As reported in Table 6, different cohorts exhibited varied degrees of acceptance to students with behavioral challenges in the general classroom. Cohorts 4 and 5 showed much more positive attitudes than Cohorts 1, 2, and 3, suggesting that Cohorts 4 and 5 preservice teachers’ attitudes to physical disabilities increased significantly. But, Cohort 5 was considerably less positive than Cohort 4. Worth noticing, since Cohort 5 was in intensive special education placements, they might encounter more challenging experiences than Cohort 4. Preservice teachers might particularly need extra support during that period of preparation. Another strange phenomenon is that Cohort 6 participants’ attitudes towards children with behavioral disabilities were not distinguishable from those of any other cohorts. Namely, student teachers were not any more willing to teach children with behavioral disabilities than those beginning cohorts.

Table 5Mean Differences of ATIES-Academic

1 2 3 4 5 61 0 -0.240 -0.662 -3.662* -3.638* -3.701*2 0 -0.421 -3.421 -3.398* -3.461*3 0 -3.000 -2.976 -3.0404 0 0.024 -0.0405 0 -0.0636 0

*p<.05

Table 6Mean Differences of ATIE-Behavioral

1 2 3 4 5 61 0 0.030 -0.652 -3.724* -2.009* -2.6842 0 -0.682 -3.754* -2.039* -2.7143 0 -3.071 -1.357* -2.0324 0 1.714* 1.040 5 0 -0.6756 0

*p<.05

Beliefs of Diversity. The results in Table 2 also show that the participants overall held positive professional and personal beliefs of diversity. There was a significant difference in teachers’ Professional BoD across the six cohorts. Post hoc Scheffe’s tests did not reveal which two cohorts had a significant difference. Cohort 1 showed the least positive Professional and Personal BoD, while Cohort 4 had the highest ratings in both Professional and Personal BoD.

Several researchers found that preservice teachers’ attitudes to multicultural diversity maintained through the teacher preparation program, suggesting that teacher education has a little impact on improving preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes (Brown, 2000; Sleeter, 2001). This study echoed previous

102


studies and revealed that preservice teachers’ personal beliefs of diversity did not demonstrate statistically significant changes across the cohorts. However, the case was different for professional beliefs of diversity. An apparent growth in Professional BoD ratings from Cohort 1 to Cohort 4 was noted. This result suggested that preservice teachers may uphold their personal beliefs about diversity through the course of their preparation, but their professional beliefs about diversity can be alleviated as a result of teacher education.

Correlations between Teacher Efficacy, ATIES, and Beliefs of DiversityExcept for GTE and PTE, all other constructs were significantly associated, as table 7 shows. It shows that GTE and PTE capture different aspects of teacher efficacy. Compared with PTE, GTE showed a stronger positive association with teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and beliefs of diversity.

Teachers’ perceived sense of efficacy and beliefs of school diversity may positively reinforce one another. It is possible that a teacher having confidence in teaching in general will be less anxious about teaching children with special backgrounds. In practice, teachers’ perceived favorable attitudes towards inclusion seem to reward them with more positive experiences in inclusive classrooms (Briggs, Johnson, Shepherd, & Sedbrook, 2002), which may further feed back to their perceived sense of efficacy.Levels of Teacher Efficacy and ATIES & BoD

The respondents were split into two groups: one with negative TE and the other with positive TE. As Table 8 illustrates, than those with negative PTE, preservice teachers with positive PTE showed significantly more favorable attitudes towards children with academic and social disabilities, and had significantly stronger Personal BoD. In other words, the more confident the teachers felt about their own teaching, the more positive their attitudes were towards children with academic or social disabilities, the more willing they were to include children in general classrooms, and the more positive Personal BoD they had.

Table 7Correlations between Teacher Efficacy Scales, ATIES, and Diversity Scales

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81. PTE 49.43 6.72 12. GTE 41.52 5.64 .092 13. Physical 18.81 4.06 .180* .307** 14. Academic 17.68 3.70 .288** .398** .764** 15. Behavioral 16.60 3.61 .195* .236** .581** .697** 16. Social 19.92 3.12 .289** .372** .749** .787** .632** 17.PersonalBoD 62.85 7.39 .175* .351** .382** .370** .313** .338** 18.ProfessionalBoD 98.16 9.50 .217** .431** .448** .451** .316** .460** .621** 1*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

As for attitudes towards children with physical or behavioral disabilities, or professional beliefs of diversity, there were no significant differences between those with negative PTE and those with positive PTE. In other words, children with physical or behavioral disabilities equally challenged preservice teachers regardless of the degrees of PTE. Indeed, teachers are less willing to accept children with behavioral or physical disabilities (Subban & Sharma, 2006; Wilzenski, 1992, 1995). General strategies to enhance teachers’ PTE may have little impacts on the improvement of preservice teachers’ attitudes towards children with physical or behavioral disabilities. Teacher educators should create specific opportunities for all teachers to contact and teach children with physical or behavioral disabilities.

As shown in Table 9, significant differences were identified between those with positive GTE and those with negative GTE in perceiving inclusive education and school diversity. Those with positive GTE were more likely to include children with physical, social, or academic disabilities in general classrooms, and they had stronger professional and personal beliefs on multicultural diversity. It seems that if preservice teachers held strong beliefs that teaching a profession can make a significant difference to the society, they were very likely to be diversity-minded. The results suggest that GTE may be used as a reliable predictor of preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and beliefs about multicultural diversity.

103


Thus, teacher education programs may explore and employ these strategies that can effectively enhance preservice teachers’ perceived GTR.

Table 8Negative PTE v.s. Positive PTE with ATIES and BofD

Group N ATIES

Physical Social Academic BehavioralM SD M SD M SD M SD

Negative PTEPositive PTE

total

19149

17.74

18.95

18.81

3.544.114.06

18.21

20.14

19.92

3.073.073.12

16.03

17.89

17.68

4.173.683.70

15.21

16.78

16.60

3.143.643.61

F(1,166) 1.5 6.65*p<0.01

4.23*p<0.04

3.22

*p<.05

Group NBeliefs of Diversity

Professional PersonalM SD M SD

Negative PTEPositive PTEtotal

19149

94.9598.5898.16

9.679.439.50

58.6363.3862.85

10.476.767.39

F(1,166) 2.48 7.23*p<0.01

*p<.05

Table 9Negative GTE v.s. Positive GTE with ATIES and BoD

Group N ATIES

Physical Social Academic BehavioralM SD M SD M SD M SD

Negative GTE

Positive GTETotal

16152

16.06

19.10

18.81

3.59

4.00

4.06

17.94

20.13

19.92

3.15

3.06

3.12

15.13

17.96

17.68

3.45

3.13

3.70

15.38

16.73

16.60

2.80

3.67

3.61

F(1,166) 8.47*p<0.004

7.41*p<0.007

8.84*p<0.03

2.06

*p<.05

Group N Beliefs of Diversity

Professional PersonalM SD M SD

Negative GTEPositive GTE

total

16152

92.56 98.76 98.16

11.71 9.07 9.50

57.56 63.40 62.85

10.11 6.85 7.39

104


F(1,166) 6.36*p<0.013

9.50*p<0.002

*p<.05

But, as for inclusion of children with behavioral disabilities, there was no significant difference between teachers with negative GTE and those with positive GTE. That is, children with behavioral disabilities equally challenged both groups. It suggests that no matter how prospective teachers viewed the significance of the teaching profession, they as a whole were reluctant to educate children with behavioral disabilities in general classrooms. This phenomenon should alert teacher educators. Teacher preparation programs may particularly stress the importance and practicability of educating children with behavioral disabilities.

ConclusionThe present study achieved three major findings. Firstly, overall, participants in this inclusive teacher preparation program showed positive teacher efficacy, favorable attitudes towards inclusive education, as well as positive beliefs of diversity. The findings suggest the effectiveness of the inclusive teacher preparation program. However, participants’ GTE varied along with particular learning experiences they had, while their PTE showed linear increase across over the course of preparation. Preservice teachers were most favorable towards inclusion of children with social disabilities, but were the least favorable (still positive) to children with behavioral disabilities. Male participants had significantly lower beliefs about Personal and Professional BoD than females.

Secondly, specifically, participants in more advanced phases of preparation exhibited higher perceived sense of PTE, more positive attitudes towards inclusion, and stronger professional beliefs of diversity. But, those in Special Education Practicum (Cohort 5) showed less positive attitudes towards inclusion than other senior preservice teachers (Cohort 4-Professional Practice II and Cohort 6-Student Teaching). Teachers’ professional beliefs of diversity did change significantly overtime and showed a significantly increasing trend from Cohort 1 (beginning student) to Cohort 4 (Professional Practice II)., but their personal beliefs of diversity remained independent of the preparation.

Lastly, preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and beliefs of diversity were distinguishable by their perceived levels of teacher efficacy. Those with positive PTE had more favorable attitudes towards including children with academic or social disabilities in general classrooms and they also held stronger personal beliefs of diversity. Those with positive GTE were more willing to include children with physical, social, or academic disabilities in general classrooms and they had stronger professional and personal beliefs on school diversity. But, children with behavioral disabilities appeared to challenge all preservice teachers disregarding their perceived levels of teacher efficacy.

Since teacher’s perceived sense of efficacy, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, and their beliefs about school diversity are positively associated with one another, improvement on any one of these three aspects may bring positive impact on the other two. For example, the strategies employed by teacher education programs to enhance preservice teachers’ beliefs of diversity may at the same time foster teachers’ perceived sense of efficacy and attitudes to inclusive education. Preservice teachers demonstrating high sense of efficacy may be more willing to accommodate the needs of diverse learners after they enter schools full of complexity.

Teachers’ sense of efficacy and attitudes toward school diversity developed over time, though, vacillation might occur at certain points of the preparation. Educating children with behavioral disabilities equally challenges all teachers, whether they are confident in other diversity-relating areas or not. The faculty of the inclusive teacher education program may need to place a higher emphasis on this issue and to allocate more resources and time to better teachers’ preparation in this regard, for example, adding more fieldwork on behavioral disabilities.

It should also be pointed out that this study had a small sample size predominately made up of white female students from one university. A more diverse population of preservice teachers should be sought. Besides, preservice teachers in this study might possess more favorable attitudes toward diversity and inclusion than those in other programs or general inservice teachers. Preservice teachers who decided to enroll in an inclusive preparation program in the first place might be more aware of diversity issues. Further studies with participants from different nationalities and cultural backgrounds are necessary in

105


order to develop a global understanding of strategies that can best improve preservice teachers’ efficacy and attitudes towards diversity.

ReferencesAshton, P. T. (1985). Motivation and teachers’ sense of efficacy. In Ames, C., & Ames, R. (Eds.),Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2 the classroom milieu (pp. 141-71). Orlando, FL: AcademicPress.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2001). Multicultural education: Issues & perspectives (4th ed.).New York:Wiley.Barry, N. H., & Lechner, J. V. (1995). Preservice teachers’ attitudes about and awareness of multiculturalTeaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 149-161. Benner, S. M. & Lesar, S. (2000). Teacher preparation for inclusive settings: A talent developmentmodel. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 23-38. Bradfield-Kreider, P. (2001). Personal transformation from the inside out: Nurturing monoculturalteachers’ growth towards multicultural competence. Multicultural Education, 8(4), 31-34.Briggs, J. D., Johnson, W. E., Shepherd, D. L., & Sedbrook, S. R. (2002). Teacher attitudes and attributes concerning disabilities. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6(2), 85-89.Brown, E. L. (2000). Developing the ethical multicultural classroom tenets of preserviceteachers: A social cognitive instructional model. Journal on Excellence in Teacher Education,9(3), 81–108.Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of preservice general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262-277.Everington, C., Hamill, L. B., & Lubic, B. (1996). Restructuring teacher preparation programs for inclusion: The change process in one university. Contemporary Education, 68(1), 52-56. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2005). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Frankel, E. B. (2004). Supporting inclusive care and education for young children with special needs andtheir families: An international perspective. Childhood Education, International Focus Issue, 310-316.Gibson, G. (2004). Multicultural preservice education: Promising multicultural preservice teachereducation initiatives. Radical Pedagogy [Online serial], 6(1).Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like otherkinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-36.Heston, M. L., Raschke, D., Kliewer, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., & Edmiaston, R. (1998). Transformingteacher preparation in early childhood education: Moving to inclusion. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 21(4), 278-92. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for a diverse society: Seeing with the cultural eye. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.Jenkins, A. A., Pateman, B., & Black, R. (2002). Partnerships for dual preparation in elementary,secondary, and special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), 359-371. Keefe, E. B., Rossi, P. J., de Valenzuela, J. S., & Howarth, S. (2000). Reconceptualizing teacherpreparation for inclusive classrooms: A description of the dual license program at the University Of NewMexico. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(2), 72-82. Kemple, K. M., Hartle, L. C., Correa, V. I., & Fox, L. (1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education:The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood specialeducation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 38-51. Kuhlman, N. & Vidal, J. (1993). Meeting the needs of LEP students through new teacher training: Thecase in California. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 12(3), 97-114.Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preserviceteachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.Lombardi, T. P., & Hunka, N. J. (2001). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive classrooms:Assessing the process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 183-197.McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: Teacher perceptions regardingcurricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 41–54.Meyer, L. & Biklen, D. (1992). Preparing teachers for inclusive schooling: The Syracuse University

106


Inclusive elementary and special education teacher preparation program. Unpublished report. SyracuseUniversity.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2005). The condition of education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education.Nel, J. (1992). The empowerment of minority students: Implications of Cummins’ model for teachereducation. Action in Teacher Education, 14(3), 38-45.Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: Restructuring the mainstreamcourse in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 306-318. Pohan, C. A. (1996). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity: Uncovering factors leading toMulticultural responsiveness. Equity and Excellence in Education, 29(3), 62-69.Pugach, M. (1992). Unifying the preservice population of teachers. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback(Eds.), Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacherefficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 381-394.Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of children with aPreschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 147163.Sharma, U., Ee, J., & Desai, I. (2003). A comparison of Australian and Singaporean preservice teachers’attitudes and concerns about inclusive education. Teaching and Learning, 24(2), 207-217.Simmons, H. L. (1998). External agents, fostering multiculturalism. In L. A. Valverde, & L.A. Castenell,Jr., (Eds.), The multicultural campus: Strategies for transforming higher education (pp.51-68). WalnutCreek, CA: Altmira Press. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelmingpresence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.Smith, S. J., Frey, B. B. & Tollefson, N. (2003). A collaborative cohort approach to teacher education:Modeling inclusive practices. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 55-62. Sobel, D. M., Iceman-Sands, D., & Basile, C. (2007). Merging general and special education teacherPreparation programs to create an inclusive program for diverse learners. The New Educator, 3(3), 241262. Soodak, L. C., Pdell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes aspredictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497.Subban, P. & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 42-52.U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Twenty-sixth annual (2004) report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA: Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Author. Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, Dennis D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing special and general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 440-455. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (1996). Preparing teachers to support inclusion:

Preservice and inservice programs. Theory into Practice, 35(1), 42-50.Voltz, D. L. (2003). Collaborative infusion: An emerging approach to teacher preparation for inclusiveeducation. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-13. Wilczenski, F.L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive. education.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 291-299.Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching:A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.

107


PROFESSIONALISM AND INSTITUTIONALISATION OF EDUCATION OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE IMPAIRED CHILDREN IN AN INCLUSIVE SYSTEM IN GERMANY

Dr. Jörg MussmannJustus Liebig University Gießen

This paper discusses the future of professionalism of the traditional exclusive and curative pedagogy for speech and language impaired children in Germany. This specialized professional domain is currently being challenged to define as a specialized educational domain of education and educational science their resources with a justifiable educational theory for the inclusive restructuring of the school system. Therefore this domain brings a variety of terminology for concepts and methods that manage to combine education and curriculum-based speech and language therapy in the classroom. In its actual redefinition it moves between linguistic provincialism and professional self-dissolution. But educational and institutional resources with evidence-based educational methods show, however useful perspectives in an inclusive system, if the subsidiarity principle would be followed Not a complete sentence.. A network-based organization for these resources and methods is one way. The restructuring of the special schools for pupils without speech and language disabilities is another way.

German education of speech and language impaired children and speech and language therapy in international comparisonThe establishment of the scientific discipline of special needs education in the case of language and speech impairments between medicine and general pedagogy as well as the build-up of an institutionalised speech therapy system in Germany and Austria/Hungary had a decisive influence on the emergence of speech therapy care systems at the beginning of the 20 th century especially in the U.S. In accordance with German traditions, not only medical insights into language impairments, but also pedagogical approaches to treating those who suffer from language impairments wound up leading to a gradually developing, scientific understanding of language and speech impairments. In Europe and in the Anglo-American zone, an extensive study of the classic works on articulation, stuttering and voice therapy by Kussmaul, Gutzmann, Ndoleczny, Froeschels and Rothe took place in the first two decades of the 20th century up until the First World War. These domains of speech therapy development were called the German School (West, 1966).

In Germany, these scientific developments were divided into two groups of professions, which nonetheless worked with the same clientele (children and young people with speech disorders) and in part also with identical methods and techniques (special techniques of language learning, facilitation and therapy), but had different areas of responsibility in the education system and healthcare systemShould this be part of the last paragraph?First, logopedics grew in Germany out of the medical knowledge of speech therapy and was established as a subject at a university in Berlin in 1905. During the course of the 20th century, occupational training was offered for logopedics. Logopedists were for a long time in Germany paramedical, non-academic professions. The theory that served as the basis for the logopedists’ competence had its roots in medical speech therapy and in doctors' ideas about a very close connection of language and speech impairments with neural functions and structures.

The career profile of specialized pedagogues for children and youth with language and speech impairments grew parallel to that in the education system. With regard to the therapeutic contents of the developing clinical logopedics and the pedagogical contents of deaf-mute education, a new set of tasks was institutionalised for these special pedagogues at primary schools. Already in 1883, so called speech

108


therapy courses for stuttering schoolchildren were offered. Such courses were public measures made by school authorities parallel to the regular classes in the school. The pedagogues specialized for that conducted systematic therapeutic and speech gymnastic exercises. The question of combining specific linguistic therapy goals and general education goals of teaching was discussed early on during the course of the institutionalization of this academic special needs education for schoolchildren with language and speech impairments. With the answers to these methodological questions, these independent groups of professions of specialized pedagogues, which in the context of school could shape both therapy and teaching, uniquely established themselves in Germany. Up to now, separate schools are offered in Germany for this work, which are primarily characterized by smaller classes. Schoolchildren who go to this kind of school generally do not receive any assumption of costs by the statutory health insurance fund in Germany for speech therapy by logopedists in the healthcare system, which is prescribed by a doctor. Logopedists may only be deployed within these special schools parallel to the specialized teaching staff in cases of very serious language and speech impairments. A connection of the therapeutic work of logopedists at the schools on the contents of the curriculum generally does not take place.

The separate school system in Germany is being restructured in various steps in consideration of the United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities, which is also now applicable in Germany. Separate special schools constitute discrimination against schoolchildren with language and speech impairments according to various judicial interpretations of the UN convention. The goal is to teach schoolchildren with and without disabilities together in a regular school. The question is thus posed, how the previous scope of tasks of specialized pedagogues for children with language and speech impairments will change or if this scope of tasks can be completely taken over at schools by the medical logopedists from the healthcare system.

Discussion of programs and terms in special needs education in GermanyDuring the course of political discussions and scientific discussions on education about the United Nations convention for the rights of people with disabilities, a diverse programmatic nomenclature of self-reflection of the genuine special needs education professionalism of groups of professions of specialized pedagogues grew from within special needs education and curative education in Germany (see Albrecht & Moser, 2000; Moser, 2005; Mussmann, 2005; Hinz, 2009).

Programmatic and conceptual further developments were also discussed to this end in German exclusive, curative pedagogy for speech and language impaired children (Glueck & Mussmann, 2009). With a program of inclusive education of speech and language impaired children, the necessity of a specific subject-related knowledge of reflection and action is emphasized by pedagogues, which can be provided as a resource of competence for specialized support in an inclusive school system. A professionalization field should therefore be referred to, which stands out due to historical and subject-specific exclusivity, namely reflection, prevention and intervention in regards to language development and use of language (as also the scientific and practical reflection and subject areas e.g. cognitive, social-emotional, body-motor development), In its methodological consequences in reference to its clientele, people with disorders in language, speech, voice and ability to communicate, working in no way exclusively.

Discussion of inclusion of the education of speech and language impaired childrenThe traditional, seperative and curative pedagogy for speech and language impaired children in Germany is at this time challenged to define its resources justifiable in terms of education theory for an inclusive restructured school system as a special pedagogical domain of the arts of education and teaching ( Glueck & Mussmann, 2009). This is a challenge with its historical roots in the knowledge of medical speech therapy and its partial development in clinical logopedics. Sustainable further developments are available in integrative, firmly pedagogical and institution independent approaches with authors such as Lütje-Klose (1997), Welling and Kracht (2002) or Lüdtke (2010). They involve the justification of theoretical concepts of professions, which direct (therapy, teaching) and indirect forms of action (consultation) should be derived from, which must prove to be capable of again being institutionally open in an inclusive school system (see Mussmann, 2010a).

An integrative pedagogy in the case of language and speech disorders in an inclusive education system must be able to say which offers it can continue to maintain independent of institutions during the political disintegration of the separate school system in Germany.

Point of departure for education of speech and language impaired children: Conceptual-didactic point of departure in the focal point of support for language

109


The education of speech and language impaired children developed a broad base of terminology for concepts and methods of language therapy in schools (Welling, 2006), which succeeded in combining education and language therapy goals in teaching. Language therapy teaching is in the first place teaching, to be justified as generally didactic and institution independent (Braun, 2004). It should create teaching situations in which the interest of further development of lingual competencies to act can be built up (facilitation). This is at this time being practised directly through their own teaching work in their own classroom, team-teaching or indirectly through consultation for the regular pedagogues. In the direct work, language-specific individualised curriculum-based interventions should be integrated (therapy), which imparts the use of language typically expected and ensures experimenting and practicing lingual action (Drave, 2000).

In view of the predominant clientele of pedagogical facilitation with its focal point in language, children with localised development impairments in language (Grimm, 2003), the pedagogy for speech and language impaired children systematized three essential approaches which differentiate themselves technically each according to the linguistic level and modalities:

Pattern Practice: Sentence pattern exercises, high frequency model expressions and exercises as out of content imitation treatment (Camarata & Nelson, 1992)

Development proximal approach (Dannenbauer, 1999): Lingual goal structures of children's expressions and led common action (modelling) or following it (recasts) are offered in situated learning and experience contexts. The proximity orients itself to development phases of lingual levels (i.e. Clahsen, 1986).

Reflection-oriented approach Aid in reflection and retrieval for structural and functional properties of language, also through visualisations and typefaces. They can be implemented metaphonologically (minimum pairs, e.g. pin-bin), metasemantically (e.g. word field work: What belongs together?), metasyntactically (e.g. alternative questions as a recast: Is the horse in the stall or is it in front of the stall?) or metapragmatically (reflecting on irony, humour and social situations).

The so called concept of context optimisation combines these three approaches and calls for systematising through cause-orientation, modality switching, resource and context orientation (within context conversational treatment Camrata & Nelson, 1992) as language therapy teaching. This concept is currently being one of the few evidence-based practices for speech therapy intervention in the context of school teaching, with an educational and curriculum-based intention to combine therapeutic and educational goals and which is tested and researched extensively in Germany. (Motsch, 2006; Berg, 2008).

Between linguistic provincialism and professional self-dissolution?The main question within the scope of didactic conceptualism of a specialized pedagogy in the case of impairments in language and speech was for them according to the structures of connection of therapy and teaching (Werner, 1995). This question was avoided by some authors with attempts to define both categories of action as identical (Braun, 1983). In view of the practical requirements of schools, people were frequently more concerned with the technological side of this approach in the sense of additiva, technically merely somewhat of an addition of another column in the lesson plan (Welling, 2007). The focus on lingual details, linguistic provinces in the worlds of everyday live, becomes apparent in methodologically differentiated further developments of language therapy teaching. What may constitute an invaluable quarry of practical teaching ideas for special pedagogues in their special schools, poses the question of the relevance of the objective in collective teaching or in inclusive schools. A basis for reducing the exclusive technique of combining structures for action concerning teaching and speech therapy and for complying with basic school structural questions may well be a historically contingent profession structural aspect. The field is characterized like hardly any other by a structural feature, which up to now forms a projection plane for a theoretical discussion on professions between the healthcare system and the education system. The secret of the categories of action of teaching and language therapy was and is, with that in mind, the focal point of this structural discourse. This discussion presents itself in the German education of speech and language impaired children as a historically developed dilemma between differing and competing conceptual references. Functional differentiation in science and research led to the following domains of reflection in today's subject area of speech and language therapy, The medical art of language therapy (1905 by Gutzmann, H. with a medical focus, Berlin School), later phoniatrics/ pedaudiology and logopedics (1924 by Fröschels with a psychological focus, Vienna School as well as deaf-mute education (from ca. 1800 with an elocutionary focus) and thus today to language and speech structural (linguistics, medicine), personal (psychology, pedagogy) and social (pedagogy) oriented toward theory and practice.

110


A professional self-dissolution is feared in the case of a diffusion of specific linguistic domains of the German education of/ pedagogy for speech and language impaired children in Germany through references to internal (personal orientation) and external distal and proximal context factors (social orientation). In that way, the German theoretical discussion on professions of the education of speech and language impaired children in Germany is cultivated, which must regard itself as exposed to accusations of institutional grandfathering and disciplinarily preserving the current structure. These objections are then justified if a de-professionalization arises in Germany after the de-institutionalisation of the education of speech and language impaired children (through the evolution from separate to inclusive school type systems) through exclusive context orientation of special needs education, which leads to the disintegration of person-oriented categories of action (teaching, individualised supporting actions like facilitation of speech and language acquisition) and its responsibility exists merely in the form of organisational consultation.

Didactic further developments in the focal point of speech and language facilitationSocial science oriented, didactic conceptualisations in the focal point of support for language take up social as well as conceptual factors, but places them however again in relation to structural features and phenomenon of language. Lingual action and its interpretations with communicative-pragmatic intentions and all cognitive and socioemotional implications is in the course of that made into a process of cooperative co-construction (Bindel, 2007). In an ideal case of a communicative crisis of speech execution (Homburg, 1993), lingual action and comprehension then becomes an idiolectal process of understanding as a compromise through generalisation of the other (Ungeheuer, 1987) on the basis of the assumptions on knowledge and social and emotional expectations. Language above all wants to drive the partner into a certain perspective (Graumann, 1994) and reach personal goals. Language presupposes an interpersonal interpretation (Tomasello, 2002) and is a cognitive strategy: anticipation of what the listener decides, how he reacts, and contemplation of what is not said (theory of mind; Astington, 2006).

Cognitive planning and linguistic construction is important in the process of that to use of language (thinking for speaking; Slobin, 1996). The main activity concerns the construction of verbal texts, that is to say complete sentences as a story. Communication is thus relative to personal intentions, the current situation, the addressee and the episode and function of the social encounter. Language is the resource to react variably, to know how to speak in social situations. Language learning in dialogue results in an increase of actively grasping the reality of the use of language from its complexity. An introduction into theoretical culture is important (speaking literally): proof for statements, reflection on statements according to the rules of logic, references to texts for preparing statements (see Nelson, 1996; Bindel et al., 2007).

These are theoretical bases which correspond with current emergence models of epigenetic language acquisition theory (Mussmann, 2009). The development up to these emotive turns and post-cognitive linguistics as the scope of relational didactics in the focal point of support for language was presented in the German education of speech and language impaired children most recently in Germany by Lüdtke (2010). In short: the pedagogical areas of observation and action in the case of disorders of lingual, cognitive and socioemotional development thus coincide. A separate form of school for language-disabled persons in Germany is thus theoretically difficult to justify. Exclusive domains of pedagogical specialisations, which analyse and facilitate these areas of learning and development with different accentuated focal points, on the other hand are not so difficult to justify.

Perspectives: Didactic resources in the inclusive system The actual goal of the discussion on inclusion in Germany is a school for everyone, one school that does not discriminate, which welcomes all children and youth irrespective of age, gender, religious affiliation, social origin, mother tongue, parent's income, residence status, cognitive ability, chronic diseases and even also irrespective of existing disabilities. That goes way beyond currently integrative concepts such as teaching children with/without disabilities. The inclusive school can call on subsidiary, network-based support systems with mobile special teachers. What is to be figured out is whether these resources, also in cases of support through specific speech and language facilitation and language therapy, are supplied from the health care system (by logopedists) or still from the education system (by specialized pedagogues). This question has been answered outside of Germany: logopedists work at schools there.

In the inclusive school, the conditions for collective heterogeneity are in a relationship of tension with the individual right of children to be able to fully develop their personality, their talents and their

111


creativity as well as their cognitive and physical abilities - according to the words of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities (Article 24 of the UN convention), which underscores this common right for people with disabilities. However this full development is to be achieved, and where it is in each individual case, is a question that contains different answers for the respective child, its immediate environment and the school and potentially also professionals from their respective own perspective. These answers are synchronized in a more or less explicit negotiation process.

Inclusive education with the point of focus on specific speech and language facilitation reflects (diagnostics) and processes (teaching, therapy) the relationship of immediate (that is to say personal and language and speech structural) and mediate distal and proximal factors (that is to say social context) of unexpected use of language in heterogeneous learning groups.

The creation and support of lingual tolerance for heterogeneity (Weisser, 2005) in inclusive settings requires professional knowledge of reflection, which integrates the conceptual reference in all disciplinary (exclusive) dimensions (linguistic, medical, psychological) in order professionally to appropriately be able to describe and reflect the conditions for an experience of successful communication, that is to say participation. An exclusive knowledge of reflection can in this process require exclusive forms of action (therapy). The specified form of action, speech therapy, is subordinated to facilitation as a form of barrier-free lingual-communicative conditions for learning and development (teaching) (Welling, 2007). Both forms of action can display a decidedly pedagogical quality. Namely in all cases where they enable and promote lingual processes for education and learning under aggravated conditions with the goal of self-reflexively supporting this acquisition, development and experimentation of lingual knowledge and lingual abilities in view of the individual person (the schoolchild). Under this pre-eminence of lingual self-determination and co-determination, both categories of action pursue a goal of education (Figure 1).

112


Figure 1:Relationship between lingual education, facilitation and therapy

Inclusive education with the conceptual reference of impaired speech and communication must also be able to justify a professional concept in an inclusive education system, whose conceptual reference (unexpected use of language) continues to involve the disciplines of references in reflecting on the subject matter, from which however forms of action (consultation, facilitation, therapy) must be able to be derived from, which do not require any exclusive institutions. With reference to related fields, which are necessary for identifying, analysing and describing the subject areas in the practical field of action of traditional, separative and curative pedagogy for speech and language impaired (linguistics, education, psychology and medical as well as neuropsycholinguistic phoniatric and pedaudiologic aspects connected with them), a professional concept is formed, whose immanent categories of action are able to be implemented (that is to say consultation of teachers and parents, speech and language facilitation through directly participating in shaping teaching, interventions similar to therapy as individual support measures during and outside of class), which can be reconciled with school integration concepts, forms of teaching (collective teaching), but also the forms of inclusive schools in the institutionalized field of action of general education. Speech and language therapy work thus inevitably does not require special schools. Regular schools can however set up such offers of language education within the scope of their school programs and profiles or make use of support through a network, which is provided and coordinated by centres for support and consultation.

113

obligatory: language education

facultative: speech and language facilitation

facultative: speech and language therapy


Figure 2:Structure of education with the conceptual reference of impaired language and communication

The direct reflection of unexpected use of language in an education and training situation in the inclusive schools requires direct categories of action directed towards individuals such as therapy (intervention) and speech and language facilitation (support), in order to immediately enable participation. An inclusive education of speech and language impaired children in Germany can thus also offer speech and language therapy teaching, which is independent of institutions and place of study (Braun, 2004). It distinguishes itself from the preventative character of speech and language facilitation as removing and preventing language barriers (through adaptive teaching) through its structure of specific intervention: it is a kind of subsidiary support system on location, when the independence of the schoolchild no longer exists to realize specific lingual sound, word or sentence structures and this impediment in this moment of crisis threatens to disable or impair the actual learning and education process. This can take place incidentally (that is to say in the case of crisis of speech or communication) or confrontationally as an intentional challenge. In both cases, it distinguishes itself from the incidental, intuitive aid of the regular teachers in that it knows ahead of time who, when and where to whom which lingual assistance will be offered, namely on the basis of previous diagnostics, and also to whom it will not be offered to.

Indirect reflection requires context-related categories of action such as consultation (of colleague teachers, teachers and parents) in order to indirectly enable participation. The work for the child is meant with that. Because an education of speech and language impaired children in Germany cannot amount to anything more than healthcare professions in the area of speech and language therapy derived from disorder-specific therapy goals from the phonetic-phonologic, semantic-lexical, syntactical-morphological and prosodic criteria for evaluation as a necessary and exclusive knowledge of reflection for lingual heterogenic learning groups in an inclusive education system.

It should rather deliver criteria for forming learning and development situations in order to confront schoolchildren with language-specific and communicative challenges and problems via media, themes and social forms, which give them opportunities to test and expand their individual lingual ability to act oriented to situations and related to themes. As pedagogy it involves in the first place removing language barriers in the classroom indirectly (through consultation) or directly (through individualized support in the classroom) with the corresponding background knowledge from linguistics, phoniatrics and psychology, and to build up lingual learning opportunities and room for growth. Language, speech and voice impairments must be able to be discovered in their relevance for barriers in forming teaching. That inclusion is already impaired alone by the exclusive description of a pedagogical problem area with

114


professional terminology, that just the naming and distinguishing for example of stuttering from so called battarism in consultation discussions with the regular pedagogues should have an exclusive effect, is incomprehensible and is contrary to initial empirical findings within the scope of evaluations of concepts of integration (Lütje-Klose, 2008).

It is furthermore not a primary goal according to the diagnostics and description of the problem area to eliminate the language impairments as an aspect of the problem area before they form on the work of training and education. Education of speech and language impaired children in Germany commands far more resources for this outside of the school. The removal of language impairments and the development of compensational strategies of communication are however not possible through teaching nor in the classroom. The field of the described profession-specific concepts has developed for this, and it is characterized by its immanent methods that are also integrated in the teaching process and distinguishes itself with this pedagogical quality from the medical therapy of therapeutic service providers.

Institutional resources: Separate schools or network-based prevention and interventionThe special needs schools specialized in language in Germany enjoy high acceptance from the parents as a school form with equal goals for learning and as a so called transition school (Durchgangsschule). Various special schools specialized for speech and language impaired children allow for qualified secondary school certificates (Hauptschule or Realschule) and offer vocation preparation measures in cooperation with regional operations with proven positive placement rates (see Bachmann et al., 2001; Jäger & Bachmann, 2010). A lot from these reasons speaks for maintaining this form of organization as an optional school as a school for general education i.e. with the offer of speech and language facilitation (Glueck & Mussmann, 2009) in a diverse system of pedagogical support and participation in education.On the other hand, the demand to necessarily provide the didactical resources, which maintain a specialized domain of pedagogy in the case of disorders of language and speech, as described above, through a network-based support system for prevention and intervention in particular also for schoolchildren with learning disorders, disorders in socioemotional development as well as disorders stemming from social marginal milieus and children with immigration backgrounds (Lütje-Klose, 2006, 2008). Since the previous regular school teachers will not be able to meet these children's needs for support without extensive and costly vocational qualification measures, corresponding special pedagogues specialized in language would be necessary in integrative and inclusive settings. The already detailed independence from institutions of language-specific, high-structured support concepts in teaching (individualized, direct language training and facilitation with therapeutic relevance and indirect, context-driven consultation) also speak for being maintained in an optional school provided for such purpose as well as for its implementation in an inclusive system as a subsidiary network. The international comparison also speaks for the latter. Lütje-Klose (1997) presented investigations into the effectiveness and conceptions for transferring to Germany from the U.S., in which personnel trained in therapy, conducted the language therapy at the schools. Individual models of the school’s didactic development and pedagogical qualifications of the personnel in Germany are however behind the level of development of the traditional curative pedagogy for speech and language impaired children in Germany, which, as already explained, speaks against the use of logopedists and academic language therapists in inclusive schools in Germany. In the international comparison, the following school systems were identified (Lütje-Klose, 1997): The pull out model, in which language therapy takes place in separate facilitation groups or in individual therapeutic situations outside of the classroom, but in the school, the classroom-based intervention model, doubling up in the regular classroom (integrative team-teaching or parallel-teaching, (Friend & Bursuck 1999; Lütje-Klose & Willenbring, 1999) and the collaborative consultation model (Marvin, 1990) as mixed form of collective teaching with consultation structures integrated into the school structures between language experts and other teachers. These models are also implemented organizationally in Germany (e.g. as a mobile service, collective teaching or integrative regular classes), with different accentuations, school legal basis and terminology in each federal state due to the federal structure.

Alongside the network-based support systems through consultation or competence centres, whose mobile services or ambulances, which are regulated for the time being by the school act (edicts), additional networks are emerging, that is to say pilot projects, which, according to numerous training and education plans in the federal states, are expanding their areas of responsibility to the elementary and external school area. People work for the child on various levels and transition points via speech and language facilitation in cooperation with the child or indirectly via consultation or continuing education of pedagogical specialists:

115


In kindergarten teams through collegial, case-related consultation and continuing education sessions.

With the parents: Parent meetings will be offered for information and consultation on the topics of language development, language and communication facilitating behaviour, development risks and school career paths.

With individual children in the kindergarten group or school class through diagnostics, individual support and therapy or their transfer.

With representatives of all involved institutions to the extent possible: Joint support conferences will be strived for, but also cooperation meetings of kindergarten teachers and future first grade teachers.

All networks constitute transition forms on the way to long-term structural school growth of institutions of education, which should consolidate training and education in elementary and primary level ages. This network for procuring resources, consultation and also individualized support does not at this time compensate further than the differences in the education and the areas of responsibility between kindergarten teachers and primary school teachers as well as concretely for the distance of the institutions in regards to space and time.

Didactical and methodical resourcesA great chance for pedagogy in the case of language and speech disorders rests in the professional requirements of analysis and shaping of these transition processes between the family home, kindergarten, school and profession in an inclusive system, bringing in its tried and true professional resources for children and youth with aggravated conditions of first and second language acquisition as well as for their teachers and distancing itself from offers in the health care system through its decidedly pedagogical orientation and didactic competence. The further chance of the specialised domain of educational sciences described here lies in its methodical and didactical competences a) by integrating individualised techniques and therapeutic interventions in education (therapy and methods of specific language facilitation) and b) avoiding speech impairments or reducing linguistic-cognitive barriers in education (prevention). The techniques of integrating therapy in education so far have been the professional feature of special and curative pedagogy. The task of diagnostic identification of linguistic barriers as means of prevention will play a much more prominent role in the future in the reorganisation of schools into an inclusive system in Germany. But without a technically founded identification and analysis (diagnostics), reflexion and modification of the specific linguistic and communicative conditions in education (methods and didactics) in the inclusive regular school, children and youngsters with speech and communication impediments will experience specific barriers in developing their cognitive, socio-emotional and mostly linguistic-communicative abilities owing to the interaction of the education offer with their impediments. This is why inclusive education requires a certain professionalism to reduce such barriers or to offer them a chance to learn according to their development by individual support (specific facilitation).Barriers can be mostly expected among pupils with developmental speech disorders

in the impairment of auditory processing of spoken-language utterances of the teacher and the other pupils, under conditions where the spatial requirements and the education plan do not avoid acoustic information disturbing the child (such as background noises, echoes, unintended language of the others) as required,

in the general weakness of the verbal-acoustic material (for instance the teachers’ utterances), if they cannot be memorised and processed as could be expected regarding the age of the pupils (impairment of processing the phonological information) and if the outline of the class and the media does not sufficiently consider this special condition, for instance in acquiring written language,

in case of limited access to information relevant for the education by lacking or insufficient processing of information given out in spoken or written language and

in the insufficient possibilities of the spoken and written language to start sufficient communication with the teacher and mostly with the fellow pupils to transport information but also to design social relations.

To reduce these barriers, the education offer has to be designed in a specific way for pupils subject to these conditions. By the constructional design of the class rooms, the temporary or permanent reduction of noise in class as well as by an educational design, which provides for phases of silence in relevant phases, the barrier of auditory perception impairment can be removed.

116


A special selection and design of the teachers’ language and the language of the media used (such as work sheets, reading material …) considers the impairment in the verbal-acoustic, but also the lexical and grammatical processing of the written language of the pupils by brevity, simplicity and avoiding redundancy. Manifold sensory, mostly visually and motorical offers (for instance by hand signs) compensatorily support the absorption and processing of information even with an average high cognitive educational purpose.Special emphasis has to be laid on barriers in the socio-emotional development, as here as well as in the linguistic-communicative development, unfavourable, long-term ways of development have to be avoided. Education and school life have to secure sufficient possibilities to form self-confidence, experience of self-belief, initiating and design of social relationships as well as protecting them from stigmatisation and social exclusion.These conditions will have to be identified, individually analysed and modified in the inclusive school. Where this is methodically achieved, inclusive speech and language therapy and facilitation are possible. Otherwise exclusive specialised techniques of intervention and individualised support will still be required. The review on the historic development carried out in this article and the current professional-theoretical position and structure of special education for pupils with speech and language education in Germany has shown that a specialised domain of educational sciences is sufficient without acquiring additional resources and sources in the healthcare system by logopaedics.

ReferencesAlbrecht, F.; Hinz, A. & Moser, V. (2000) Perspektiven der Sonderpädagogik. Disziplin- und professionsbezogene Standortbestimmungen. Neuwied; Berlin: LuchterhandAstington, J. (2006) The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In: Levinson, S.C. & Enfield, N.J. The roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition, and human interaction. Oxford, UK: Berg, 179-206.Bachmann, J.; Königstein, B.; Jäger, B. & Mosler, J. (2001) Modell zur Verbesserung der Berufsreife von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Hauptstufe. Die Sprachheilarbeit, 46(5), 224-232Bachmann, J. & Jäger, B. (2010) Wir haben es geschafft. Erfolgreiche-Berufliche Eingliederung an einer Sprachheilschule. Erscheint im Tagungsband des 75. Bundeskongresses der dgs e.V.Berg, M. (2008) Kontextoptimierung im Unterricht. Praxisbausteine für die Förderung grammatischer Fähigkeiten. München: ReinhardtBindel, R. (2007) Kognitives Modellieren als didaktisches Prinzip. In: Kohlberg, T. Sprachtherapeutische Förderung im Unterricht. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 144-160Bindel, R., Kessler, L. & Mussmann, J. (2007) Zur Emergenz von Sprache. Forum Sprache, 1, 16-23 Braun, O. (1983) Sprachtherapeutischer Unterricht in Theorie und Praxis. Bestandsaufnahme und Diskussion. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Speech and Language Therapy e.V. Konzepte und Organisationsformen zur Rehabilitation Sprachbehinderter. Hamburg: Wartenberg, 167-178Braun, O. (2004) Bildung, Erziehung und Unterricht in der Sprachheilpädagogik. In: GROHNFELDT, M. Lehrbuch der Sprachheilpädagogik und die Logopädie. Bd. 5. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Kohlhammer, 25-51Camarata, S.M. & Nelson, K.E. (1992) Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 167-178Clahsen, H. (1986) Die Profilanalyse. Ein linguistisches Verfahren für die Sprachdiagnose im Vorschulalter. Berlin: MarholdDannenbauer, F.M. (1999) Grammatik. In Baumgartner, S. & Füssenich, I. Sprachtherapie mit Kindern. München: Reinhardt, 123-203Dlugosch, A. (2005) Professionelle Entwicklung in sonderpädagogischen Kontexten. In Horster, D. Sonderpädagogische Professionalität. Beiträge zur Entwicklung der Sonderpädagogik als Disziplin und Profession. Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 27-51Drave, W.; Rumpler, F. & Wachtel, P. (2000) Empfehlungen zur sonderpädagogischen Förderung. Allgemeine Grundlagen und Förderschwerpunkte (KMK) mit Kommentaren. Empfehlungen zum Förderschwerpunkt Sprache. 1998. Würzburg: BentheimFriend, M. & Bursuck, W.D. (1999) Students With Special Needs. Needham: HeightsFroeschels, E. (1913) Lehrbuch der Sprachheilkunde. Leipzig: DeutickeGlueck, C. & Mussmann, J. (2009) Inklusive Bildung braucht exklusive Professionalität. Entwurf für eine ‚Inklusive Speech and Language Therapy ’. Die Sprachheilarbeit, Berlin, 54(5), 221-228Graumann, C.F. (1994) Wieviel Zeigen steckt im Nennen? In Kornadt, H.-J. Sprache und Kognition. Heidelberg. Spektrum, 55-69Grimm, H. (2003) Störungen der Sprachentwicklung. Grundlagen - Ursachen - Diagnose - Intervention – Prävention. Göttingen: Hogrefe

117


Gutzmann, A. (1888) Das Stottern und seine gründliche Beseitigung durch ein methodisch geordnetes und praktisch erprobtes Verfahren. Berlin Gutzmann, H. (1912) Sprachheilkunde. Vorlesungen über die Störungen der Sprache mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Therapie. Berlin: KornfeldHomburg, G. (1993) Konvergenz von grundschul- und sprachheilpädagogischer Arbeit - ein Ansatzpunkt zu einer veränderten Grundschul- und Speech and Language Therapy . Die Sprachheilarbeit, Berlin, 38(6), 279-296Hinz, A. (2009) Inklusive Pädagogik in der Schule. Veränderter Orientierungsrahmen für die schulische Sonderpädagogik!? Oder doch deren Ende? Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, Würzburg, 60, 171-179Kussmaul, A. (1877) Die Störungen der Sprache. Leipzig: VogelLüdtke, U. (2010) Sprachdidaktiktheorie. Vom Sprachtherapeutischen Unterricht zur Relationalen Didaktik. Wie weiter in Zeiten der Inklusion? Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, Würzburg, 3, 84-96Lütje-Klose, B. (1997) Wege integrativer Sprach- und Kommunikationsförderung in der Schule. Konzeptionelle Entwicklungen und ihre Einschätzung durch amerikanische und deutsche ExpertInnen. St. Ingbert: RöhrigLütje-Klose, B. (2008) Mobile sonderpädagogische Dienste im Förderschwerpunkt Sprache. Rekonstruktionen aus der Perspektive der durchführenden Sprachbehindertenpädagoginnen. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, Würzburg, 8, 282-292Lütje-Klose, B. & Willenbring, M. (1999) Kooperation von Regelschullehrerin und Sprachbehindertenpädagogin. Eine wesentliche Bedingung für die integrative Sprach- und Kommunikationsförderung. Die Sprachheilarbeit, Berlin, 44(2), 63-76Marvin, C. A. (1990) Problems in School-based Spreech-Language Consultation and Collaboration Services: Defining the Terms and Improving the Process. In Secord, W.A. & Wiih, E.H. Collaborative Programs in the Schools Concepts, Models, and Procedures. San Antonio: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 37-47Mayer, A. (2003) Möglichkeiten der Sprach- und Kommunikationsförderung im Unterricht mit sprachentwicklungsgestörten Kindern. Die Sprachheilarbeit, Berlin, 48(1), 11-20Moser, V. (2005) Diagnostische Kompetenz als sonderpädagogisches Professionsmerkmal. In Moser, V. & Von Stechow, E. Lernstands- und Entwicklungsdiagnosen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 29-41Motsch, H.-J. (2006) Kontextoptimierung. Förderung grammatischer Fähigkeiten in Therapie und Unterricht. München: ReinhardtMussmann, J. (2009) Sprache und Kommunikation in informellen Lern- und Bildungskontexten. Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für HochschulschriftenMussmann, J. Beziehungsweise Sprache. Sprache als Medium sozial-emotionaler Entwicklung. In Tagungsband der Fachtagung 100 Jahre Sprachheilschule Halle - älteste Sprachheilschule Deutschlands. Halle, 2010aMussmann, J. (2010b) Rezension zu: Karin Reber/ Wilma Schönauer-Schneider: Bausteine sprachheilpädagogischen Unterrichts. München: Ernst Reinhardt VerlagNadoleczny, M. (1926) Kurzes Lehrbuch der Sprach- und Stimmheilkunde. Leipzig: VogelNelson, K. (1996) Language in cognitive development – emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University PressReber, K. & Schönauer-Schneider, W. (2009) Bausteine sprachheilpädagogischen Unterrichts. München: ReinhardtRothe, K.C. (1925) Das Stottern, die assoziative Aphasie und ihre heilpädagogische Behandlung. Wien: BundesverlagSlobin, D.I. (1996) From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking to speaking’. In: Gumperz, J.J. & Levinson, S.C. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70-96Tomasello, M. (2002) Die kulturelle Entwicklung des menschlichen Denkens. Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampUngeheuer, G. (1987) Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen. Kommunikationstheoretische Schriften I. Aachener Studien zur Semiotik und Kommunikationsforschung. Aachen: RaderWeisser, J. (2005) Behinderung, Ungleichheit und Bildung. Eine Theorie der Behinderung. Bielefeld: TranscriptWelling, A. & Kracht, A. (20002) Sprachpädagogische Professionalisierung der Sprachtherapie Kooperation als pädagogische Leitidee. In: Arbeitskreis Kooperative Pädagogik (AKOP) e.V. Vom Wert der Kooperation Gedanken zu Bildung und Erziehung. Frankfurt am Main, 127-158Welling, A. (2006) Einführung in die Sprachbehindertenpädagogik. München: ReinhardtWelling, A. (2007) Unterricht und Therapie – die didaktische Frage im Förderschwerpunkt Sprache. In: Schöler, H. & Welling, A. Sonderpädagogik der Sprache. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 955-981

118


Werner, L. (1995) Aspekte der Integration von Therapie und Unterricht in der Schule für Sprachbehinderte sowie in schulorganisatorisch integrativ organisierten Einrichtungen. In: Gieseke, T. Integrative Sprachtherapie. Tendenzen und Veränderungen in der Speech and Language Therapy . Berlin: VWB, Verlag für Wiss. und Bildung, 109-121

119


SCHOOL CULTURE FOR STUDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT NEEDS: BELONGING IS NOT ENOUGH

Diane Carroll, Ph. D.Metropolitan State College of Denver

Connie Fulmer, Ph. D.Donna Sobel, Ph. D.

Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Ph. D.University of Colorado at Denver

Lorenso Aragon, Ph. D.University of Colorado at Boulder

Lisa Coval, Ph. D.Murray State University

This qualitative study examined the influence of school culture on services for students with significant support needs. Students with significant support needs are defined as those who typically have cognitive impairments, often paired with sensory and physical challenges, and who require substantial supports to receive benefit from education. Using Schein’s (1988) definition of culture, ethnographic methods, including observations, interviews and artifacts, were used to collect data related to artifacts, values, and assumptions. Results of this study indicate a strong sense of family, community and belonging. However, belonging did not include critical components of instruction as described as best practice in special education literature.

Despite the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) mandate for least restrictive environment, some programs for students with significant support needs (SSN) fail to be inclusive, utilize segregated classrooms, continue to focus on functional life skills and ignore potential academic needs, including participation in standards-based education (Browder & Spooner, 2006; Director’s Survey, 2005; Ryndak & Billingsley in Kennedy & Horn, 2004). However, within the scope of special education, inclusion is not a legal term. Rather, the philosophy of inclusion is based on the least restrictive environment requirement of PL 94-142 (1975), and there is little consensus within the field of special education as to its exact definition. Some authors support case-by-case decisions and debate whether all students with significant support needs should be served exclusively in inclusive settings (Lieberman, 1992; Lipsky & Gartner, 1992). Others note considerable benefits for students with and without disabilities who participate in inclusive education (Downing, Eichinger & Williams, 1997; Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Ryndak & Fisher, 2003). With increased legal requirements for proficiency on state standards and state assessments, the focus has now shifted to inclusion in standards based education (Browder & Spooner, 2006). Recommended access to general education includes content related to state standards, activities, settings where students interact, and the use of skills to allow independent functioning across contexts equivalent to experiences of any student at any grade level (Ryndak & Alper, 2003). Furthermore, this expanded interpretation of least restrictive environment bolsters the philosophy of inclusion and, by extension, the creation of an inclusive culture where all students are valued and treated with respect (Carrington & Elkins, 2002; Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Corbett, 1999). Using Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning, the philosophy of inclusion provides opportunities for students with significant support needs to learn within communities of practice which may be legitimately peripheral initially, but which increase in degree of involvement and complexity over time.

Students with significant support needs, also described as students with low incidence or severe and multiple disabilities, make up less than one percent of the U. S. public school population (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009). Typically they have significant cognitive disabilities, sometimes paired with sensory and physical disabilities. These students require substantial modifications, adaptations and supports to access standards based education, and providing inclusive education for these students presents substantial challenges to educators (Browder & Spooner, 2006).

120


The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate how school culture influences the delivery of educational services for students with significant support needs, including participation in academic standards. School culture, for the purposes of this study, is defined as the context in which education occurs, and is exemplified by the patterns of behavior, values and embedded beliefs and assumptions shared by it members (Schein, 1988).

The definition of culture for this study draws on literature from the psychology and sociology of organizational culture, specifically, organizational culture as defined by Schein (1988). Schein (1988) contends that organizational culture consists of three levels. The first level, artifact, represents the most visible and tangible level of culture, that is also the most symbolic. Artifacts include visible behavior of the group, notes, values and mission statements, standards, and stories. The second level is values, the espoused goals and accepted reality of the group that is shared by its members. The third level, assumptions, traditionally begin as values, that stand the test of time and become the unconscious and underlying beliefs of the group that are taken for granted and rarely questioned.

Owens (2004), in applying Schein’s theory of organizational culture to education, describes educational culture as behavior patterns and ways of thinking that have worked consistently over time and are therefore taught to new members as the nature of reality. Owens expands Schein’s theory describing symbolic elements of school culture as values and beliefs, traditions and rituals, history, stories and myths, heroes and heroines, and behavior norms.

Therefore, inclusive education for students with significant support needs requires a philosophical shift in the beliefs, values, habits and assumed ways of doing things within a school community (Carrington, 1999) that influences educational service delivery for students with significant support needs. Likewise, inclusive practices for students with significant support needs must be located within the culture of the school (Corbett, 1999) where boundaries of acceptable behavior have been defined, differences celebrated, and diversity maximized. The underlying assumptions and beliefs for this complex phenomenon of inclusion and access require school organizations to recognize, value, and provide for diversity in new ways. To include students with significant support needs, educators will need to collaboratively address the challenges brought by these students and reflectively problem-solve to provide standards-based education in inclusive settings. This inclusive school culture exudes a sense of belonging, where all children are accepted and valued (Carrington & Elkins, 2002; Salisbury, 2006; Zollers, Ramanathan, & Yu, 1999).Methodology

This qualitative study examined the culture of a school, recommended by experts in the field as a site that provide exemplary, comprehensive and inclusive educational services for students with significant support needs. Ethnographic research methods were focused on the social regularities of everyday life (Merriam, 1988; Merriam, 1998; Spradley, 1979) going beyond what was seen and heard to infer what people knew, the tacit knowledge that they do not talk about or express in direct ways, their assumptions and beliefs about inclusive education for students with significant support needs.

The site selection process for this study was reputational (LeCompte & Pressel, 1993). Potential sites were drawn from recommendations by experts in the field who were asked to recommend high schools that had exceptional programs for students with significant support needs. The four expert sources included a state advisory board for students with significant support needs, the state department of education, state directors of special education, and colleagues in the field. Three sites were recommended, visited, and evaluated for participation in the study. Final selection was based on meeting the conceptual framework of the study and willingness of the participants to participate in the study. The site selected was a suburban high school in the western region of the United States.

Using Skrtic’s definition of adhocracy (1991; 1995), informants for this study included the people who were currently involved and instrumental in providing for the education and assistance of students with significant support needs. Key personnel who supported students with severe disabilities included special education and general education teachers, itinerants such as physical and occupational therapists, the principal, paraprofessionals, and parents of the students. However, only ten of these agreed to participate in this study, including two special education teachers, two general education teachers, two paraprofessionals, two parents, the principal, and the physical therapist. All ten face-to-face interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed. School professionals were interviewed at the

121


site in private locations and during times that were convenient to their schedules. Parents were interviewed in their homes at their request. To maintain anonymity, all participants are identified by position only.

Nineteen artifacts were collected and categorized for analysis. Artifacts included mission and vision statements, agendas and minutes from faculty and team meetings, monthly newsletters, information from school web sites, and samples of student work. Although these documents may not have been created for the purpose of this study, they contained information and details of events, and of long-term duration with a broad coverage in a variety of settings.

Additionally, field notes were recorded during weekly observations of day-to-day activities and interactions that centered around students with significant support needs. Notes described relevant characteristics and actions of members, what brought them together, who was allowed to participate and give opinions, and who was not. Activities and exchanges were also described to determine possible sequence, interactions with each other and with the student. Conversations were noted during observations, identifying who spoke to whom, who listened, noting silences and non-verbal behavior that added meaning to the exchanges. Less obvious, subtle events were also recorded such as informal activities, examples of symbolic or connotative language, and physical cues. What did not happen was equally as important as what did happen, especially if it should have happened.

Based on Miles and Huberman’s (1994) data reduction process data were first selected and sorted into a priori variable strands using the analytic framework. Next, data display, the second element described by Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to reduce data to provide an organized, compressed assembly of information allowing for initial development of conclusions and extrapolation of data. From this process, systematic patterns and relationships were developed. Data were then cross-checked for emergent themes based on collection method, interview, observation, field journal, and artifacts, by informant, and also by a priori theme. New themes that emerged from the data were added. Finally, data were synthesized to delineate the structure representing the deeper meaning of culture, identifying trends and relationships. This process resulted in drawing conclusions, revealing emergent themes, and cross checking them to verify that they were plausible, confirmable, and able to withstand alternative explanations (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Results

Using Schein’s model of culture, results are reported as artifacts, values and beliefs. Artifacts collected for this study include observations, field notes, reflections, mission statements and other documents. Values represent the second level of culture and, according to Schein (1988), are expressed in the shared espoused goals of the members and the accepted reality of the group. Beliefs represent the third level of culture, and according to Schein (1988). These shared assumptions traditionally start out as values, but stand the test of time, and become the unconscious beliefs that are taken for granted and rarely questioned. These underlying shared convictions guide behavior of the group.

ArtifactsThe vision and mission statement for Unity High School posted on the school website describes commitment to providing the best possible learning opportunities for students; helping students develop the knowledge, skills, and responsibility needed for a changing world beyond the high school years; and assisting students in their emotional and social growth. The school also has a strong commitment to professional development and creating a quality staff as the key to providing quality education. The mission also places a strong emphasis on encouraging the cooperation and involvement of parents and other community members the educational process.

Visual examples of school spirit were plentiful. School mottos are scattered throughout the school newsletters collected for this study. UHS …We Live It!, It’s a great day to be a Comet!, Fostering mutual trust, respect, cooperation and communication between community and school, Once a Comet, always a Comet!, and UHS – Be responsible; Honor yourself and others; Strive for excellence are scattered throughout various publications. Students and staff frequently wore blue t-shirts sporting the school name and logo, especially on Fridays. On Valentine’s Day, individual hearts with names of each student and staff member were taped on the main hallway.

The local newspaper carried numerous stories about the school special education program, which were taped on the classroom door. There were articles and photos of students hugging horses, describing a

122


sensory garden created by the teacher and students, the sock hop, and student participation in Special Olympics. Additional article links on the school website told of a more than $700,000 grant that the city and county gave to the school to expand the track and create additional parking. Since 1995, the city/county had contributed more than $1.7 million for various improvements at the school, including the gymnasium. School newsletters also contained many references to businesses that supported various school events.

Other artifacts spoke to excellence in education. The veteran special education teacher had a framed Impact Award for excellence in education that she received in 2005. This award, she explained, was one of five awards, given to teachers in the district who were nominated by their peers. Receiving this award was quite an honor and included a presentation banquet. An article in the school newsletter discussed Freshman Seminar as a support …for students to make a smooth transition to high school and to develop a positive relationship with a staff member. Newsletters also included results of state assessment and ACT testing and onsite accreditation visits, referenced students who had received awards in the district science fair, and various other academic accomplishments.

ValuesValues represent the second level of culture, according to Schein (1988). Data from interviews, observations and artifacts revealed four primary values at Unity School: community, belonging, problem-solving, and family.

Community. The values of Unity High both stated and lived, are clearly that it is a community school, a caring community where connections are made. The value of community connection was exemplified by city and county financial contributions to the school, business contributions, and by attendance at various events. According to the principal, attendance at school events was so overwhelming that games, choir concerts, and plays were frequently sold out. Prom and homecoming dances had such large numbers of students attending that they had to be held in larger venues off campus.

Many of the staff had been former Unity High students, including the assistant principal and several of the paraprofessionals who worked in the special education program. One of the parents who participated in this study was also a former Unity High graduate and stayed in contact with the paraprofessional with whom she had gone to school. This parent relied on the paraprofessional to be …my right hand gal up there intervening on her behalf when necessary.

Belonging. The Take 5 program, started by the principal, exemplified the value of connecting with each student. This need for student connection was reiterated by the science teacher who stated, What’s most important is making a connection, when discussing the inclusion of students with significant support needs into his class. A paraprofessional spoke about students saying, Every one of the kids has done something that’s endearing to me. The other paraprofessional shared her concern that students feel comfortable in the classroom and comfortable with her.

Problem Solving. Participants in this study also spoke of problem solving as a value supported in this school. Interviews indicated that the principal responded to problems by asking how she could be supportive. She verified this approach. The general education teacher’s approach to including students with significant support needs was, Let’s see if we can figure this out.

Family. Data show that there is a strong belief in parent partnership at this school, and problems were approached with a we can figure it out philosophy. Additionally, there was a value of family first, reiterated by many of the participants in this study. Parents said that they felt supported and trusted Unity High School. One parent praised teachers and paraprofessionals for treating the students as if they were their own. The teachers all respect us and really like to work with us and they think of [student’s name] benefit all the time. This was echoed by the second parent who said, They [parents] trust Unity.Assumptions/BeliefsThe mission and espoused values at this school center on community, belonging, problem solving, and family. These stated values translate into core beliefs of the participants in this study that include community, going the extra mile, ownership and belonging.

Community. The principal described the local community as Mayberry, a community with that small town feel and invested effort to make the school the hub of the community, where games, plays and events are sold out. Children from an early age play sports in the gymnasium purchased with community

123


funds, and wear Future Comet t-shirts. We fit together well, stated the science teacher, referring to the school and community. The music teacher also spoke to the belief in community, where the school mirrored the community and vice versa.

Going the extra mile. Beliefs at this school are about going the extra mile. The principal shared a story about how someone found a class ring from Unity High School on a college campus located more than fifty miles away and returned it to the school. The ring was dated 1972 and had initials of the owner. The principal had some students look through the yearbook from that year and not only identify the potential owner based on those initials, but also located that owner and returned the ring.

Going the extra mile was exemplified in many other ways. The principal stated that she sent a teache to the hospital with a student who needed support. She also shared her conference room with a student from special education who needed a hospital bed. Paraprofessionals took students from special education to school games. After interviewing one parent, I later received a phone call during which she shared that the special education teacher spent time in the hospital with her daughter. This parent wanted to make sure that I knew how committed that special education teacher was to her students. Also, one day during my observations, a new student was in the special education classroom acting as a peer tutor. The special education teacher explained that this was a former student now graduated who needed some support, and volunteering in the special education classroom was a way that the teacher could support her even though she was no longer in school.

Ownership. There is also a lived value of ownership in this community, evidenced when former students now work as professionals and paraprofessionals in this school. Members of the community provided funding for a gymnasium, donate to school events, and attend school functions filling the gymnasium and auditorium to capacity on a regular basis. Individuals in this school took ownership of students. Both the general education teacher and the special education teacher talked about their responsibility for student learning. If everyone fails the test it’s my fault, according to the special education teacher. The science teacher looked at students individually, charging himself to find the one area where they excel, with a goal that they leave his class liking science, and knowing something about science. The choir teacher had tears in his eyes when he spoke about the value that students in special education brought to his class, If we make it safe for them, we make it safe for everyone. He proudly shared that a student with significant support needs was pictured on the cover of this year’s concert recording.

Belonging. It’s about heart; you’ve never seen love like you see from these women who give so much of their extra time, said a special education teacher referring to paraprofessionals. This belief was shared by a paraprofessional who stated, …I’m not just the special ed. lady, but I’m really part of this community, and I’m here to help whoever needs help. I’m available. I want to be significant in any life I can be significant in. The veteran special education teacher also spoke about creating a caring community, and about her mission to be sure kids are safe. I sometimes cry because I very much preach that my students are not my friends, but I take them very close to heart, she said. Their hearts are in it, shared another paraprofessional referring to teachers. Parents also shared this feeling. One parent stated, Teachers love out kids. They treat them like their own. The principal, summing up how she felt things worked at this school, said -

We’re family…We strive for excellence in every area. I want every student and every parent who goes through this program to never forget this school … because everybody has a place. I’m convinced that if kids are safe and kids feel cared about or kids feel noticed, that achievement will increase.

ConcernsHowever, it appears that the strong sense of community and belonging at this school overshadows instruction for students with significant support needs. Deal and Kennedy (1983) contend that, Strong cultures provide the internal cohesion that makes it easier for teachers to teach, students to learn… (p. 15). Despite this strong sense of community, this site did not provide adequate academic instruction for students with significant support needs. Discussion

According to DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, and Walther-Thomas (2004), effective education is an integrated system of academic and social supports. Data from this study show that several critical components of education for these students were extremely lacking. The most glaring example of this is that explicit instruction for students for the most severe disabilities was almost non-existent. While these

124


students participated in daily community activities, there was no explicit instruction of skills, no data collection, and no assessment to inform instruction. This is not indicative of exemplary instructional practices described by Kluth, Straut, and Biklen (2003) who contend that teachers must develop a comprehensive approach to teaching, use differentiated instruction, and use appropriate strategies to meet unique needs presented by some students. Nor is it exemplary of the systematic approach of a prompt fading method with feedback described by Browder, Spooner, Ahgrim-Delzell, Harris and Wakeman (2007). Throughout the entire observation period, this group of students was well taken care of by the veteran teacher and paraprofessionals, but I saw no indication that they were given appropriate instruction in either academics or functional life skills. Limitations

Findings of this study are limited by the selection of the site which was determined by recommendations of experts in the field. Second, findings from this study are particular to this specific site and should not be generalized to similar schools without systematic replication. Nor should this study be generalized to students with other disabilities such as learning disabilities or emotional disabilities. Additionally, this study does not address culturally responsive teaching for students who are second language learners or from different cultures. Despite limitations, this study yields much needed knowledge for the field, particularly about the influence of school culture in supporting and maintaining exemplary service delivery for students with significant support needs.Recommendations for Practice

School culture defines what is important and establishes boundaries of acceptable behavior. Education that happens within the culture exemplifies these patterns of behavior. This study indicates that belief in community and a sense of belonging are an absolute priority at this school. However, this belief does not necessarily translate into exemplary, or even adequate, education for students with significant support needs.

This study points to the need for policy changes focusing on administrator and on teacher licensure programs to prepare all educators to foster excellence for all students. While the authors want to acknowledge and recommend that schools build-upon the many strengths in the school culture that were evidenced across the analysis of the artifacts, values and assumptions dimensions of this study, these are only foundational to creating exemplary education programs. Ensure quality education for students with significant support needs begins with leadership and extends to teacher accountability. The principal is a critical factor in supporting, implementing and maintaining inclusive practices and developing a school culture of inclusiveness (Attfield & Williams, 2003; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Zollers, Ramanathan, & Yu, 1999). Principals are also responsible for school and the staff preparation to include students with significant support needs, and to provide the backing, in both resources and commitment, to make it succeed (Bateman & Bateman, 2002). In addition to ensuring a sense of belonging for students with significant support needs, principals must have expectations for learning outcomes. DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, and Walther-Thomas (2004) discuss the need for principals to develop working knowledge about disabilities and the unique learning needs and behavior challenges various conditions present. With 80% of teachers reporting that they feel ill-equipped to teach diverse populations (Futrell, Gomez, & Bedden, 2003), merged teacher preparation programs that jointly prepare general and special education teachers send a serious message to school leaders and teachers about the need to have all educators prepared to work with all students including those with diverse educational needs (Sobel, Sands, & Basile, 2007). To meet that charge, teacher preparation programs must look critically at their basic values as well as their existing organizational structures, be responsive to their students, and hold the highest expectations to ensure they are doing all they can to prepare teachers for the challenges present in today’s inclusive schools.

125


ReferencesAttfield, R., & Williams, C. (2003). Leadership and inclusion: A special school perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 28-33.Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F., (2002). What does a principal need to know about inclusion? ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education Arlington VA. ED473828Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching language arts, math & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H Brooks.Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A., & Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 407-432.Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(3), 257-268.Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002). Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17(2), 51-57.Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2004). A case study of inclusive school development: a journey of learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2), 144-153.Colorado Department of Education (2005). [Survey of special education directors]. Unpublished raw data.Corbett, J. (1999). Inclusive education and school culture. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(1), 53-61.Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498-505. DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders. Accessed August 27, 2004 from University of Florida, Center on personnel studies in special education, http://www.copsse.orgDiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School principals and special education: creating the context for academic success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(1), 1-10.Downing, J. E., Eichinger, J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Inclusive education for students with severe disabilities: Comparative views of principals and educators at different levels of implementation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 133-142.Downing, J.E., Ryndak, D.L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 171-181. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL-94-142, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et. seq.Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 165-174.Futrell, M. H., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new America: The challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 381-385.Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2009). Exceptional learner: An introduction to special education (11th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL-108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et.seq.Kennedy, C., & Horn, E., (Eds.). (2004). Inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Kluth, P., Straut, D., & Biklen, D. (Eds). (2003). Access to academics for all students: Critical approaches to inclusive curriculum, instruction, and policy. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: University of Cambridge Press. Lieberman, L. M. (1992). Preserving special education…For those who need it. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Controversial issues confronting special education (p. 13-25). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1992). Achieving full inclusion: Placing the student at the center of education reform. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Controversial issues confronting special education (p. 3-12). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassMerriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- BassMiles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

126

http://www.copsse.org/


Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational Behavior in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson.Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Ryndak, D. L., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). (2003). The foundations of inclusive education: A compendium of articles on effective strategies to achieve inclusive education (2nd. Ed.) Baltimore: TASH.Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational culture. WP# 2088-88.Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school

organization. Denver, CO: Love.

Skrtic, T. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing [special] education for postmodernity. Denver, CO: Love.

Sobel, D.M., Iceman-Sands, D., & Basile, C. (2007). Merging general and special education teacher preparation programs to create an inclusive program for diverse learners. The New Educator, 3(2), 241-262

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Zollers, N. J., Ramanathan, A. K., & Yu, M. (1999). The relationship between school culture and inclusion: how an inclusive culture supports inclusive education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(2), 157-174.

127


INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SWEDEN:RESPONSES, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTS

Girma Berhanu

University of Gothenburg

This paper maps out the challenges and responses to inclusive education in Sweden from a cultural/historical point of view. Core concepts that have bearing on inclusive education practices are discussed. The analysis incorporates varied materials. As the current Swedish political and educational discourses reflect contradictions and dilemmas among varied dimensions of the educational arena, the analysis has been conceptualized in terms of the assumption that policy and practice decisions involve dilemmas. Swedish social welfare/educational policy has traditionally been underpinned by a strong philosophy of universalism, equal entitlements of citizenship, comprehensiveness, and solidarity as an instrument to promote social inclusion and equality of resources. Within the past decades, however, Sweden has undergone a dramatic transformation. The changes are framed within neo-liberal philosophies such as devolution, market solutions, competition, effectivity, and standardization, coupled with a proliferation of individual/parent choices for independent schools, all of which potentially work against the valuing of diversity, equity and inclusion. Marginalization and segregation of socially disadvantaged and ethnic minority groups has increased. Result and resource differences have widened among schools and municipalities and among pupils. Swedish efforts in the past to promote equity through a variety of educational policies have been fascinating. Those early educational policies, including the macro political agenda focused on the social welfare model, have helped to diminish the effects of differential social, cultural, and economic background on outcomes. This has come under threat. There is still some hope, however, of mitigating the situation through varied social and educational measures combined with an effective monitoring system and a stronger partnership and transparent working relationship between the central and local government systems. Research and follow-up are crucial in this process.

IntroductionOne may not grasp the complexity, multidimensionality and problematic nature of the concept of inclusive education until one finds himself or herself in a situation where he or she is confronted with its practical ramifications. In a literature seminar with a small group of students who were pursuing their postgraduate studies in Special Educator Programme, I, as a seminar leader, raised the notion of inclusive education as a discussion theme. The group had a heated debate. I had no a clue until then that the concept could be conceived in so many different ways or that the whole agenda was of such a sensitive, controversial and dilemmatic nature.

To begin with, there is a semantic problem associated with the concept when one translates it to Swedish, a problem to which we will return later. The student group consisted of a principal and five teachers with many years of experience as regular teachers and/or special education teachers. Three of the teachers had their own disabled children or children with special educational needs. In that discussion I noted at various degrees the simultaneous voices and concerns of parents, ordinary teachers and school leadership. Sometimes these roles overlap. I remember several concerns from that discussion. The stakeholders raised contentious issues such as: (a) In Sweden parents have a choice and they may prefer a segregated school setting. In this case there would seem to be no option but to maintain segregated provision. Then the question follows, Should not a child’s right to inclusion take precedence over parental choice? (b) What about the disabled children’s wishes, voices? What if they want to mix with other students with similar special needs or disability? This human need for solidarity and connectedness cannot be neglected noted some of the participants.

128


(c) How do students who need to have calm and highly structured settings learn in association with children with profound disabilities and severe behavioural and emotional problems? What about the ever-increasing number of hyperactive and violent students? What kind of support services can be available in an ordinary classroom? (d) Questions were raised of individual rights versus the common interest. (e) How are we going to deal with the common frame of reference which has been and is still Sweden’s fundamental value, a cornerstone of social justice, in the face of a strong trend towards difference, individuality, competition and freedom of choice spearheaded by the neo-liberal political agenda? (f) What do equity, equivalence and equality mean in educational practice in the face of shifting political discourse and rhetoric? In the Swedish language these terms are vague and problematic. Although we all drowned in intense arguments, there remained throughout a positive spirit to the word inclusion. This was my first real confrontation with the issues of participation, equity, equivalence, freedom of choice, social justice, individual rights and democracy as a collective matter versus autonomy in relation to an inclusive agenda in discussions with people who have first-hand contact with the daily life of schools.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. The first is to map out the challenges and responses to inclusive education in Sweden (in particular at its systemic level) from a cultural- historical point of view, because a country’s education system and its core values emerge in a historical context and they reflect contextual and national characteristics. The second is to analyze core concepts that have bearing on how we conceive and implement the inclusive agenda. As an off-shoot of this general investigatory theme, the paper will shed light on how constructions of inclusive education are mediated in Sweden by (a) purposes and goals of public education, and (b) collective understandings and educational responses to sociocultural differences.

The analysis incorporates the political intentions, rhetoric and the praxis gathered from government reports, research materials and commissioned evaluation. Sweden’s current political and educational discourses reflect contradictions and dilemmas between community and individual, utility and culture, public and personal, economy and welfare, and individual agency versus collective and political action. The analysis has therefore placed these discourses within the framework of a dilemmatic perspective. It is conceptualised in terms of the assumption that policy and practice decisions involve dilemmas (Clark, Dyson, & Millward, 1998; Dyson & Millward, 2000). Billig et al. (1988, p. 163) noted that dilemmas arise from a culture which produces more than one possible ideal world. Given the tensions that can arise from different values, it follows that dilemmas are a condition of our humanity (Norwich, 2008, p. 288). Special needs education is also a specific, socioculturally situated response to our fundamental dilemma in order to deal with or to confront a modern education system for fundamental education (Nilholm, 2006a).

The paper is organized in four major sections. The first section deals with the education policy, system, and general context; the second addresses, in particular, inclusive educational policies and practices; the third deals with democratic values and participation in school and society; the fourth dwells on issues of equity, equivalence and equality. At the end, a summary of the practice and ideological conversation is presented, including concluding remarks.

The Education Policy in Sweden: The General ContextIn 1842, a policy termed allmän folkskola (folk school) came into force. Before that education was reserved only for middle- and upper-class society. The policy was primarily meant to provide schooling for all citizens, although in practice two parallel school systems evolved: one for the poor and disadvantaged, and the other for stronger elements of society. Even so, the policy’s intention was noble, and we can still trace Sweden’s long tradition of comprehensive, compulsory and equivalent education from this time. It is also from this time that special needs education established its roots as a two-track system (i.e., special education and regular education settings crystallized). In the special education track the so-called problem-child was categorized using different nomenclature such as idiot, poor, feeble-minded, imbecile, and dullard. As we entered in to mid-twentieth century, these categories changed into intellectually disabled, learning disabled, and mentally retarded. During the last two decades the general category became pupils with special needs but with a new culture of diagnosis based on neuropsychiatric methods, such as ADHD, DAMP, autism, or Aspergers syndrome, on the rise. This indicates how classification and categorization has been an activity as old as schools themselves (Mehan, 1993, p. 243; Hjörne, 2004; Skolverket, 2005).

129


Since then a number of school reforms have taken place that aim at a school system combining quality and equality. Education can be described as one of the cornerstones of the modern welfare state. This has been manifested heavily in Sweden, which was dominated by a social democratic model. Strong Labour parties were able to secure broad support for their policies during the interwar period and after the Second World War, with solidarity, community and equality as the keywords. There were high hopes that uniform, free-of-charge education for children from all social strata would contribute to equality and justice, and promote social cohesion. Although the belief in the potential of education in this respect may have faded, education is still regarded as one of the major methods of preventing unemployment, social exclusion and ill health (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006). Hence, contemporary policy for equity is very much a latter day echo of the social democrats’ age-old concept of the peoples’ home (OECD, 2005).

Sweden’s reputation for successfully combining effective economy and social welfare measures is still unscathed in many ways. By OECD’s measure, Sweden is an affluent, healthy and well-educated society. Its population is about 9 million, of which approximately 20% come from an immigrant background. Its strongly unique combination of social equality and equity measures, underpinned by high levels of taxation and public spending based on redistributive policies, together with a regulated capitalist economic system, has brought about this success. Its GDP per capita is $28,100, compared to $26,000 GDP per capita total OECD. Overall educational attainment is quite high, with at least 80% of the population having attained upper secondary education and an average life expectancy at birth of 82.8 years for women and 77.7 for men. Furthermore, it has one of the highest OECD employment-to-population ratios, with 74% of the population at work. This is third only to Switzerland and Denmark. Sweden also has one of the highest OECD employment rates for mothers, second only to Portugal. Some 78% of all mothers of children under age seven were working in 2003 (OECD, 2005). Compared with OECD nations, Sweden is one of the leading countries by many standards, be it educational achievement or literacy levels. It is among the highest in social expenditure as a proportion of GDP; it has one of the lowest poverty rates and the lowest levels of income inequality in OECD countries. The list goes on.

Most of the modern history of Sweden is characterized by collective action spearheaded by a social democratic welfare state and is a prominent example of social democratic welfare state favouring full employment and a focus on minimizing differences, social alienation and exclusion as opposed to individual responsibility and market solutions (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001; Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; OECD,1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2005). This political and cultural background has been instrumental in creating an early and fertile platform from which to criticize the traditional special educational and exclusionary approach and to formulate concepts such as normalization, integration and mainstreaming (Nirje, 1992; Wolfensberger, 1972). This background has fostered awareness and cultural messages of the significance of social inclusiveness and has resulted in organisation changes such as closing large institutions for intellectually disabled persons and building community-based residential, learning and working environments. This was a remarkable achievement by any standard. The social motives of education that are citizenship, social integration, social equality and democracy had as much importance as economic motivations, not only in Sweden but also in Scandinavia as a whole. However, in the last decade’s welfare and education policies have been increasingly influenced by market logic, and economic motives have been given more weight. The neo-liberal wave in the 1980s and 1990s also had an impact in the Scandinavian countries. Several researchers question whether it is still reasonable to speak of a distinct Nordic welfare model any longer. However, Kautto, Fritzell, Hvinden, Kvist, & Uusitalo (2001) and Vogel, Svallfors, Theorell, Noll, & Christoph (2003) come to the conclusion that the Nordic countries still stand out from other European and OECD nations, and there is reason to speak about a Nordic welfare model. The question of whether this is also true for education is, however, seldom or never addressed. (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006, p. 286)

The slogan A school for all (En skola för alla) embellished most of the policy documents and government-commissioned reports and propositions in the 1960s, 70s, and through until the late 80s as a component of the inclusive and caring welfare state. In 1962 (LGR 62), a 9-year unified compulsory school program for all children ages 7 to 16 was introduced. This compulsory curriculum emphasized that pupils come at the centre of the learning process and that they should be helped to achieve multisided development within the framework of a school for all or a common frame of reference.

Current Swedish educational policy documents recognize that students are different. That has important implications in how schooling is organized and therefore the learning process and the avenues to reach goals. The Curriculum for the Compulsory School System specifically states: Consideration should be

130


taken of the different abilities and needs of the students. There are different ways to reach the goal. . . . Hence teaching cannot be designed in the same way for everyone (LPO94, p. 6). That diversity also has consequences for what goals the students attain is, however, not an idea that has been adopted by the regular school in Sweden. On the contrary, one maintains that all students should reach the same goals (Göransson, 2006, p. 71). Göransson argues further that, if one adopts the idea about diversity among children as meaning that they learn in different ways, but not as meaning that they also develop differently and attain different goals, the traditional idea that conformity is the norm reappears in the idea that all children can learn the same things (Ibid.).

While Swedish education policies have a solid history and culture of solidarity, community and social responsibility, Sweden also has deep cultural values and historical heritage that support self-realization, individual productivity, competition and social competence. However, recent trends show that there seems to be a conjunction in a direction of business oriented management styles characterized by an overemphasis on efficiency, standardization, consumerism, individual choices and rights and a deemphasis on collectivism and solidarity. Reports evidence not only fragmentation of educational policy-making but also contradictory messages related to conception of knowledge, social justice, equity and equality issues (e.g., Korp, 2006; Beach & Dovemark, 2007). This has also impacted on student achievement profiles and marginalized a large segment of the student population from ordinary educational settings.

The Swedish public education system is composed of compulsory and noncompulsory schooling. Compulsory education includes regular compulsory school, Sami school, special school, and programs for pupils with learning disabilities. (Sami is an ethnic group with ill-defined genetic origins, living in the northern areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula and Russia.) Noncompulsory education includes the preschool class, upper secondary school, upper secondary school for pupils with learning disabilities, municipal adult education, and adult education for adults with learning disabilities. The 9-year compulsory school program is for all children between ages 7and 16. All education throughout the public school system is free. There is usually no charge to students or their parents for teaching materials, school meals, health services or transport. The education system has focused on providing equality of opportunities and equivalence of outcomes (http://www.skolverket.se, OECD, 2005). However, the system has undergone a number of important reforms in the past 18 years that have a strong bearing on equity.

Inclusive Educational Policies and PracticesAs mentioned earlier, the post-war Swedish educational policy measures are characterized by comprehensiveness, equity and inclusion as coined in the slogan A school for all. That did not stop differentiation, classification and categorization of children, as well as segregated educational placements. In fact, paradoxically, the amount of special education, as Emanuelsson, Haug, and Persson (2005) noted, has increased steadily. Vast differences have been observed in how pupils with special needs are actually defined and registered in different municipalities. This is, of course, partly the consequence of a decentralised education system that manifests itself in divergent local practices (Göransson, Nilholm, & Karlsson, 2010).

Sweden has signed The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (U.N., 1989), the UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (U.N., 1993), and UNESCO's Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994). These are all powerful tools to prevent exclusionary activities in the school sector and make a strong case for inclusion. These documents have shaped a number of important government reports, directives and policies and worked to place inclusive education firmly on the agenda. Political expression, however, has not matched practice. As Emanuelsson et al. (2005) noted, the school act, the School ordinances and the National Curricula all emphasise the importance of solidarity, the right to education of equal value and the right for pupils who experience difficulties for various reasons to receive the help and support they need. Local schools, however, often find this unrealistic, which indicates that the gap between political intentions and practical realities is considerable (p. 122).

The Swedish Education Act states that all children shall have equal access to education, and that all children shall enjoy this right, regardless of gender, residence, or social or economic factors. Special support shall also be given to students who have difficulty with the schoolwork. Most students with a need for special support are taught in regular classes in compulsory and upper secondary schools. There are also a certain number of special remedial classes for students with functional disabilities, and for

131

http://www.skolverket.se/


students with social and emotional problems. Effective 1 July 1994, programs for pupils with learning disabilities use the same curriculum as do regular compulsory and upper secondary schools. This is a way of marking that all pupils, regardless of learning development, fall under the same fundamental values. The special programs do, however, use their own syllabi adapted to this form of education and to the different needs they must meet for each one of their pupils. On paper and in accordance with Swedish law, parents have a right to choose between the two school forms. Whether it is an opportunity in reality is, however, questioned in an evaluation by the National Board of Education (Skolverket, 2002, in Göransson, 2006).

Government concern to provide appropriate services to special needs children within the regular school framework has been outlined in the first Swedish National Curriculum (LGR 62) where the contents and organization of special education were carefully specified and the accompanying proposal was for a system of coordinated special education as alternative to remedial and special classes (p. 120). However, it was not until the 1969 national curriculum (LGR 69) came into force that increased emphasis was given to integrating children with various forms of disability into regular education. The discourses in this new curriculum have many similarities with the current inclusive agenda, although the term used then was integration. One significant perspective shift in the curriculum and official reports of the time and the 70s was the statement that the school’s environment represents a possible cause of children’s difficulties in school (Skolverket, 2005). Consequently, the discourses of the categorical versus the relational perspective evolved (Emanuelsson, Persson, & Rosenqvist, 2001; Emanuelsson et al., 2005).

The Categorical Model Versus the Relational ModelThe categorical model described in several Swedish reports is the one referred to in the international research (see Mitchell, 2005) as the within-child model, the medical model, the psych-medical model, the discourse of deviance, the defect model, and the pathological model. In this paradigm, school failure is ascribed to some defect, pathology, or inadequacy located within the student. The relational model is variously referred to as the social model, the socio-political model, the socio-political paradigm, and the deficient system model. In line with this, the term students with difficulties was challenged and began to be replaced by students in difficulties (Emanuelsson et al., 2001). Fierce criticism against the traditional and categorical special pedagogical perspective has brought about paradigmatic shift and a policy deeply ingrained with a relational perspective (which is more environment-oriented) as a guiding principle. However, the categorical perspective, which is associated with traditional, segregative and exclusionary approaches, has not given way to the relational perspective. In fact, the categorical perspective made an upsurge in the 90s and has since then dominated both special education research and praxis in Sweden. The recent growth in categorization, identification and classification within the framework of redesigning regular education support in the ordinary school system in an effort to facilitate inclusion has been criticized by one prominent Swedish professor of special education:

Once children are identified as different … they become problematic to mainstream schools and teachers. From within the categorical perspective the process of labelling children as having difficulties has the effect of investing the source of any difficulty or problem within the child. Once this process is complete, then it becomes easier to transfer the responsibility to specialists trained to deal with the problems exhibited by the child. (Emanuelsson, 2001, p. 135)

What Happened in the 90s?Many of the social and educational changes made in the early 90s were dramatic. Observers might ask why there occurred such a huge shift from the traditional inclusive, collective frame of reference and social justice towards individual rights, parental choice and market-oriented policies. Signs of such changes could be observed already in late 80s. But the landmark was the accession to power of the right wing party in 1991(coalition government headed by Conservative Carl Bildt during 1991-94). The country was in deep recession and employment rates fell, followed by a sharp decrease in social expenditures and a move towards further socioeconomic inequalities. The situation abated in the mid-1990s. In consequence of this political change, however, education was increasingly regarded as a private rather than a public good. Rationales for educational attainment changed from emphasis on collective values and social community to a focus on individual rights, academic progress and choice. A new financial system was introduced, that essentially moved resource allocation from the national to the local level, combined with a new type of steering and control mechanism (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; Englund, 2005; OECD, 2005; Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001). This was not an accidental phenomenon. It is part and parcel of global phenomena in our late modernity (Bauman, 1992), high

132


modernity (Giddens, 1990) and late capitalism, phenomena that are deeply entrenched with values of effectiveness, competition, standardization, freedom of choice, and increasingly individualist and elitist culture.

The impact of the decentralized educational policy on equity is pervasive. Two studies confirm that … educational expenditure per student (measured in terms of money or teacher density) has fallen rather dramatically during the 1990s – followed by a slight increase after the turn of the millennium. According to Björklund et al. (2004), the teacher/student ratio has decreased by 18.7% during the 1990s. Whether this can be directly attributed to the decentralisation or to the impact of the economic downturn of the 1990s remains an open question. [Björklund, Edin, Frederiksson, & Krueger, 2004; Ahlin & Mörk, 2005 as cited in OECD, 2005 ]

Paradoxically, in the footsteps of the introduction of inclusive education, the number of pupils labelled as having special needs increased dramatically. Teachers found themselves incapable of dealing with pupil diversity in the classroom and meeting individual student needs. This has often been regarded as schools’ failure to meet the diverse needs of pupils, manifesting itself in resignation and distress among teachers and pupils not achieving set targets. However, it might be questioned whether the inclusive school is anything more than a structural or organizational phenomenon resting upon political rhetoric with little or no anchor in public policy (Persson, 2003). Persson attempted to illustrate the relationship between educational structure and policy historically, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1The Relationship Between Inclusive and Noninclusive Policy and Structure in

Special Needs Education Before and After 1990P POLICY S STRUCTURE

PRE 1990 Inclusive Noninclusive Political clarityPOST 1990 Noninclusive Inclusive Political obscurity

One in five compulsory school pupils in Sweden are judged to be in need of special needs education (Asp-Onsjö, 2006). This means that approximately 200,000 pupils in Sweden receive some kind of special educational support during the school year. At the same time, the number of pupils enrolled in special schools for the intellectually disabled (särskolan) has increased from .9% to 1.4% during the last 5 to 6 years (Skolverket, 2002). From 1992 to 2001 the number of students registered in schools and classrooms for students with severe learning disabilities . . . . has increased by 67% (Rosenqvist, 2007, p. 67).

133


If collectivism and solidarity towards vulnerable groups of people in society were hallmarks of the post-war period, this era came to an end around 1990. Education as a vehicle for advancing social justice gave way to ideals based upon personal choice and competition. Its role was more or less that of a commodity to be traded in the market place. The language was that of the market (e.g., price labels on pupils, effectiveness, and target fulfilment) rather than that of the social inclusion of difference and diversity. Inclusive education, then, reflected structure rather than policy. The Education for all movement was transformed to a structure of capitalism in the 1990s and the rhetoric of inclusion became a metaphor for the dominance of human capital, manifested in personal choice, over social justice. Citizenship was replaced by stress on individualisation of rights and promotion of dominant social interests (Persson & Berhanu, 2005). In the beginning of the 1990s a Special Educator Programme was launched that would have significant impact on the praxis of special/inclusive education in Sweden. The programme was in line with a relational or system-based perspective on educational difficulties. In addition to carrying out teaching tasks, Special Educators are expected to supervise, consult and counsel regular teachers on how to meet the needs of all pupils. In line with this, all teacher trainees study special needs education within the so-called General Field of Education and may also study this field of knowledge within an eligible field of study or in specialization courses. The programme was well under way until 2 years ago. Then, a new conservative government came into power and discredited it. A year ago the government reinstituted a special teacher programme in which trainees will be expected upon completion to work directly with individual pupils. The focus will therefore be the student, not the system, a dramatic shift from the previous perspective. Currently both programmes exist side-by-side, are offered at an advanced level, comprise 90 credits, one and a half years of full-time study, and qualify graduates for specialist tasks in schools.

Inclusion Versus IntegrationIntegration and inclusion have been used interchangeably in Swedish educational discourses. Most people are familiar with the term integration. The term inclusion has been difficult to translate into Swedish. That has left many with considerable ambiguities about the use of the term. As in many other countries there is confusion and controversy over the semantics of inclusion. This demonstrates the problematic nature of terms when they cross over into use in other cultures. Many have questioned whether the new terminology means only a linguistic shift or a new agenda. In the first translations into Swedish of UNESCO's Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action, inclusion was translated as integration. Although there is still a conceptual problem of clarity, the difference between integration and inclusion has been sorted out and technically defined by the experts (see, e.g., Nilholm, 2006a). The message of inclusive education as outlined in the Salamanca statement has now begun to permeate the Swedish language, at least in official documents. The social model of disability and the relational nature of disablement have been officially accepted, which implies that schooling as such is more or less disabling or enabling (Corbett & Slee, 2000, p. 143). This in turn requires schools to restructure and adjust their learning environments, pedagogical methods and organizational arrangements.

Policy documents, prepositions and official evaluation documents have, in different wordings, begun to incorporate the core elements of inclusion. That is:

The fundamental principle of the inclusive school is that all children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Inclusive schools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs of their students, accommodating both different styles and rates of learning and ensuring quality education to all through appropriate curricula, organizational arrangements, teaching strategies, resource use and partnerships with their communities. There should be a continuum of support and services to match the continuum of special needs encountered in every school. (UNESCO, 1994 ¶7)

What separates the concept of inclusion from the most widely used term, integration, can be described as that which “…..involves all students in a community, with no exceptions and irrespective of their intellectual, physical, sensory or other differences, having equal rights to access the culturally valued curriculum of their society as full-time valued members of age-appropriate mainstream classrooms” (Ballard, 1997, p. 244). This statement, on which this paper principally anchors its analysis, is also in line with the following:

Inclusive education is an ambitious and far-reaching notion that is, theoretically, concerned with all students. The concept focuses on the transformation of school cultures

134


to (1) increase access (or presence) of all students (not only marginalized or vulnerable groups), (2) enhance the school personnel’s and students’ acceptance of all students, (3) maximize student participation in various domains of activity, and (4) increase the achievement of all students. (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughan, & Shaw, 2000; Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2005 as cited in Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 2006, p. 67)

Yet the term inclusion has been hollowed out as a result of the neo-liberalism’s political intransigence. One mechanism of draining the term of inclusive education is to relocate it through re-contextualization into different situations, which brings about simplification, condensation and elaboration and refocusing (Bernstein, 1990, cited in Nilholm, 2006a). Since the term inclusion has positive connotations others confiscate it and apply it in their fields. In the process, the original meaning in reference to educational contexts loses power. That could be one reason why some pessimistic academics argue that the commitments to a philosophy of inclusive education may be in a stall, if not in retreat. Progress in Sweden has certainly slowed over the past few years despite positive policies and intentions at different level of the education system (Persson, 2008, cf. Vislie, 2003).

Despite or, rather, because of the inflated discourses of inclusion and revamping of inclusion policies, the practice is often short of advocacies. For instance, the number of pupils in special units (grundsärskolan) increased by as much as 62% during 1993–99, despite promises and statutes (Westling Allodi, 2002). Unless a whole range of activities, including branding activities and attitudes, are brought under control, legislation alone will not bring about the desired results.

It is clear that there are differences between municipalities and large differences in the type of provision they have made. Most of the reports on inclusion practices indicate that inclusion is happening. However, up-to-date and reliable time series data and data on the number of pupils who are included in the ordinary classroom or on the occurrence of exclusionary special units (classes) are lacking. Even the definition or construction of special needs is shifting and is fluid. There seems to be no effective mechanism installed to monitor inclusive/exclusionary processes at regional and national levels (see, e.g., Heimdahl Mattsson, 2006; Nilholm, 2006a), which makes it difficult to document equity in inclusive education.

Ethnic Minority and Socially Disadvantaged PupilsInclusive education extends beyond special needs rising from disabilities, and includes consideration of other sources of disadvantage and marginalisation, such as gender, poverty, language, ethnicity, and geographic isolation. The complex interrelationships that exist among these factors and their interactions with disability must also be a focus of attention. (Mitchell, 2005, pp. 1-2)

It is obvious that the education system has come under serious pressure during the past two decades due to massive migration. This exogenous shock has changed the ethnic landscape and composition dramatically and has ushered Sweden into an era of multiculturalism and globalization. On the negative side, this rapid demographic change has also brought with it ethnic segregation and inequalities, particularly in large cities on top of already existing inequalities between municipalities and social groups due to decentralization and competition.

Sweden explicitly adopts multiculturalism and cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance (LPO 94); however, terms such as ethnicity, color, and race remain obscure in official taxonomies, educational policies, and school practices. The complex relationships that exist between ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, special needs education, gender, and so forth have recently become a subject of research interest (Rosenqvist, 2007; Berhanu, 2008).

The fragmentation of educational policymaking that we witness in the past two decades has negatively affected in particular already vulnerable groups such as the disabled, ethnic minority students, and socially disadvantaged segments of the population. On the basis of a large number of indicators, we can presume that over the next decade Swedish society will become increasingly multiethnic and multilingual, and the number of disadvantaged children will increase substantially. An estimated 20% of the Swedish population comes from an immigrant background. It is predicted that in the demographic landscape in the year 2020 some 30% of all working age individuals in Sweden will have had their roots outside of Sweden (Leijon & Omanovic, 2001; Statistics Sweden, 2004).

135


A recent report by Gustafsson (2006, p. 93) concludes that during 1992-2000 a consistent and linear increase occurred in school segregation in relation to immigration background, educational background, and grades. A national tracking system enables observation of variable achievement among groups of students. Students with foreign backgrounds receive lower average grades than do their peers, fewer qualify for higher education, and they have a higher dropout rate from upper-secondary education. There are also differences in achievement between girls and boys. Girls receive higher average grades in the majority of all subjects in compulsory and upper-secondary school (OECD, 2005, Barnomsorg och skola i siffror, 2000, cited in Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 306). Results from national examinations in compulsory and upper-secondary schools demonstrate this difference in the subjects of Swedish and, to some extent, English, but show no difference in results in mathematics (ibid). According to a recent OECD (2005) report, 98% of the pupils start upper secondary schools but only 75% finish at the expected age. Some recover through the adult education system. That is Swedes’ unique equity issue as they affect higher upper secondary drop-out rates. There is also a very late average age of entry into the labour market (23- to 24-year-olds).

Some recent Swedish studies indicate over-representation of immigrant students out of all proportion to their numbers in special schools and classes (Bel Habib, 2001; Hahne Lundström, 2001; Skolverket, 2000; SOU, 2003). These students were categorized in diffused, vague, symptom-based and pedagogical-related terms such as concentration and behavioural problems, speech and language difficulties, unspecified poor talent or developmental retardation. However, extensive and longitudinal studies have yet to be carried out in this specific problem area (see Rosenqvist, 2007) and there is a need for a coherent cumulative body of disproportionality research.

Over-representation is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that fresh forms of exclusion are arising while the force of rhetoric toward inclusive measures is gaining substantial momentum in pedagogical discourses. This Swedish experience is quite similar to that of England as reported by Florian and Rouse (2001): whilst the government calls for more inclusion and a greater recognition of diversity, it continues to promote social and educational policies that are not supportive of the development of inclusive schools. Indeed, many of the existing market place reforms ignore diversity and stress priorities that make it hard for schools to accept children who will not help them to meet their academic targets (p. 400). A recent literature review (Berhanu, 2008) demonstrates that the problem is related to, among other reasons, unreliable assessment procedures and criteria for referral and placement; lack of culturally sensitive diagnostic tools; the static nature of tests, including embedded cultural bias; sociocultural problems, family factors, and language problems; lack of parental participation in decision-making; power differentials between parents and school authorities; institutional intransigence and prejudices; and large resource inequalities that run along lines of ethnicity and class.

Although Swedish legislation guarantees bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction at preschool and compulsory school, there is a huge gap between practice and legal commitments. This glaring gap has lessened the active participation of immigrant students in school. In particular the lack of mother-tongue assistance at preschool, combined with a fee requirement, creates an unfavorable start for many immigrant children. In fact, considering Sweden’s generosity in all aspects of schooling when it comes to fees, it is surprising that pre-school education is not gratis (see, e.g., OECD, 2005). In addition, the National Agency for Education points to the paradox that mother tongue instruction is nearly non-existent in special education or assimilated programmes, where immigrant children are strongly over-represented. Materials are hard to find – and mostly imported from the countries of origin. (OECD, 2005, p.46)

Democratic Values and Participation in School and SocietyDemocracy is a cornerstone and founding value of the Swedish curricula and educational legislation. Fostering democracy and raising democratic citizens are principal functions of schools. However, the reality of the past two decades characterized by competition, efficiency, standardization and devolvement of responsibilities to local authorities has brought about divergent educational access and outcomes that, in turn, threaten the long tradition of equity, equality and solidarity. The social motives of education have lessened. Increased opportunities for school choice and increased residential segregation have contributed to growing disparities and differences between groups, not only in equality of access but also outcomes.

136


Student influence through Pupils Welfare Committees, which was once a unique feature of the Swedish democracy in the educational sector, has been negatively affected. As Arnesen & Lundahl (2006) correctly pointed out:

one may ask to what extent schools can afford pupils’ democracy at a time when performance and competitiveness is a major priority. Most of the Nordic countries define citizenship education broadly, and include teaching about, for and through democracy and active participation. The double functions of fostering democratic citizens and ensuring the influence of pupils over the inner work of schools are stressed in the steering documents, perhaps more than in other countries. (p. 294)

This development in school has a definite bearing on inclusive practices as it affects involvement of all pupils in the same daily learning events. Many studies indicate that the number of special needs education pupils has increased mainly in large cities and different forms of segregated education have expanded. Dubious assessment methods and unreflective application of individual evaluation and educational plans have led to many students being viewed as derailed from the norm (Skolverket, 2005, and references therein). In addition, the share of Swedish pupils who fail in core subjects when leaving compulsory education and face problems finalizing their upper secondary education has increased steadily. The number of young people who are more or less permanently left in a no-man’s-land between education and work is high (SOU, 2003, p. 92, in Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; Skolverket, 2004).As more and more reports indicated that pupils were entering special educational placements within the regular school framework and in special schools, the government began financing a number of projects that will map out the processes that lead to exclusionary measures in an attempt to mitigate the situation and therefore enhance full participation of pupils with special needs in all aspects of school life (see the projects below).

Participation and Equality of AccessA number of government financed national-level studies have recently been conducted to assess the nature, intensity and level of school participation of children and youth with disabilities. The studies are also intended to address societal or organizational issues as well as a relatively neglected research area, individual participation in the classroom. Other studies have aimed at identifying favorable factors and good examples at different educational levels that contribute to participation and equality (e.g., Bagga-Gupta, 2006; Berhanu, 2006; Eriksson, 2006; Göransson, 2008; Heimdahl Mattsson, 2006; Janson, 2006; Palla, 2006).

These studies have identified the dilemmatic and problematic nature of the term participation. Some of the major findings are: The concept is context bound, multidimensional and has subjective dimensions. An example of this dilemma is how adult support hinders peer relationships. That implies special teacher assistants can create barriers to social inclusion by marking the student as different and by working so closely with the pupil as to exclude other regular classroom interaction. Participation also appears to be more related to autonomy and interactions with significant others than to disability type and general environment (Eriksson, 2006). Tension exists between obtaining security in a small group with similar disabilities and the desire to be like somebody else and belong to the collective unity; at the same time there is fear that the general public has deep negative stereotypes against specific groups of people. Another aspect of the dilemmatic scenario is the need for institutionalized support as there is, at the same time, a need for individualizing and flexibility. This signifies the ties between the concept of participation and democracy. Social training and development of friendships and solidarity are equally important areas of humanity as knowledge acquisition aspects. In one recent study (Heimdahl Mattsson, 2006) the special needs students reported that in segregated settings or special units the demand put on them by the special teachers is minimal and there is generally low expectation.

The above studies have also explicated the reliability of diagnostic categories and the notion that diagnoses have important implications for educational processes. In addition, the studies underline the stigmatizing effects of diagnoses and segregated educational arrangements. On the other hand, parents exhibit a sigh of relief when their children’s problem is diagnosed and receives a medical label (Heimdahl Mattsson, 2006). The sense of relief has also been experienced by some of the interviewed pupils in the above studies. This is also another dimension of the dilemmatic nature of categorization versus individuality.

One other study (Berhanu, 2006) linked to the above studies but focused on organizational and system level has identified eight favorable factors at organization and system levels that facilitated full

137


integration of pupils with special needs in school life. The factors are (a) financing and resource allocation; (b) legislation, steering policies and political directives; (c) school principal attitudes, engaged involvement and knowledge; (d) collaboration, cooperation and coordination at different levels of the school system and beyond; (e) assessment and evaluation of learning outcomes; (f) social and physical set-up of the school (in-school support systems); (g) pedagogical methods, curriculum development and class-room organization; (h) professionalism, competence and in-service training on the part of the school staff; (i) parental involvement in decision-making; and (j) technical aids and curriculum adaptation.

Unfortunately, there are too few comprehensive studies that map out the level of participation and the extent of inclusiveness of disabled children in the ordinary school system in Sweden. There are too few studies that document educational inclusion in terms of comparing pupils' development in special and regular education. However, the indication (in terms of children’s social and cognitive development) is in line with the international studies that show special-needs students educated in regular classes do better academically and socially than students in noninclusive settings (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Peetsma,Vergeer,&Karsten, http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Roeleveld+Jaap%22 2001). Some Swedish studies have shown that inclusion has a positive effect on pupils’ self-concept (e.g., Westling Allodi, 2000, 2002). This is in line with international research (Baker et al., 1995; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).

Although the situation in Sweden in terms of pupils’ participation and democracy is gloomy, by Swedish standards, Sweden is still in international comparison among the few OECD countries that have maintained comprehensiveness, limited tracking at lower and upper secondary levels, that feature comparatively lower segregation, marginalisation, highly networked human rights, gender equality, and so forth. At the same time, the balance between social democratic ideals and liberal components of Swedish educational politics is far from stable at present (see, e.g., Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006).

One exemplary action in Sweden in relation to monitoring participation and inclusive/segregative processes is the recent establishment of a Forum for Inclusive Education by Örebro University and the Swedish Institute for Special Needs Education. The main goal of the forum is to enhance knowledge on inclusive and segregative processes in school and identify good examples that promote participation in the common education. As many authors (Kivirauma, Klemelä, & Rinne, 2006; Thomas & Loxley, 2001, p. 124 Westling Allodi, 2002, p. 50) have pointed out, this is no longer a question of compulsory education or the children’s special needs, but rather, the right to participate in a common education.

The Issue of Equity, Equivalence and EqualityThe purpose of this section is not to explore and analyze these three complex and overlapping concepts. It is, rather, to map out some aspects of the concepts in relation to inclusive education, the extent to which they enhance inclusiveness, and changes of their meanings in different periods of Swedish educational policymaking. Since the early nineteenth century, when elementary school was regarded as a basic school for all, equity has been and is still a central element in the Swedish educational policies, ordinances and directives. Equity is a general term indicating fairness; for example, that principles of justice have been used in the assessment of a phenomenon (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 307).

Equity in the school is guaranteed by the Swedish Education Act 1§2 (The Education Act 1985:1100) All children and young people shall, regardless of gender, geographical residence, and social or economical situation, have equal access to education in the public school system for children and young people. The act stipulates that consideration must also be afforded to pupils with special needs. The school has a special responsibility for those pupils who, for different reasons, experience difficulties in attaining the established educational goals. The links between education and the rest of society are widely recognized, and one task of the school system is to foster in children a spirit of equality and democratic values (LPO 94).

Swedish efforts in the past to promote equity through a variety of educational policies have been fascinating. Those early educational policies, including the macro-political agenda, focused on a social welfare model that has helped diminish the effects of differential social, cultural and economic backgrounds on outcomes. Studies have also shown that inequalities in Swedish society have diminished over the last century in the sense that the influence of a number of background factors important for

138

http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Roeleveld+Jaap%22




educational attainment — parents’ class or social position, cultural capital, type of community and gender— have been reduced (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 299). This may be described mainly as the result of a combination of educational policies and welfare policies that have been the central features of the cultural, historical and political heritage in Nordic societies.

The main question is how this critical equity issue can be addressed in a decentralized educational system that was introduced about 16 years ago. How can we guarantee those values without an effective system of indicators to measure and monitor equity? What does follow–up and evaluation look like? I do not claim to provide a complete description of this complex research area. I do, however, provide some examples that bear on inclusive practices both negatively and positively.

The Swedish constitution recognizes equal human worth and respect for the freedom and dignity of the individuals. The principles laid down there are sources for the curriculum’s goals and objectives. In that respect,

An important principle in achieving equity has been and still is the compensatory principle, i.e., that the state should not remain neutral in issues relating to equal opportunity. Differences among geographical regions, social or economic groups must not be attributable to any form of discrimination that would indicate that the principle of equality has been neglected. (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 301)

Other than the comprehensiveness of the Swedish school system, the adult education is another crucial aspect of equity because it affords training and education for under-educated and unmotivated young people. It provides them with a chance to rejoin school as well as carry on with their working lives (OECD, 2005). Equity carries a particular significance for children with special educational needs. The majority of these children are integrated into regular child-care activities, compulsory schools and upper-secondary schools. There are, however, eight special schools for pupils with hearing/vision and physical disabilities, as well as some schools for the mentally handicapped. A total of one percent of all pupils in the compulsory and upper-secondary school levels are in such segregated settings (Skolverket, 2005; Vislie, 2003, Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001). This is minimal by international comparison (OECD, 1999a; 2000a, 2000b). Nonetheless, since the early 90s the situation has deteriorated. The number of pupils placed in educational programs for learning disabled students has increased dramatically. In general, the number of children defined as special needs has shown a steady increase. In addition, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of private schools.

Variances between schools and municipalities and student achievement including segregation and persistent socioeconomic differences among the school populations have been the postdecentralization policy phenomenon. All the indicators of the National Agency for Education compiled through evaluations, case studies and supervision, testify to this fact. This situation has gotten worse since the Conservative party took power in 2006. One may question whether decentralization and equity are contradictory or incompatible? One might also argue. Isn’t it the conservative party that are against equity and for differentiation, as always, rather than something connected to decentralization? Decentralization is part of a policy package that increases differences in internal and external performances, but it doesn’t cause them. While the influence of a number of background factors significant to educational attainment, such as parental social position, cultural capital, type of community and gender, may have diminished over the last century (Jonsson, 1993; Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001), there is a cause for concern for how long such declines will persist and caution is needed if the traditional model is to survive.

For instance, as regards average achievement, a number of studies have demonstrated that average test achievement has risen since the reform. According to Björklund et al. (2004), the achievement gain is stronger in private schools. But it is unclear whether this is attributable to the quality of the teaching or to the increased classification by ability taking place in these schools. Further, Björklund et al. use an interaction term with social background and find that, unfortunately, immigrants and low-SES pupils have not gained from the overall quality improvement – not even in absolute terms (OECD, 2005, p.20).

Evaluating Equivalence

139


Although the concepts of equity, equality and equivalence are inextricably intertwined, they do not convey exactly the same meaning. As I understand the concept, the term equivalence represents or encompasses the other two in Swedish discourses, although this is a bold statement. Englund (2005) notes that the concept has undergone significant changes and has been given different authoritative interpretations:Viewed from a longer-term perspective, the concept has undergone a displacement whereby its substantial meaning and the contextual criteria involved in it have changed from consisting of types of goals such as unity, common frames of reference, and equal value of continued studies, to a situation where supplementary goals have been added; these are often vague and in total opposition to the original objectives. These new goals can accept difference and individuality independently of shared frames of reference. They have also become equivalence’s link to freedom of choice and parents’ rights. (p. 42)

Equivalence is used, to mean of equal worth (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001 p. 308) and does not imply a strict criterion for comparing two objects, but does assume comparability. Educational paths, for example, can be equivalent, but do not necessarily have to contain identical courses and subjects to have the same value. In line with this, the idea of one school with a common curriculum for all can be problematic if not totally questionable. Lindensjö notes that the

reforms in Sweden have led to the insight that it is difficult to attain true equality without promoting uniformity, which in turn is seen as negative. Therefore, the term equivalence has become central in the Swedish Education Act and has thus come to replace equality as the adjective describing the principles of equity. (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 308)

The principle of fair education as embedded in the concept of equivalence has been operationalized in the Education Act. The Education Act (Chapter1, §2) stipulates that the education provided within each type of school should be of equivalent value, irrespective of where in the country it is provided. The new curriculum (LPO 94), written under a conservative government (1991–1994), states:

National goals specify the norms for equivalence. However, equivalent education does not mean that education should be the same everywhere or that the resources of a school should be allocated equally. Accounts should also be taken of the varying circumstances and needs of pupils as well as the fact that there are a variety of ways of attaining these goals. Furthermore the school has a special responsibility for those pupils who for different reasons experience difficulties in attaining the goals that have been set for the education. (p. 4)

Further, it states that education shall be adapted to each pupil’s circumstances and needs. However, that does not mean that results should be equal. The term quality is also a crucial term used inseparably with the other three central terms in government reports because the quality of services at all levels of the educational system can have serious implications for equivalent education.

The performative displacement of the concept of equivalence (Englund, 2005) is significant, however, vis-à-vis the previous curriculum (LGR 80), in which an equivalent education was considered in terms of equal access to education and the possibility of creating a common frame of reference for all pupils. That is, By applying an obligatory syllabus, which encompasses the same subjects and materials in all schools, society presents a common frame of reference as well as an equivalent education to all citizens (LGR 80, p. 15). As the new policies incorporate supplementary goals such as increased individualization, freedom of choice, and parents’ rights, achieving the goals of inclusive education become difficult. This underlines the fine balance between autonomy and communitarianism in playing out in policy discourses (see Englund, 2005).

A conceptual model of equivalence has been developed by the National Agency for Education to enable it to monitor equivalence and it is currently being applied. As shown in Table 2, this elegant model encompasses three critical areas: equal access, equivalent education and the equal value of education. These can also be described as equal opportunity strategies, equal treatment strategies and equal outcome strategies. These critical areas are structured within three general areas: prerequisites, process and results.

Table 2Equivalence in Schools

140


Prerequisites Process Results

Equal access to education Equivalent education The equal value of an education

Regardless of: With respect to:

Gender Within every type of school Further studyGeographical location Wherever in the country SocietySocial circumstances a school is run Working lifeEconomic circumstances

Note. Adapted from Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 310.

Equal access. Equal access includes factors such as educational options, information regarding current options, admissions and the selection process, gender, and social circumstances.

Equivalent education. Other central factors for ensuring equivalence in education include the following (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, pp. 311-312): education offered; teaching carried out in accordance with the relevant curriculum program, program targets and syllabi; sufficient time for learning; trained staff; an effective school principal; support for students; pupil evaluation on an equal basis. The last four are central conditions to enhance inclusiveness and participation in the daily life of school.

Equal value. The following are central to the equal value of educational programmes: further study; society; working life.

It is through this indicator system that the participation and learning progress of pupils with special educational needs and culturally and socially disadvantaged segments of the school population can be monitored. A summary of the general trends according to these indicators includes the following points: growing inequalities and varied results between schools and pupils; an increase in special educational placements; and an increase in labelling of special needs (for instance, dysphasia, autism, ADHD, socio-emotional problems). However, there is still a huge information gap on equity in inclusive education with respect to pupils with special needs education including children with immigrant status. It is critical to include specific categories within the indicator system in order to gather information on inclusive and exclusionary processes and on the participants, in particular within the regular education system.

Furthermore, the term equivalence is highly problematic. (Note that the language as it is used in Swedish language is also another problem. Space does not allow me here to delve into the semantics and linguistic discourses). What I gather from the literature is that some scholars advocate conceiving the term as a notion that encompasses both equity and equality. This discourse might lead to the possibility of accepting segregation from a common or collective identity–much like the U.S. history around separate but equal. The usage of the term requires close scrutiny as it has serious implications on how we conceive and implement inclusive education. Although there is little discussion in the literature about the term’s hidden or tacit message, I presume that this application of the term might strengthen the separate but equal discourse. This could be one reason why progress in Sweden, with regard to inclusive education, has slowed over the past few years despite positive policies and intentions at different levels of the education system (see Persson, 2008).

Evaluation and Assessment: Learning OutcomesThe new grading system that came into force in 1994 has also been a source of debate about equity in Sweden (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001). According to this system,grades are to be given according to nationally formulated criteria denoting certain qualities of knowledge and skills corresponding to the syllabus for a given subject. The possible grades are: pass; pass with distinction; and pass with special distinction. When a student in compulsory school fails to meet the criteria of the syllabus, no grade is given; in upper secondary school, the grade fail is given. The criteria, however, are to be based on curricula and syllabi, without reference to the accomplishments of a pupil’s peers. This system of grading is referred to as absolute in comparison with its predecessor, a relative system, in which grades were awarded on a Gauss

141


curve denoting the normal performance for a given age group of pupils. The possible grades had been 1,2,3,4 and 5, with 5 denoting the best performance. (p.303)

Issues of accountability as described above (and coordinated by the National Agency for Education) are exerting some pressures on schools to document not only equal access and equivalent education, but also effectiveness in terms of outcomes. This emphasis on accountability represents a significant shift from issues of access and quality of services. Systems of assessment, monitoring, evaluation and documentation of effectiveness in terms of learning outcomes and equity in inclusive education remain lacking and need attention (see Peters, 2003, for a similar observation on the experiences of the counties of the North).

Sweden has very few examinations, grades or certificates in comparison with many other countries in Europe. Until recently no grades were awarded for subjects before 8 th or 9th grade in the compulsory school. At the end of comprehensive education, tests are mandatory in Swedish, English and mathematics. However, at upper secondary levels, tests are compulsory in the first course of study in core subjects. Generally, teacher assessments are viewed as having higher validity values than tests (OPEC, 2005). This limited use of testing and grading is commendable; however, the culture of testing has entered the school system and the new government is pushing for more nationally administered tests even at lower grades such as third grade. Currently the assessment system has reached a crossroad concerning whether or not formative-summative assessment should be or could be combined. The tension is fresh at the time of writing this paper. The impact of this decision on inclusive practices is obvious.

The state changed its role from steering by rules to steering by goals and results. This goal-directed management reform, which replaced the Regel (rule) system, confines the state’s role to formulating general goals to be achieved by each local government, and local governments have sole responsibility for carrying out the activities. That gives local governments a free hand to achieve the goals through different means, strategies and cultures, such as consensus, political compromises, and pragmatic solutions embedded in obscure messages. This would appear to usher us into not only variant educational processes, outcomes and procedural/ institutional cultures in variant municipalities, but also into confusion and erosion in terms of educational visions such as equity and equality of educational opportunities, including specific philosophies such as inclusive education, mainstreaming, and a school for all.

While there are signs that inclusive education as envisaged in the Salamanca declaration is being exercised at different levels, gaps in research and follow-ups are most noticeable in this area. Finally, an overrepresentation of minority pupils in special educational placements (Berhanu, 2008) and significant gender differences in specific disability categories (Skolverket, 2005), as well as in general learning outcomes and methods of testing and assessment, are areas of grave concern requiring further studies.

Democracy is a fundamental value of the Swedish society. Democracy in itself does not guarantee inclusiveness. The principles governing democratic processes are important. As a result, we encounter different models of democracy, although representative democracy is basic and shared by differing models, whether law-governed democracy (the New Right) or participatory/deliberative democracy (the New Left). The former stems from the liberal tradition and the latter from a Marxian, pluralistic tradition (Held, 1997, in Nilholm, 2006b, p. 440). Law-governed democracy puts the individual at the centre, minimizing the impact of the state on public life (ibid.). Low-governed democracy appears to be the order in Sweden, although not in its extreme form. There are already signs, however, that this is becoming detrimental to the goals of inclusion.

Before summarizing my analysis, I would like to go back to the six questions/dilemmas I outlined in the Introduction. Do we have answers to them? These questions do not have simple answers. The answer may lie partly in how we conceive social justice. It has been indicated earlier that the justification for inclusive education is based in part on the ideals of social justice and that the social justice goals and inclusive education are inextricably intertwined. However, social justice views in inclusion discourses vary. Social justice views can be classified as individualistic or communitarian; both perspectives permeate the discourses on inclusion (Artiles, Harris-Murri, & Rostenberg, 2006, p. 262). The authors argue that we must move from a traditional social justice discourse in inclusive education (individualistic/communitarian) to a transformative model of social justice. The values involved relate to a vision of a whole society, of which education is a part. Issues of social justice, equity and choice are

142


central to the demands for inclusive education. This vision concerns the well-being of all pupils, and making schools welcoming institutions through, for instance, measures examining ideological and historical assumptions about difference, critiquing marginalization, debunking merit based cultures, deliberating/negotiating program’s goals, tools and practices, and so on (Artiles et al., 2006). I also believe that a fundamental change in our educational system and core of educational practice may mitigate the dilemmas. As Elmore (1996) succinctly put it, this core of practice includes:

How teachers understand the nature of knowledge and the student’s role in learning, and how these ideas about knowledge and learning are manifested in teaching and classwork. The core also includes structural arrangements of schools, such as the physical layout of classrooms, student grouping practices, teachers’ responsibilities for groups of students, and relations among teachers in their work with students, as well as processes for assessing student learning and communicating it to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and other interested parties. (p. 23)

It might also be argued that the dilemma of difference in education calls for resolutions, not solutions. They require the balancing of tensions, accepting less than ideal ways forward, and working positively with uncertainties and complexities (Norwich, 2007, p. 124).

Finally, despite some mixed findings as to the result of inclusive education and the tensions between the theory of inclusive education and its practice, research has, as a whole, demonstrated that on a number of levels inclusive education is preferable to segregation. Recent studies have shown that special needs pupils in inclusive settings have made greater academic progress. It is not only that students make good progress in an inclusive setting but also that inclusive education compared with segregated settings results in more positive social relationships. These provide all students with enhanced opportunities to learn from each other’s contributions. Studies also demonstrate that inclusive educational arrangements are beneficial for students without disabilities (see Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 2006, for some of the research literature on this topic).

ConclusionAn attempt has been made to map out the challenges and responses to inclusive education in Sweden, in particular at organizational and systemic levels from a cultural historical point of view. Core concepts such as equity, equality, and equivalence that have bearing on inclusive education have been discussed. The analysis incorporates government reports and research findings and has been conceptualized in terms of the assumption that policy and practice decisions involve dilemmas and contradictions and are situated in a historical, social and cultural context. That holds true for policies and practices of education in general and special/inclusive education in particular.

Equity in education has been a principal policy concern in Sweden for several decades. In this paper I have discussed the status of equity in Swedish policies, including the importance of reform of the education system in this regard, and have explained how Swedish follow-up and indicator systems are structured to monitor equity and variability in the system.

Sweden is a wealthy, highly-educated and healthy society with one of the highest standard of living in the world. In comparison to even many well-developed countries, Sweden is one of the leading countries at successfully combining equity and social inclusion with high economic efficiency. The tradition of universalism and comprehensiveness with minimization of streaming and tracking has been the hallmark of the Swedish education system. Redistribution policies underpinned by high levels of taxation and public spending still appear to have strong social consensus. Sweden has, at the same time, undergone a dramatic transformation within the past two decades. The changes are framed within neo-liberal philosophies that place greater emphasis on devolution, marketization (driven by principles of cost containment and efficiency), competition, standardization, individual choices and rights, development of new profiles within particular school units, and other factors that potentially work against the values of diversity, equity and inclusion.

National evaluations and OECD reports indicate that differences in a number of aspects (e.g., socioeconomic, educational achievements and resources) have increased between schools and municipalities, as well as among pupils. Differences in achievement can be linked to the new goals and an achievement-referenced operating system. The number of children who are placed in special educational settings and in particular in Särskolan (education for learning disabled pupils) has increased. The proportions of students who fail in core subjects when leaving compulsory schools and students who

143


drop out from upper secondary schools have increased. Increased segregation by place of residence, variation in classification and placement decisions of pupils with special needs (diverging local practices), a proliferation of independent schools, class differences, individual choices, marginalization, exclusion, and other factors have been documented and have become a subject of heated debate during the last few years. In particular, growing ethnic inequalities are probably the Achilles heel of the present-day Swedish education system (OECD, 2005, p. 47).

The paradox is that all these trends that work against inequity are happening while at the same time the rhetoric advocating a school for all and inclusive education have become policy catch-words while having very little effect on the ground. As Skidmore (2004) observed, based on his experiences in the U.K., inclusion has become a buzzword in educational discourse. Although inclusion has been adopted as a policy goal, to date much of the Swedish debate has amounted to little more than the trading of abstract ideological positions, which has little connection with the daily realities in schools. In practice, the trend may be described as excluding the included.

As a consequence of massive immigration, the education system has come under serious pressure during the past two decades. This rapid demographic change has brought with it ethnic segregation and inequalities, which presents a major challenge to policymakers in terms of social integration generally, and educational inclusion specifically, unless targeted positive discriminatory measures are put in place. Such measures, however, are anathema to Swedish policy principles.

Responses and challenges to inclusive education in general and issues of equity in inclusive education are varied and complex. Sweden’s cultural and political heritage could have been ideal to fully implement inclusive education as envisaged in The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994). However, the new political movements and policies that dominate the Swedish educational system have created contradictory and conflicting realities that work not only against fundamental equity issues but also against the long Swedish tradition of universalism, comprehensiveness and egalitarianism.

The challenge in Sweden is to meet these changes and still guarantee equivalence in the education system. Sweden has developed a broad follow-up system and quality indicators in order to monitor changes within the system. However, the indicator systems do not specifically show the nature, extent and processes of inclusive and exclusionary processes within the regular system. Since a return to the former centralized management system is unlikely, constant flow of monitoring, evaluation and inspection and a stronger partnership between the central system and the local level, and even parents and schools, as well as between municipalities, must be established in order to mitigate variance and inequalities. Stronger central government authority over educational priority funding will be critical for at-risk groups, either in the form of targeted central budgets, or in terms of regulatory power over municipal education outlays (OECD, 2005). Core concepts shift meanings across time and context. For instance the concept of equivalence has been linked with freedom of choice and education as a civil right (the rights of pupils/parents). This contrasts with the tradition of uniformity, which has been more closely associated with the idea of education as a social right (Englund, 2005). Because of its positive connotations, the concept of inclusion is being appropriated and relocated in other fields through recontextualization. The risk is clear unless unambiguous policy statements are made.

Apart from the obvious policy shifts that brought about contradictions in the education system, the very nature of our humanity and social activities also are filled with some dilemmas and contradictions. However, policies and practices can either strengthen or weaken the complexities emanating from this. The dilemmas revolve around individually and collectively based ideas of democracy, categorization (social stigmatization/segmentation) versus individuality, utility and culture, the public and personal domains, economy and welfare, individual agency versus collective action, autonomy and communitarianism.

A number of government funded studies have been conducted recently to investigate the participation and inclusion of disabled pupils at different levels of the education system, in particular at individual, classroom and school levels, and conferences are being held linked to these studies. There is therefore some hope that the studies will reveal micro- and meso-level activities that hinder or enhance full participation of students with special needs and problematize further real-world dilemmas, including the growing culture of diagnosis. Significant factors that may facilitate physical, social and curricular

144


inclusion have been identified: competent personnel, differentiation in the curriculum, favorable assessment methods, collaboration between the teaching staff, class size, involvement by school leadership, continuous and intensive in-service staff training, partnership with parents, and economic factors. Moreover, the concept of participation has to be further problematized. It is one of the least empirically defined core concepts and is broadly misconceived. It is complex, multidimensional, subjective, and context bound.

On the positive side, there are still commendable activities and policies in Sweden that promote social inclusion. For instance, the system offers a possibility for youngsters who fail at some stage to move on into further education via individual or tailored programs. A generous school system guarantees free education (including free books, meals and transportation to the nearest school) for all in compulsory education. Free access is also guaranteed in state-run higher education and in municipal adult education (http://www.skolverket.se). Acclaiming Sweden’s past achievements, an OECD report has stated that the tools to achieve equity in Sweden have not been added as corrections to the education system – they are at the heart of the Swedish model. That model includes

(1) a strong, popular and successful preschool combining care, nurture and education(2) a well-designed, broad and attractive comprehensive curriculum(3) an encouraging and non-threatening learning culture for all (4) opportunities for bridges and second chance provision at all levels (5) absence of dead ends(6) equivalence of qualifications, and(7) a long-standing tradition of democratic adult education (OECD, 2005, p. 48-49).

There is, however, a cause for concern for how long Sweden’s positive reputation will persist given the drastic changes that have taken place within a short span. Caution is needed if the traditional model is to survive.

References

Arnesen, A., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in the Nordic welfare states. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 285-300. Artiles, A. J., Harris-Murri, N., Rostenberg, D. (2006). Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes on discourses, assumptions, and the road ahead. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 260-268. Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. A. (2006). Learning in inclusive education research: Re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda. Review of Research in Education, 30, 65-108.Asp-Onsjö, L. (2006). Åtgärdsprogram - dokument eller verktyg. En fallstudie i en kommun [Individual educational plan – Document or Tools. A case study in one municipality]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis.Bagga-Gupta, S. (2006). Att förstå delaktighet utifrån forskning som fokuserar deltagande och interaction [To understand participation from research focusing on involvement and interaction] Specialpedagogiska institutet. Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.Ballard, K. (1997). Researching disability and inclusive Education: Participation, construction and interpretation. International Journal of Inclusive Education 1(3), 243–56.Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of post modernity. London: Routledge.Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2007). Education and the commodity problem: Ethnographic investigations of creativity and performativity in Swedish Schools. London: The Tufnell Press.Bel Habib, I. (2001). Elever med invandrarbakgrund i särskolan: specialpedagogik eller disciplinär makt [Pupils with immigrant background in education for intellectaully disabled]. Kristianstad: Högskolan i Kristianstad. Enheten för kompetensutveckling. Berhanu, G. (2006). Framgångsfaktorer för delaktighet och jämlikhet [Favorable factors to enhance participation and equality]. Specialpedagogiska institutet. Berhanu, G. (2008). Ethnic minority pupils in Swedish schools: Some trends in overrepresentation of minority pupils in special educational programs. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 17-29.

145


Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. R. (1988). Ideological dilemmas. London: Sage.Björklund, A., Edin, P.A., Frederiksson, P., & Krueger, A. (2004). Education, equality and efficiency. An analysis of Swedish school reforms during the 1990s. IFAU Report No. 1.Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (Eds.). (1998). Theorising special education. London: Routledge.Corbett, J., & Slee, R. (2000). An international conversation on inclusive education. In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong, & L. Barton (Eds.), Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton.Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2000). Schools and special needs─ issues of innovation and inclusion. London: Sage.Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practices. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1) 1-25.Emanuelsson, I. (2001). Reactive versus proactive support coordinator roles: An international comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(2), 133-142.Emanuelsson, I., Haug, P., & Persson, B. (2005). Inclusive education in some Western European countries: Different policy rhetorics and school realities. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp.114-138). London: Routledge/Falmer. Emanuelsson, I., Persson, B., & Rosenqvist, J. (2001). Specialpedagogis forskning – en kunskapsöversikt [Special educational research–A literature review]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Englund, T. (2005). The discourse on equivalence in Swedish education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 20(1), 39-57.Eriksson, L. (2006). Participation and disability- A study of participation in school for children and youth with disabilities. Stockholm: Universitetsservice AB.Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2001). Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: Lessons learned. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 399–412.Giddens, A. (1990). The contradictions of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Göransson, K. (2006). Pedagogical traditions and conditions for inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(1), 67-74.Göransson, K. (2008). Man vill ju vara som alla andra [One wants, of course, to be like the others]. Edita: Specialpedagogiska Skolmyndigheten.Gustafsson, J.-E. (2006). Barns utbildningssituation. Bidrag till ett kommunalt barnindex [Children’s educational situation. Contribution to a local child index; in Swedish]. Stockholm, Sweden: Rädda Barnen.Göransson, K., Nilholm, C. & Karlsson, K. (2010). 'Inclusive education in Sweden? A critical analysis', International Journal of Inclusive Education, First published on: 31 August 2010 (iFirst). Hahne Lundström, K. (2001). Intagningskriterier till gymnasiesärskolan i Göteborg [Admission criteria to upper highschool for educationally disabled in Gothenburg]. Projektarbete vid Arbetslivsinstitutets Företagsläkarutbildning 2000/2001. Heimdahl Mattsson, E. (2006). Mot en inkluderande skola [Towards inclusive school]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Hjörne, E. (2004). Excluding for inclusion? Negotiating school careers and identities in pupil welfare settings in the Swedish school. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Janson, U. (2006). Funktionell olikhet och kamratsamspel i förskola och skola [Functional differences and peer interaction in preschool and school]. Specialpedagogiska institutet. Jonsson, J. 0. (1993). Persisting inequalities in Sweden. In Y. Shavit & H. P. Blossfeld (Eds.), Persistent inequality. Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries (pp. 101-132). Boulder: Westview Press.Kivirauma, J., Klemelä, K., & Rinne, R. (2006). Segregation, integration, inclusion - The ideology and reality in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(2), 117-133. Kozleski, E. & Artiles, A. (Eds.). (in press). Equity in inclusive education. Arizona State University. Korp, H. (2006). Lika chanser i gymnasiet? En studie om betyg, nationella prov och social reproduktion [Equivalence in upper high school? A study of grades, national tests and social reproduction]. Malmö högskola, Lärarutbildningen: Malmö Studies in Educational Sciences 24.Leijon, S., & Omanovic, V. ( 2001). Mångfaldens mångfald-olika sätt at se på och leda olikheter [Mångfald, strategi, diversity management]. FE-rapprt 2001-381. LGR (1962). Läroplan för grundskolan [Curriculum for the compulsory school system]. Kungl. Skolöverstyrelsens skriftserie 60 (1962).

146


LPO (1994). Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolva¨sendet, fo¨rskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. Stockholm:Skolverket och Fritzes AB. [Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the Preschool Class and the Leisure-Time Centre] (Lpo 94)) Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(44), 762–796. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 241-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mitchell, D. (2005). Introduction: Sixteen propositions on the contexts of inclusive education. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 1-21). London: Routledge/Falmer. Nilholm, C. (2006a). Including av elever ’ I behov av särskilt stöd’- vad betyder det och vad vet vi? [Including children with special needs - what does it mean? what do we know?]. Myndigheten för Skolutveckling: Forskning i fokus nr. 28. Nilholm, C. (2006b). Special education, inclusion and democracy. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(4) 431–445.Nirje, B. (1992) The normalization principle papers. Uppsala: University, Sweden, Centre for Handicap Research.Norwich, B. (2007). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives and future directions. London, Routledge.Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 287–304.OECD. (1999a). Early childhood education and care policy in Sweden. Country Note. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).OECD. (1999b). Inclusive education at work, students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).OECD. (2000a). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).OECD. (2000b). Special needs education – Statistics and indicators. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).OECD (2005). Equity in education: Thematic review. Sweden, Country Note. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).Palla, L. (2006). Den inkluderande skolan [The inclusive school]. Specialpedagogiska institutet. Peetsma,T., Vergeer,M.,&Karsten, S. http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Roeleveld+Jaap%22(2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils' development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125-135.Persson, B. (2003). Exclusive and inclusive discourses in special education research and policy in Sweden. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(3), 271–280.Persson, B. (2008). On other people’s terms: Schools encounters with disabled students . European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 337-347Persson, B., & Berhanu, G. (2005) Politics of difference: The emergence of special needs in a school for all. (Research Programme) Project Document. Göteborg University.Peters, S.J. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special educational needs. Washington, DC: Disability Group. The World Bank. URL. (Access date Oct. 18, 2008).Rosenqvist, J. (2007). Specialpedagogik i mångfaldens Sverige: Om elever med annan etnisk bakgrund än svensk i särskolan [Special education in multicultural Sweden: Ethnic minorty pupils in education for intellectually disabled]. (Ett samarbetsprojekt mellan Specialpedagogiska institutet och Högskolan Kristianstad (HKr), Specialpedagogiska institutet. Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamic of school development. Buckingham: Open University Press. Skolverket (2000). Hur särskild får man vara? En analys av elevökningen i särskolan [How different one has to be? A study of the increase of pupils in education for intellectually disabled]. Uppföljning/Utvärdering Dnr 2000:2037 2000-09-29.Skolverket (2002). Barnomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning i siffror 2002 del 2 [Childcare, school and adult education in numbers 2002 part 2]. Rapport 214. Stockholm: Skolverket.Skolverket (2004). Skolverkets lägesbedömning av förskoleverksamhet, skolbarnsomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning [The evaluation of the situation in preschools, after-school childcare, schools and adult education; in Swedish]. Rapport 249. Stockholm: Skolverket.

147





Skolverket (2005). Handikapp i skolan. Det offentliga skolväsendets möte med funktionshinder från folkskolan till nutid [Disability in schools. The public education’s handling of handicap from Folk school to the present time]. Rapport 270. Stockholm: Fritzes. (www.skolverket.se). SOU (2003:35). För den jag är. Om utbildning och utvecklingstörning. Stockholm: Skolverket. Statistics Sweden (2004) Statistisk Årsbok 2004 (Statistic Yearbook 2004). The Education Act (1985:1000) i Svea Rikes Lag. Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.U.N. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). UN General Assembly Document A/RES/44/25.U.N. (1993). The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, forty-eighth session, resolution 48/96, annex, of 20 December 1993. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htmUNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, June 7-10. Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the Western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17–35.Westling Allodi, M. (2000). Self-concept in children receiving special support at school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 69-78.Westling Allodi, M. (2002). Support and a resistance. Ambivalence in special education. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Wildt-Persson, A., & Rosengren, P. G. (2001). Equity and equivalence in the Swedish school system. In W. Hutmacher (Ed.), In pursuit of equity in education. Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 288-321). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic.Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: NIMR.

Author NoteA shorter/brief version of this paper appears in Elizabeth Kozleski and Alfredo Artiles (Eds.). (in press).

Equity in Inclusive Education. Arizona State University.

148

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm

http://www.skolverket.se/


SPECIAL EDUCATION IN SAUDI ARABIA: CHALLENGES, PERSPECTIVES, FUTURE POSSIBILITIES

Turki AlqurainiOhio University

This paper provides a brief background of the education system in Saudi Arabia and current special education services and programs for students with disabilities. Additionally, this paper presents the findings of some studies that examined teachers' perspectives regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. As Saudi Arabia continues its dramatic period of improvement, changes in special education services will occur rapidly. To improve special education services, educators, parents, policymakers, and other professionals should consider many suggestions regarding critical components of successful inclusive education. In addition, further research is needed on changing the attitudes of stakeholders toward inclusion so they can be supportive of these students in a general education setting.

Overview of the Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaThe Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was established in the 1932, when Ibn Saud conquered the majority of the Arabian Peninsula after a bloody war that lasted three decades (World Factbook, 2010). It is located in the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula and is bordered on the north by Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait and on the east by Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Quatar, and the Arabian Gulf Sea. On the south are Oman and Yemen and on the west is the Red Sea. KSA dominates the Arabian Peninsula in terms of land area, having over two million square kilometers of land. Over 22 million people live in Saudi Arabia, according to a census conducted in 2004. The geography of Saudi Arabia ranges includes mountains, plains, and desert. The temperature varies from over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit in daytime to well below 30 degrees on a cold desert night. Saudi Arabia’s capital is Riyadh (Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, 2010).

The KSA economy is driven by oil. The country has more oil than any other nation; some experts estimate that KSA has one fourth of the world’s total reserves. Most of its economy is based on the collection and refining of oil products like kerosene or gasoline. Despite its oil wealth, Saudi Arabia is beginning to look to other natural resources to boost its income, such as natural gas, minerals, and precious metals (Royal Embassy, 2010).

149


The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy. It is ruled over by a royal family, which rules according to the Quran’s teachings of Sharia based on Islamic religious law. By far the dominant religion in KSA is Islam. Under Sharia law, certain rights are applied to all people, such as life, dignity, and education (World Factbook, 2010).

The Saudi Education SystemAccording to the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (2010), the education system of Saudi Arabia has evolved dramatically since its founding 78 years ago. In the beginning, education was the privilege only of children of elite, wealthy families. Currently there is a boom in education facility construction in Saudi Arabia, with over twenty-five thousand schools built and more constructed as time passes. Now education is given to all tiers of society, and all students have their schooling paid for by the government. The curricula are a mix of traditional Islamic religious education and lessons in many other fields, usually based on the curricula of schools in the United States of America or the United Kingdom. The schedule of these schools is usually modeled on the American system, with nine to 10 months of schooling broken by summer breaks and occasional time off for religious holidays (World Factbook, 2010).

The Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia is responsible for providing a free and appropriate education for all students, including those with disabilities. It also is responsible for establishing new schools and maintaining old schools, providing and developing curricula, establishing training programs to in-service teachers, and offering adult education literacy (Ministry of Education, 2008). This ministry also is responsible for special education services to students with disabilities. There is where eligibilities for these services are established and special education services are provided in order to help students with disabilities be able to live independently and safely (Al-Mousa, Al-Sartawi, Al-Adbuljbbar, Al-Btal, & Al-Husain, 2006).

Overview of Special Education in Saudi ArabiaThe Development of Special Education People with disabilities in Saudi Arabia did not obtain any type of special education services prior to 1958. The parents of students with disabilities were responsible for providing any assistance to their children (Al-Ajmi, 2006). Special education services for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia began to emerge in 1958 when some students with blindness received their education in schools known as “scientific institutes” (Salloom, 1995). In 1962, the Ministry of Education established the Department of Special Learning to improve learning and rehabilitation services for three main categories of students with disabilities: those with blindness, deafness, and mental retardation (Afeafe, 2000). Following this initiative, in 1964 three institutes for students with blindness were set up in three cities: Mecca, Aneaza, and Alhofouf (Al-Mousa, 1999). The first institute for students with deafness as well as for those with mental retardation was established in 1972.

The early movement to improve special education services led to increases in these services by establishing regulations that guarantee rights for people with disabilities, increasing the quality of special education services, and educating professionals who are qualified to provide these services. Overall, the main purpose of this paper is to provide a brief description of the law supporting people with disabilities and current special education services provided, as well as perspectives of teachers regarding inclusive education for students with disabilities. Finally, this paper also discusses some suggestions that might contribute to improving the quality of special education services for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia.

Laws Regarding People with DisabilitiesLegislation of Disability. Legislation of Disability (LD) passed in 1987 as the first legislation for people with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. The LD includes important provisions that guarantee individuals with disabilities rights equal to those of other people in society. This legislation also contains many articles that define disabilities and describe programs for prevention and intervention and procedures of assessment and diagnosis to determine eligibility for special education services. Finally, LD requires

150


that public agencies must provide rehabilitation services and training programs that support independent living (Ministry of Health Care, 2010).

Disability Code. This code was passed by the Saudi government in 2000 to guarantee that people with disabilities have access to free and appropriate medical, psychological, social, educational, and rehabilitation services through public agencies. This legislation further requires these agencies to assist eligible people in areas including welfare, habilitation, health, education, training and rehabilitation, employment, complementary services, and other areas (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).

Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI). To further develop the policy of special education for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia, a Ministry of Education representative from the Directorate General of Special Education in Saudi Arabia and some professionals from the Department of Special Education at King Saud University—who hold master’s and doctoral degrees from the United States in special education—reviewed the United States' special education policies, including the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975 and Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. The Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI) were modeled after those U.S. policies and introduced in 2001. The first regulations for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia, RESPI outlines rights and regulations for students having disabilities in the Saudi Arabia and requiring special education services. The RSEPI defines the main categories of students with disabilities—mental retardation, learning disability, deafness, blindness, and multiple disabilities—as well as tasks for professionals who work with these students. It also describes an individual education program (IEP), elements of an IEP, and individuals who should participate in planning and providing an IEP. The RSEPI includes procedures of assessment and evaluation for students to determine if they are eligible for special education services. Under the RSEPI, all children with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education, individual education programs, early intervention programs, related services, and transition services. The RESPI also specifies how schools must provide these services to students with disabilities. Thus, RSEPI supports the quality of the special education services in Saudi Arabia.

In summary, these policies support the equal rights of individuals with disabilities in obtaining free and appropriate education. However, even though these laws were passed almost a decade ago, they are not practiced in the real world with students with disabilities. In fact, the lack of the effective implementation has created in a gap between the framework of these laws and the provision of services, resulting in a lack of special education services for some students with disabilities. The following section discusses these weaknesses and suggests some improvements to actual special education services in Saudi Arabia.

Current Special Education ServicesIn the last decade, the practice of special education services for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia has improved to assist them in obtaining high-quality education services in the least restrictive environment (LRE). In spite of this effort to improve services, more is needed to improve these services further. This section briefly describes many services available to students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia.

Education SettingsStudents with mild and moderate disabilities. Students with mild learning disabilities receive their educations in typical classrooms with some support from special education services such as source rooms. These students also fully participate in the general education curriculum with some modifications and accommodations. Students with mild and moderate cognitive disabilities still receive their education in separate classrooms in public schools. They do share some time with their typically developing peers in noncurricular activities such as lunch or recess. The schools provide special education curriculum to these students, which is different than the general curriculum provided their typically developing peers. Students with mild to moderate disabilities attend elementary schools from ages 6 years to 13 or 14 years, followed by middle school until age 18. Unfortunately, after they complete their education in elementary and middle school, many of these students have no opportunity to attend any further

151


education except at some vocational training centers (Al-Ajmi, 2006). The main purpose of these centers is to provide these students with vocational training and employment skills that support independent living (Ministry of Health Care, 2010). Thus, these settings have become challenged to educate students in general education settings.

Students with severe disabilities. According to the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia (2008), 96% of students with multiple and severe disabilities received their education in separate institutes in 2007–08. These students often are educated in segregated settings that do not allow them to interact with their typically developing peers in inclusion settings where they could improve social, communication, and academic skills. These institutes provide residence, food, financial aid, and assistance to students with moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disabilities, multiple impairments, and autism. The students remain at school all week and return home only on the weekends. Families often are not able to come to the institutes every day and accompany their children because of the distance between the schools and family homes.

An additional essential issue is that students with disabilities in these institutes receive individual education programs (IEPs) that are modified from a special education curriculum and designed by the Ministry of Education for these students. The IEPs often do not meet their unique and individual needs; instead these students should receive IEPs based upon the general curriculum.

Lastly, private institutes lack related services such as occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech and language pathologists that could enabling these students to acquire more benefits from their IEPs and develop communication, physical, and other skills. Some public schools provide several related services for students with mild and moderate disabilities. The way that some students with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities receive their educations in segregated settings does not recognize their rights and needs to be included like other students. Segregating students with disabilities from other students does not allow those students to properly acquire social skills, particularly for those with cognitive disabilities who lack such skills. There are many reasons why student with disabilities still receive their educations in segregation settings, including:

lacking of weariness and training among public school teachers about students with disabilities, the fear that students with disabilities may endanger students in the population, the notion of educators that the equal but separate theory is the best way teach students with and without disabilities (Al-Faiz, 2006, p. 21).

Perspectives of Teachers Regarding General Education Setting for Students With Disabilities in Saudi ArabiaTeachers are influential in determining students’ inclusion in general classrooms. Therefore, numerous studies emphasize the role teachers can play in promoting successful inclusion for students with disabilities (Kozub & Lienert, 2003). When educators are supportive of inclusion decisions, they are more likely to demonstrate their support of their practices (Cook, 2004). Research shows that teachers’ perceptions are important to the successful implementation of inclusive education for students with disabilities (Auramidis & Norwich, 2002). Furthermore, Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, and Shelton (2004) pointed out that one of the important conditions needed for the successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities is the positive perspective of school staff members who work with these children.

On the other hand, the negative perspective of these professionals could be the main factor that impedes the process of inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education programs. There are many factors, such as the level of the student’s disability, that affect the perspective of teachers. Kozub and Lienert (2003) mentioned that physical educators prefer to work with students with moderate disabilities rather than students with severe disabilities. Additionally, Cook (2001) investigated teachers’ attitudes toward including students with mild and severe disabilities in general education classes. He concluded that teachers hold different attitudes (e.g., indifference and rejection nomination) toward their students with disabilities based on the levels of disability (e.g., obvious and hidden disabilities). In addition, students with severe disabilities are more likely to be rejected by teachers than students with mild and moderate disabilities.

152


Although these studies stress the importance of investigating educators’ perceptions, few studies have explored educators’ perspectives in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if these perspectives will be the same in a country where few studies have been done and where there are significant religious and cultural differences from Western contexts. It is important to consider the values of society and how they affect public perceptions of students with disabilities.

Saudi society is based on the Islamic faith and follows the Qur'an and the Sunnah as stated by the Prophet Muhammad. Saudi cultural values deal with disabilities according to the policies included in the Quran and Sunnah. This means that a disability may be perceived as a punishment for someone because he or she was disrespectful toward a family with a child with a disability. It also may be a test, and the patience of those who are tested will not go unrewarded by Allah, who has prepared a place for the patient in Paradise (Al-Mousa, 1999). These values often lead people in Saudi Arabia to treat individuals with disabilities negatively; for example, these individuals are not able to live independently. Additionally, Saudi society sometimes discriminates against these individuals, such as ignoring them in public and preventing them from practicing their rights as other individuals do.

A few studies indicate that teachers in Saudi Arabia might have negative perceptions toward people with disabilities. Al-Ahmadi (2009) examined the perspectives of male and female teachers, special education teachers, and general education teachers working in public schools in Saudi Arabia. The researcher analyzed teachers’ perspectives on the respondent’s demographic and independent variables (e.g., gender, age, degree held, years of teaching experiences, having family member with disability, and previous training in special education or inclusive education). This study found that male teachers had more positive attitudes toward integration education for students with learning disabilities than female teachers. This study also found that the type of degree held affected teachers' attitudes regarding the integration for students with learning disabilities. Those holding master's degrees were more likely to have positive attitudes toward this practice.

Al-Faiz (2006) examined attitudes of 240 teachers working in elementary schools in Saudi Arabia toward inclusive education for students with autism. The author investigated the attitudes of elementary school teachers based on 11 independent variables: gender, citizenship, age, marital status, level of education, education area, teaching field, teaching experience, training program, family/relative with autism, and exposure to students with disabilities. This study found that most teachers have positive attitudes toward inclusive education. This research also pointed out that teaching experience and family/relative with disability most affected the attitudes of these teachers.

Another study conducted by Al-Abduljabber (1994) investigated attitudes of 221 teachers and administrators working in public schools in Saudi Arabia toward inclusive education for students with disabilities. The investigator examined their attitudes based on gender, age, type of degree, years of experience, job position, and school level. This study concluded that female teachers and administrators had more positive attitudes than male teachers and administrators regarding inclusive education. This study also mentioned that administrators who had more experience had more positive attitudes regarding inclusive education. Finally, Dubis (1987) surveyed 373 special education teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes toward mainstreaming for students with deafness, blindness, and mental retardation in Saudi Arabia. The researcher examined their attitudes in relation to age, gender, grade level, and contact with children with disabilities. The study indicated that special education teachers and administrators had positive attitudes regarding the mainstreaming for these students.

Although a few researchers have investigated the attitudes of teachers and other school staff regarding inclusive education for students with disabilities, they concluded that most of the teachers have positive attitudes toward educating students in general education settings. These findings suggest potential stakeholders in the schools who are willing to support students with disabilities in gaining their education in general education settings.

153


Future Possibilities of General Educating SettingThere are many suggestions to assist students with disabilities in receiving an education with their typically developing peers in regular education settings in Saudi Arabia. One interesting solution to this issue is teaching future teachers or pre-service teachers about the capabilities of these students, or preparing the students themselves to be able to discuss their strengths and needs, otherwise known as self-advocacy. Colleges also should educate both general teachers and special education teachers about the importance of having children with disabilities in regular classes and the importance of their collaboration as the key to successful inclusion. This can be done by creating courses that discuss how these teachers can collaborate and explore models of collaboration that can be practiced in schools. For instance, teachers can use a collaborative or co-teaching model, where more than one teacher shares the responsibility in providing academic, social, and communicative activities for diverse students in the general education setting.

Teachers also should recognize important skills that might facilitate their collaboration in terms of using appropriate communication skills and working as a team. Additionally, school principals should make sure these professionals have enough time to collaborate. School districts and professional associations such as the Saudi Association of Students with Autism, the Saudi Association of Students with Deafness, and others might work to develop skills and training for in-service teachers as well as for the families of students with disabilities about the important elements of successful inclusion through conferences and workshops. This kind of training might address these elements in terms of collaboration among professionals (e.g., special education teachers, general education teachers, service providers, and others) and adaptation and accommodation of schoolwork.

Other elements that can be considered in these conferences and workshops are effective instruction practices that improve access to core general curriculum, peer support for students with disabilities, assistive technology, and administrative support, professional development training for educators, and effective involvement and support of parents or families in inclusive settings. Moreover, teachers and service providers should work as a team to assist students with disabilities to access and progress in the general curriculum education through strategies of accommodation and modification.

Accommodations might include using specific teaching techniques, such as audio or other formats as an alternative to print, technology, graphic organizers, and pictorial representation, or changing the amount of input, time-frame for learning, and levels of support for individual students' needs. Another example of an accommodation is changing the requirements so that only half of the problems on a math assignment need to be completed, or allowing a student to take an oral exam instead of a traditional pen and paper test. Curriculum adaptations can be used to change the level of standards expected of the student, the way the course is taught, and the tools used to teach the course. Lastly, schools should adapt the physical environment to help students with disabilities access their regular classes; for example, installing elevators in the schools makes it easy for students with physical disabilities and other students to move between floors.

The Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia should consider providing teachers with assistance to improve the quality of education programs. At minimum, the Ministry should employ people who have at least high school diplomas and who pass a specific test that determines their qualifications for this job.

Assistive technology should be considered to support these students’ engagement in regular class and access the general curriculum. Types of assistive technology that can be used with these students are both low technology (highlight tape, manila file folders, and photo albums) and high technology (adaptive communication devices, switches, and others). However, the main issue of applying high assistive technology with students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia is that most of these devices use only the English or Spanish languages. The companies that produce these devices should consider models in the Arabic language so that these devices might be available to Saudi students. Low technology that can be made at a lower cost should be an important consideration of the teachers.

154


More research is needed to examine the attitudes of teachers and other stakeholders regarding inclusive education and the factors that affect these attitudes. Public agencies (e.g., school districts, colleges, media, etc.) also should sensitize the community and families to the importance of including children with disabilities in regular classes through the media, workshops, and conferences. This might contribute to changing the attitudes of teachers, families, and other members of society to be supportive of inclusion. These suggestions cannot be achieved without the combined effort of all parties.

Procedures to Determine Eligibility for Special Education Services Unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia diagnosis and assessment processes to determine the eligibility of students for special education and related services are still not free of shortcomings. The assessment process for children does not begin early enough to successfully determine disabilities. This process usually starts when the child goes to school, so the schools and other agencies cannot provide early intervention for children with disabilities and their families. Additionally, most of the special education institutes as well as public schools lack a multidisciplinary team, IQ tests, adaptive behavior scales, and academic scales that appropriate to cultural standards of Saudi Arabia (Al-Nahdi, 2007).

Therefore, in most cases, the schools’ psychologists define the student’s eligibility for special education service based on the student’s IQ score and observations from their teachers. Assessment procedures for children with disabilities in Saudi Arabia are not team-based. Overall, the assessment and diagnostic procedures should be reassessed and recognized to achieve best practice.

Possible Procedures to Determine Eligibility for Special Education ServicesMany important suggestions should be considered in improving the actual assessment and diagnosis process for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. One is to start the assessment process at an early stage for at-risk students at birth or in preschools to help these students and their families utilize early interventions. The schools might provide some intervention instructions to the student with disability—what is known as Response to Intervention (RTI)—before they refer the student to assessment procedures. RTI is the practice of providing high quality instructions and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make changes in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions (Batsche et al., 2006, p. 3). The schools also should assess the child based on a variety of sources, including formal assessment through IQ tests, adaptive behavior scales, and academic scales, as well as the child’s physical condition and his or her social or cultural background.

Teachers and other school staff might consider informal assessment, including observations, interviews, and other tools. Professionals also should work to establish tests and scales that use Saudi Arabia cultural standards and language to be appropriate for use in Saudi Arabia. The determination that a student needs special education services should be made by a multidisciplinary team including special education teachers, general education teachers, psychologists, the student's parents, and any others needed for the assessment process. All of these suggestions will play a significant role in improving the assessment procedures for students with disabilities.

Related Services for Students with DisabilitiesThere are many related services for students with disabilities in the schools in Saudi Arabia, since most of these students have communication, fine motor skills, or gross motor skills problems. According to the RSEPI, all students with disabilities either in special education institutes or public schools should obtain related services in order to acquire more benefits from their IEPs (Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia, 2002). Many Saudi studies have examined the feasibility of related services and their importance for students with disabilities in special education institutes or public schools. Al-Wabli (1996) examined the feasibility of related services and their importance in special institutes for students with cognitive disabilities in Saudi Arabia. This study found out speech-language pathologists, school counselors, psychologists, and social workers were available in these institutes. However, occupational therapy and physical therapy services were less available. Following this line of investigation, Al-Quraini (2007) examined the feasibility and effectiveness of related services for students with mental retardation in public schools. According to this study, the most readily available related services were transportation, speech and language therapy, psychological services, school counseling, and school health services. On

155


the other hand, social work service, occupational therapy, and physical therapy were less available for these students in public schools. Another study conducted by Hanafi (2008) examined the viability of related services for students with hearing disabilities in public schools. This study indicated that health and medical services were more available for these students; however, social workers and rehabilitation service were not available. Finally, Al-Otaibi and Al-Sartawi (2009) investigated the feasibility of related services for students with multiple disabilities. The researchers concluded that special education centers and institutes for students with multiple disabilities in Saudi Arabia lack health, medical, and physical therapy services.

Overall, it is clear from these studies that some schools provide related services for students with disabilities such as transportation, psychological services, and counseling. At the same time, they lack related services in terms of speech and language pathology, physical therapy, and occupational therapy services. Possible causes are a lack of professionals who specialize in these fields or the fact that those professionals with that focus often are employed by hospitals instead of schools.

Future Possibilities of Related ServicesThere are many suggestions to improve related services for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. For example, RSEPI should identify procedures to ensure that school districts completely understand the requirements to adequately provide each service for students with disabilities. Specifically, they should consider the cost of related services, parties responsible for financial support, and procedures to be taken when the school district does not have enough funds to supply these services for students.

Another way to support related services is collaboration between school officials and schools of physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, nursing, and others to promote procedures to provide these services for students with disabilities in different ways. Collaboration helps the school districts to clearly understand the policy of related services and their obligation to those children who need these services. The professional schools benefit by taking the time necessary to review their policies and their ability to provide the level of care needed for students with heightened physical, health, and speech, and motor skills needs—which in turn will help their students to become more proficient and capable professionals in their field. As a temporary solution, pre-service therapists can do their internships with students with disabilities in the schools to improve their skills in different areas. The school administrators could make a circuit for specialists to travel to help with the general lack of service providers in schools. This is only a short-term solution, but would help by making sure students with disabilities get these services on a day-to-day basis.

Providing Individual Education ProgramsThe RSEPI requires schools to provide an individual educational program (IEP) for each student with a disability. Therefore, that IEP has become one of the most important educational services provided for each child. However, little research has examined IEPs for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Research by Al-Herz (2008) examined achievement of goals of the IEP and related difficulties in programs and special education institutes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This study found that special education teachers successfully determine the important elements of IEPs in terms of the student's weaknesses and strengths, annual goals and short-term objectives, and needs requiring specially designed instruction. However, this study concluded that some obstacles impede the provision of effective and appropriate IEPs, such as the lack of efficient multidisciplinary teams (including the special education teacher, the child’s previous teachers, the parents of the child, and other members as needed), and IEPs that are determined by the situation of the child. This study also pointed out that families do not participate effectively with other school staff in determining the needs of the students and in the preparation and implementation of IEPs.

Although there are a few studies that examine IEPs for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia, this study pointed out significant issues regarding providing individual education programs. In fact, identification of the weakness and strengths of children with disabilities and the setting of annual goals in the IEP usually are done by special education teachers without participation of the parents and other

156


service providers. The special education teacher also is solely responsible for IEPs for up to 15 students with disabilities in the class, making individual attention to student needs difficult.

Future Possibilities of Providing Individual Education ProgramsOverall, there are many ways to help Saudi students with disabilities acquire more benefits from their IEPs. For instance, the members of the IEP team should define the child's needs when planning an IEP for the student. This team should include many professionals to form a multidisciplinary team including special education teachers, speech pathologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, other professionals, and parents. Furthermore, the IEP team should present levels of academic and functional performance. The parents should play an essential role in defining their child's needs; the student also should play a part if possible. Schools should educate families about their rights and emphasize that their participation will contribute significantly to the formulation of the IEP. Thus, providing IEPs in schools should be understood as not only the responsibility of the special education teacher, but also the responsibility of other school staff as well as families of students with disabilities.

ConclusionAs Saudi Arabia continues its dramatic period of improvement, changes in special education services will occur rapidly. Therefore, the suggestions set forth in this paper might contribute to improving special education services to students with disabilities. First, policymakers should evaluate existing legislation related students with disabilities and those laws’ relevance to current trends in providing special education services, taking into consideration successful policy experiences such as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in United States. The Ministry of Education should engage in a professional team annually to evaluate the quality of special education services and present a report that explains these services to public agencies. This report might assist these agencies in providing services, helping them improve their special education services to students with disabilities. Another suggestion is to address critical elements of successful inclusion, such as accommodation and modification of general curriculum and collaborations. Further, the stakeholders' perspectives toward inclusion should be examined through more research to determine the best ways to change their perspectives to be more supportive of these students in a general education setting. Procedures to determine eligibility for special education services should be based on the findings of a multidisciplinary team as well as the other issues discussed above. Finally, schools should consider providing related services in support of their IEPs, particularly occupational, physical, and speech-language therapy.

157


References Afeafe, M. Y. (2000). Special education in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.khayma.com/education-technology/PrvEducation3.htm Al Abduljabber, A. M. (1994). Administrators’ and teachers' perceptions of inclusive schooling in SaudiArabia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(07), 9536504. Al-Ahmadi , N. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives and attitudes towards integrating students withlearning disabilities in regular Saudi public schools (Doctoral dissertation) Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI NO. AAT 3371476)Al-Ajmi, N. S. (2006). The kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Administrators’ and special education teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of functional behavior assessments for students with mental retardation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3222888) Al-Faiz, H. S. (2006). Attitudes of elementary school teachers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia toward the inclusion of children with autism in public education (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI NO. AAT 3262967)Al-Herz, M. M. (2008). Achievement of goals of the individualized education program (IEP) for students with mental retardation and related difficulties (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http://www.dr-banderalotaibi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/doc17-5.pdfAl-Mousa, N. A., Al-Sartawi, Z. A., Al-Adbuljbbar, A. M., Al-Btal, Z, M., & Al-Husain, A. S. (2006). The national study to evaluate the experiment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in mainstreaming children with special educational needs in public education schools. Retrieved from Directorate General of Special Education website: http://www.se.gov.sa/Inclusion.aspxAl-Mousa, N. A. (1999). Development process of special education in Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: Directorate General of Special Education in Saudi Arabia.Al-Nahdi, G. H. (2007). The application of the procedures and standards of assessment and diagnosis in mental education institutes and programs as regards Regulatory Principles of Special Education Institutes and Programs in Saudi Arabia (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alnahdi/DocLib/Forms/AllItems.aspxAl-Otaibi, B., & Al-Sartawi, Z. A. (2009). Related services that are needed for the students with multiple disabilities and their families in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.drbanderalotaibi.com/new/1.pdf Al-Quraini, T. A. (2007). Feasibility and effectiveness of related services that are provided to the students with mental retardation in public schools (Master's thesis). Retrieved fromhttp://www.drbanderalotaibi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/5.pdfAl-Wabli, A. M. (1996). Related services that are provided for students with mental retardation in special education institutes in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education, 20(3), 191-232.Auramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitude toward integration inclusion: A review of literature. Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 129-147.Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., Schrag, J., & Tilly, W. D. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc. Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-213.Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teacher’ attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A replication and extension. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 307-32Cross, A. F.,Traub, E. D., Hutter-Pishgahi, L., & Shelton, G. (2004). Elements of successful inclusion for children with significant disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 169-183.Dubis, S. A. (1987). Educators' attitudes toward children with handicaps and the concept of mainstreaming in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dissertation Abstracts International 49(05). (UMI No AAT 8810105Hanafi, A. (2008, June). Actual related services for students with hearing disability in Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the first scientific conference of mental health in the College of Education, University of Banha, Egypt. Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/70443/Pages/cv.aspxKozub, M., & Lienert, C. (2003). Attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities: Review of literature and research paradigm. Adopted Physical Activity, 20(4), 20-32.Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2002). Regulations of special education programs and Institutes of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from Ministry of Education website: http://www.se.gov.sa/rules/se_rules/index.htm Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2008). Development of education in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: AL-Frazdak Printing Press.

158

http://www.se.gov.sa/rules/se_rules/index.htm

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alnahdi/DocLib/Forms/AllItems.aspx

http://www.se.gov.sa/Inclusion.aspx

http://www.khayma.com/education-technology/PrvEducation3.htm


Ministry of Health Care. (2010). Care of people with disabilities. Retrieved from Ministry of Health Care website: http://mosa.gov.sa/portal/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=11Prince Salman Center for Disability Research. (2004). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provision code for persons with disabilities. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Prince Salman Center for Disability Research. Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC. ( 2010). About Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from Royal Embassy website: http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/default.aspxSalloom, I. H. (1995). Education in Saudi Arabia (2nd ed.) Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications.The World Factbook. (2010). Background of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

159

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/default.aspx


DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS:A LOOK AT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUSIVE PRACTICES FOR

EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS

Marsha SimonWilliam R. Black

University of South Florida

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) require that students with disabilities have equal access to general education curricula and contexts. Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) is designed to support educators in meeting IDEA and NCLB requirements. The authors reviewed 35 School Improvement Plans (SIP) from the seven largest districts across the state to find evidence of schools participating in the DAP for meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The findings suggest that although a level of consistency was evidenced in certain districts, a great deal of variety remains across the seven districts sampled regarding potentially effective professional development and continuous improvement strategies promoting inclusive practices. The article describes and analyzes localized responses to accountability policy approaches that are reflected globally in trends towards state supported systems that utilize high-stakes measurement metrics and supports to spur more efficient and competitive reforms for all students, including students with disabilities.

Service delivery is a central concern for educators of students with disabilities throughout the world. In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) require that students with disabilities have equal access to general education curricula and contexts (US Department of Education, 2002; 2004). The state of Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) is designed to support educators in meeting IDEA and NCLB requirements (US Department of Education, 2008b). Specifically, the DAP, which is a federal incentive policy designed to afford states flexibility in aligning improvement efforts with individual schools’ specific needs according to each school’s AYP status, requires schools in needs improvement status (SINI) to develop action plans with professional development and curriculum and instruction among targeted components. Schools subsequently incorporate the action plan into individual Differentiated Accountability School Improvement Plans (SIP) (Florida Department of Education, 2008a).

This article is written within the context of the professional and academic domain of the United States and does not reflect the international variability in the broad special education policy targets, nor incredibly wide disparities reflected in the experience of students with disabilities throughout the globe (Clements & Read, 2008). Nevertheless, Florida’s special education policy efforts provide an example of the design and implementation of accountability policy managerial technologies reflected in globalizing trends towards state supported systems that utilize high-stakes measurement metrics and supports to spur more efficient and competitive reforms through a system that ranks schools (Bernahu, 2010; Fullan, 2010; Itkonnen & Jahnukainen, 2007). Within recent history, the state of Florida’s accountability reform efforts have been viewed as one of the most comprehensive within the United States and held up as an example of effective accountability reform by several policy institutes in Washington, D.C. Since 1999, the state has vigorously pursued charter school and other school choice initiatives, performance-based pay, grading of schools, targeted remedial instruction, and other reforms designed to both provide tight oversight of schools, particularly poorly performing schools that still recognizes the local variability and comparative looseness of historically decentralized educational systems in the United States (Boyd & Crowson, 2002; Dorn, 2007; Ladner & Burke, 2010). Critics have pointed to narrowing of curriculum and educational goals, a dispirited and oppressed teaching force, and symbolic forms of performativity that seek to obfuscate stagnant student achievement gains (Dorn, 2007). What we describe in this paper provides insight into what Fuhrman, Goertz, & Weinbaum (2010) describe as the push towards greater homogenization of intergovernmental arrangements (p.57) in the United States in order to better coordinate disparate programs, as well as global phenomena of ever increasing number of diverse demands for improvement in challenging contexts (Rayner, 2007, p. 148). In contrast with approaches in a country like Finland, which creates policies and distributes resources

160


under the assumption that achievement is a collective responsibility, the educational policy process described in this paper emanates from a policy ecology that seeks to provide equal individual access and opportunities through grant in aid programs like the Title I and the Differentiated Accountability Program (Itkonnen & Jahnukainen, 2007). Similarly, Deluca and Stillings (2008) report that different European countries have developed models in order to differentiate and target additional funding to either schools with students with special needs or the individuals themselves and linking benchmarking performance indicators to those schools and students.

This study contributes to inquiry into distinct school-based professional development and continuous improvement efforts regarding students with disabilities as they relate to policies implemented in a particular policy contexts. The authors present findings from a content analysis of School Improvement Plans for 35 selected elementary schools designated in need of improvement. The text of the School Improvement Plans is analyzed to increase understanding of schools’ conceptionalization of the types of teacher development and school improvement efforts needed to educate students with disabilities. Working from a hypothesis that integration of inclusive practices in SIPs reflects schools’ intent to support principles of equal access to general education curricula for students with disabilities, the authors examine whether objectives and strategies in reading appear to promote inclusive practices through professional development and an articulated continuous improvement model (CIM). The research questions addressed in the study are: Does the language used in SIPs provide evidence that schools target students with disabilities through differentiated and supported instruction? Furthermore, does the language used in SIPs provide evidence that targeted instruction is supported by providing professional development to special education and/or general education teachers responsible for teaching students with disabilities?

The article first introduces Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Program and profiles its significance. Then literature on professional development for inclusive education is reviewed before an ensuing discussion on methods and analysis of districts’ and schools’ chosen strategies of targeting students with disabilities’ reading achievement through professional development guided by the CIM process. A discussion of findings in response to the research questions, implications of the findings and recommendations for future research conclude the article.

Florida’s Differentiated Accountability ProgramFlorida’s Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) is designed to focus efforts to reduce achievement gaps between students in accountability subgroups through more distinctive forms of intervention that consider individual schools’ and/or districts’ needs. The DAP seeks to offer states and local school districts opportunities to contextualize improvements using more global and transformative intervention(s) (US Department of Education, 2008a, p.4). In the United States, the logic of standards based has more attention on lower performing schools as schools are now steered by the identification and regulation of learning outcomes as a means to more efficiently coordinate state policy actions and target the allocation of limited resources (Cohen, 2007, p. 358)

When DAP was adopted in 2008, Florida was seen as an attractive pilot site because of the state’s history of accountability reform, diversity, and performance of its identified subgroups (Borman & Dorn, 2007). For example, students with disabilities, Black students, and English Language Learners (ELL) did not meet AYP in reading or math for five consecutive school years prior to implementation of DAP in 2008 (Florida Department of Education, 2009). Outcome trends for aggregate student groups such as students with disabilities suggest a need for innovation in targeted intervention strategies as facilitated through the DAP process.

Florida’s approved DAP consolidates Title I schools into categories based on the number of years classified as SINI, school grade (schools and districts are graded on a scale of A to F by the state of Florida), and the percent of adequate yearly progress (AYP) achieved (see Appendix A). The result is a five-celled matrix that differentiates schools and that encourages a locally customized system of intervention and support (US Department of Education, 2008a). Florida’s DAP requires districts to submit a Comprehensive Intervention and Support Plan (CISP) to the Florida Department of Education for schools in each of the five SINI categories (SINI Prevent I, SINI Correct I, SINI Prevent II, SINI Correct II, SINI Intervene). The plan underscores the role of the state, district, and school in planning leadership strategies and interventions for each SINI group in nine areas including Professional Development and the CIM. SINIs subsequently integrate components from the districts’ CISPs into the current year’s Florida Differentiated Accountability Program School Improvement Plan (Florida

161


Department of Education, 2008a).

DAP and Professional Development Florida’s professional development model is patterned after research concluding that effective professional development should be intensive and sustained over time in order to have a positive impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Florida House, 2008). Schools and districts must base professional development activities on the Florida Protocol System (Florida Department of Education, 2010), developed around 66 state standards, which are based on state and federal requirements and the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) standards. The NSDC standards are organized into context (teachers’ learning environment), process (teachers’ learning strategies), and content standards (knowledge and skills needed to improve achievement) geared to planning and organizing professional development activities (Florida House, 2008).

The DAP involves redirection of funds from the Basic Title I grant and the IDEA grant to support improvement in the nine target areas (Florida Department of Education, 2008a). Expenditures of redirected funds are aligned with guidelines for professional development and the continuous improvement model (CIM), which provides a framework for curriculum and instruction design based on ongoing progress monitoring (Florida Department of Education, 2008a). Reading is a focus area within the state’s plan. School Improvement Plans for each SINI must incorporate the guidelines for professional development for teachers and administrators as well as the CIM reflected in the process component of the NSDC standards. The process standards within the NSDC address use of multiple sources of student data and other relevant information to guide improvement efforts. Additionally, these standards include provisions for teachers to learn to use research-based instructional practices integrating appropriate learning strategies and to collaborate effectively with colleagues (Florida House, 2008). Examples of funded professional development include establishing and supporting professional learning communities (PLCs), direct professional development in non-AYP areas, data analysis, comprehensive reading programs, research-based reading materials and strategies, and teaching advanced academics courses based on school needs. The DAP outlines the trajectory that professional development and the CIM should follow based on SINI status (see Appendix B). Included among the consequences for failing to comply with DAP guidelines are withholding state and/or federal funds and moving the school to a more restricted SINI category; in this case, to SINI Correct II status (Florida Department of Education, 2008a).

Professional Development for Inclusive EducationProfessional development research suggests that macro and micro contextual factors influence its effectiveness on student achievement (Borko, 2004; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). These factors are particularly impactful when it comes to inclusive education. On one hand, accountability requirements provide a macro perspective advanced by NCLB and IDEA; while on the other hand, micro contextual concerns shape the fidelity with which inclusive practices are learned and implemented in classrooms and schools (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Little & Houston, 2003; McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002). In the United States, policies compelling educators to provide students with disabilities equal access to general education curricula and instruction and to ensure that all students meet state academic standards generally represent a shift in traditional ideology and practices related to students with disabilities (Brown, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, Ugel, Hamff, & Hougen, 2001; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002). Even with guiding federal legislation local practices vary across states and communities in Florida. DeLuca and Stillings (2008) discuss the role of national special education policy on local inclusive practices in various countries in Europe, yet still report that features of schools and curricular approaches, flexibility to use funding streams, as well as local training of teachers may facilitate or constrain inclusive practices. Consideration of who is responsible for teaching students with disabilities is central to discussions about professional development for inclusive education (Black & Burrello, 2010; Cole, 1999; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). A broader issue is that general education teachers often have to first experience inclusive teaching in order to acknowledge and identify areas where they need professional development (McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002). Thus, professional development for inclusive education must begin with providing teachers with opportunities to gain new knowledge, practice learned skills, and receive feedback from trainers and colleagues over extended periods (Little & Houston, 2003; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008).

Attention to individual school cultural factors is necessary to effecting fundamental changes in teachers’

162


beliefs about inclusive education. McLeskey & Waldron (2002) suggest that professional development for inclusive education include a structured set of learning opportunities that a) are tailored to each school, b) initially engage teacher and administrator beliefs, understandings, and attitudes towards inclusion, and c) address the needs of all learners. Teachers obtain knowledge and skills in multiple contexts in addition to teacher education courses (Coombs-Richardson & Mead, 2001). Therefore, designers of professional development must consider teachers’ individual learning styles as well as the varying contexts in which learning occurs, in order to develop effective professional development (Borko, 2004; Florida House, 2008). The unique characteristics of individual teachers and school contexts factor strongly into designing professional development for faculty engaged in inclusive schooling practices (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Van Hover, 2006; McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002).

For instance, teachers typically have to differentiate instructional material and methods to meet the diverse needs of all students including students with disabilities (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). When teachers receive needed support and resources to include students with disabilities in general education settings, their sense of efficacy and willingness to continue working with students with disabilities tends to increase (Stanovich & Jordan, 2002). Conversely, teachers’ implementation and maintenance of learned knowledge and practices depend on the degree of divergence between teachers’ preconceptions and new knowledge and skills (Brownell et al. 2009; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). Gaps between prior knowledge and skills and those provided through professional development pose challenges for sustained implementation by teachers (Kazemi & Hubbard, 2008). Some teachers engage in experimentation with prospective instructional strategies, while others request supports such as in-class modeling to supplement in-service training as a means of helping bridge gaps between old and new knowledge and skills (Bryant et al. 2001).

Although research literature illuminates generally agreed upon features of effective professional development, data is inconclusive regarding the elements that lead to increased student achievement (Wayne et al. 2008). However, there is evidence that professional development should be ongoing and should a) incorporate training in multiple contexts, b) opportunities to implement knowledge, strategies and skills, and c) provide teachers with a feedback loop to produce change in teachers’ beliefs and practices, that will help facilitate academic success for students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Brownell et al. 2006; Bryant et al., 2001; Desimone, 2009; Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet, & Sukyoon, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kazemi, & Hubbard, 2008; McLeskey, & Waldron, 2002; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). Professional development that is sustained over time provides intensive study of content, and which offers opportunities for collegial collaboration between general and special education teachers is associated with improved student achievement (Borko, 2004; Brownell et al. 2006; Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, Scheer, 1999; Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Desimone et al. 2002). However, professional development of this nature has yet to become prototypical of what most teachers experience (Borko, 2004; Brownell et al. 2006; Buell et al. 1999; Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Desimone et al. 2002).

In fact, Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) concluded that although content-focused professional development and use of mentoring/coaching support for teachers is prevalent today, overall the professional development lacked intensity in terms of clock hours of professional development provided over the course of the school year. The professional development experiences lacked opportunities for collaborative work, which Garet et al. (2001) found promote active learning and coherence resulting in increased knowledge and skills by teachers. The benefits of collegial collaboration appear to have even greater impact when teachers teach at the same school, content-areas, and/or grade levels (Garet et al., 2001). While 59% of teachers found professional development in content areas to be useful, less than 50% of teachers found other professional development to be useful to them (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009). Smith and Desimone (2003) found similar results regarding teachers’ evaluation of usefulness, wherein teachers reported content-related professional development as most useful. Moreover, 15% of teachers expressed a need for additional professional development in special education, indicating perceived inadequacy of the fewer than 8 hours of professional development in special education over 3 years in which 66% of teachers reported participating (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009).

General educators point to specific needs for professional development in curriculum and instruction modifications as well as progress monitoring (Buell et al. 1999). Both require teachers to obtain procedural knowledge as well as knowledge of ways to differentiate instruction according to the range of

163


learning needs among diverse students such as students with disabilities (Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Klinger, 1998). Furthermore, although teachers may receive high quality professional development, they vary in levels of confidence and proficiency in adopting and adapting learned knowledge and practices (Brownell et al. 2006; Buell et al. 1999; Vaughn et al., 1998). High adapters and adopters would seem to be particularly suited for inclusive education.

High adopters had the most (a) knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy, (b) knowledge and student friendly beliefs about managing student behavior, (c) student-focused views of instruction, and (d) ability to carefully reflect on students' learning. High adopters also were able to adapt strategies to meet students' needs, which in all likelihood derived from the other four qualities. (Brownell et al. 2006, pg. 177)

Moreover, teachers are more likely to adopt and adapt strategies they believe are helpful for standardized test preparation or other school reform initiatives (Desimone et al. 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 1998). Because transfer of practices across contexts rarely occurs, teachers are more likely to adopt instructional practices when they have received professional development focused on specific instructional practices (Desimone et al. 2002). Increased job-embedded professional development is seen as a mechanism for improving transfer from training to the classroom (Florida House, 2008).

Professional development that helps teachers to address diverse student needs is required to implement inclusive education. Valeo (2008) notes that there is a global movement towards the delivery of services in classes with typically developing youth. However, her study of inclusion efforts in a school setting in Canada revealed many of the challenges associated with such movements, including limited administrative knowledge of special education and no clear accounting of various teacher roles and the amount of time needed to integrate educational supports into an inclusive classroom settings (Valeo, 2008). Although data that directly connects professional development to student achievement is limited, evidence suggests that professional development must be sustained, content-focused, and provide opportunities for collaboration to be effective. Additionally, contextual factors such as leadership, teacher, school, and student characteristics figure prominently in the types of professional development needed. Before general education teachers adopt inclusive practices, they must believe that all students can benefit from instruction and have confidence in their abilities to provide effective instruction. They can then move to learning specific strategies and making modifications and accommodations to meet the needs of all students (Desimone & Hochberg, 2010). The extent to which the Florida Differentiated Accountability Program supports such efforts is a focus of this study.

The following section includes a description of the method used to collect and analyze data from School Improvement Plans of 35 SINIs in the seven largest school districts in Florida, all of which are racially, economically, and need diverse. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether schools in the sample appear to promote inclusive practices in reading through a schema that infuses professional development and a CIM.

MethodsFlorida requires every public K-12 school to complete uniformly formatted School Improvement Plans (SIP) annually documenting efforts to meet state accountability requirements for making Adequate Yearly Progress (Florida Department of Education, 2008b). Schools are required to complete sections of the SIP consistent with strategies and interventions established under the Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) in each category of Title I schools in need of improvement (Florida Department of Education, 2008a). After receiving IRB review and approval, the authors searched the 2008-2009 School Improvement Plans (SIP) for 35 Florida elementary schools classified as SINI according to accountability guidelines under No Child Left Behind and the Florida Differentiated Accountability Program to identify common themes regarding instructional strategies and professional development practices promoting inclusive practices in reading relative to students with disabilities. School Sampling ProceduresThe 35 schools form a purposive sample with the following characteristics in order of consideration. First, the schools were elementary schools classified as SINI Correct I within the DAP framework. SINI Correct I schools have been classified as needing improvement for at least four years and met 80% of AYP criteria in Spring 2008. SINI Correct I remain under local monitoring, in contrast to Prevent I schools that maintain autonomy in improvement efforts as well as the remaining SINI categories; i.e., Prevent II, Correct II, and Intervene, which require close supervision by both local (LEA) and state education agencies (SEA). Therefore, schools in Correct I status were sampled, as the authors believed that they were more likely to reflect variation in planned professional development and improvement

164


models for students with disabilities.

Second, the study draws from the seven districts with highest student enrollment located in multiple areas in the state. Florida Department of Education oversees 67 public county school districts. Public schools in Miami-Dade (Miami), Broward (Ft. Lauderdale), Hillsborough (Tampa), Orange (Orlando), Palm Beach (Palm Beach), Duval (Jacksonville), and Pinellas (St. Petersburg) counties serve 52% of the total K-12 student population (Florida Department of Education, 2009). These districts rank within the top 100 largest school districts nationwide (US Department of Education, 2010a). The diverse composition of students and communities in the districts made the existence of variable approaches to professional development and improvement processes more probable. Moreover, the large size of the districts increased the likelihood that each would have an adequate sample of SINI Correct I schools serving students with disabilities.

The third criterion for inclusion in the study was students with disabilities as a counted subgroup in determination of AYP. As all who work in the schools know, AYP calculations are not easily transparent. All Florida public schools must include students in the following subgroups in AYP calculations if the school meets an enrollment criterion of at least 30 students per subgroup that represent at least 15% of the school’s population. The subgroups include White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient (LEP), and Students with Disabilities. Calculations for AYP include considerations regarding participation rates (at least 95% of students take the FCAT) and proficiency rates in reading, mathematics, and writing. For 2008-2009, 65% of all students must be performing at or above grade level in reading or mathematics; and 65% must improve by 1% in writing. Finally, AYP calculations include the graduation rate (schools must improve by 1%), as well as school grade requirements (Florida Department of Education school grade is not D or F). Additionally, schools that meet all requirements except reading and/or mathematics proficiency may make AYP according to a provision that is designed to provide some relief to schools and districts that have students represented in multiple subgroups: Safe Harbor. By invoking the Safe Harbor provision, a school (or district) may meet AYP criteria for an identified low performing subgroup if the percentage of non-proficient students increased by 10% from the prior year in the subject being evaluated and/or the students are on track to be proficient according to the state formula). Only students present in the same school or district for a full academic year, according to October and February student membership audits count towards AYP determination.

The final consideration in selecting schools to be included in the analysis was that students with disabilities failed to make AYP in 2007-2008. Each SINI was required to focus their efforts to improve the achievement of students in each targeted subgroup. Schools in which students with disabilities did not make AYP were required to articulate the ways the school planned to address these students’ needs. Once schools met all four criteria, in order to make the data more manageable, five schools from each of the seven representative school districts (n=35) were randomly selected to include in the analysis.

Specifically, the FDOE’s database of schools not making AYP was accessed to create a table of Correct I SINIs in the seven districts. The table contained 168 schools. The next step was to determine which of the 168 schools served students with disabilities as a counted subgroup for determining AYP. The School Accountability Reports were reviewed to determine which of the 168 schools served students with disabilities as a counted subgroup. Seventy-nine of the 168 schools provide AYP data for students with disabilities. Those schools making AYP under either Safe Harbor or the Growth Model were retained in the 79 SINI. From these 79, five schools from each district were included in data analysis (see Appendix C for a list of all schools).

Analysis of School Improvement PlansState-approved SIPs for the 35 individual schools, each averaging 30 pages, were downloaded from each district’s website. For 2009 (tests are administered in the spring of each school year), the annual target was 65% of students earning a proficient score in reading. Hence, in the objective section, schools cite objectives for reaching the reading goal and the remaining goals required to make AYP. Schools can make AYP by the percent of students scoring at or above proficient on assessments for the year, Safe Harbor, and/or the Growth Model. Depending on the status of student subgroups, schools’ objectives may reflect any combination of these three ways of making AYP and the objectives can be analyzed for content.

165


The search and analysis was conducted primarily in the strategies and professional development sections in the 2008-2009 SIPs for the 35 SINIs in the study for reading because the state places particular emphasis on reading outcomes for all student subgroups (Florida Department of Education, 2010b). First, the authors created a spreadsheet that captured specific language pertaining to students with disabilities. The authors then established categories for the overall reading objective, the strategy section, and the professional development (PD) sections according to the research questions. School strategies and professional development were placed in the Differentiated Accountability Program categories. In the Targeted Direct (DI) category, the reading objective and the majority of strategies and PD specifically target students with disabilities. In the Targeted Indirect (TI) category, the reading objective specifically targets students with disabilities. Strategies and/or PD are identical or mostly similar to strategies/PD for general education students. In the Nontargeted Direct (ND) category, the reading objective targets general education students, while some strategies/PD specifically target students with disabilities. Lastly, in the Nontargeted Indirect (NI) category, the reading objective targets general education students, and students with disabilities not specifically targeted in strategy/PD.

Utilizing these categories, the authors were able to identify instructional strategies and professional development that were prevalent and determine the extent of their planned use with students with disabilities. The data were then analyzed to answer the research questions. The discussion of findings is organized around themes related to inclusive practices concerning curriculum and instruction within a professional development and CIM context that targets students with disabilities.

LimitationsAlthough School Improvement Plans (SIPs) provide a formal account of schools’ intentions for professional development and continuous improvement, there are limitations to using a single document for this purpose. Some view SIPs as a mechanism to demonstrate schools’ compliance with SEA and LEA accountability requirements (Anfara Jr., Patterson, Buehler, & Gearity, 2007). School improvement plans have audiences external to the local school community and they may reflect some messages targeted toward district and state level audiences that may not reflect the capacity and will to implement fully the professional development and CIM processes analyzed and described in this article (Fullan, 2010). Institutional theory reminds us of the tendency toward isomorphism and the lack of variability in approaches reflected in documents and other texts, symbols, and actions as schools attempt to meet compliance guidelines and preserve political and institutional legitimacy with external constituents (Rowan & Miskel, 1999).

Descriptive analysis allows deeper scrutiny of the data contained in written SIPs whereas simple quantification of key words and terms may limit understanding of schools’ intentions for inclusive educational practices. Additionally, systematic review of each of the SIPs at least two times over a period of several weeks increased the reliability of findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Although the entirety of each of the plans was examined, analysis of inclusive practice was limited to two primary areas of the SIPS; i.e., the Strategies and Professional Development sections. Evidence suggesting inclusive practices might be found in any of the other seven categories required under the Florida DAP program. The study was designed to provide a wide look into schools’ efforts. Yet, these efforts are limited as representations of intentions as presented in an official planning document. Collection of additional data and documentation and more in-depth and direct observation of schools’ implementation of SIPs would be a logical next step to consider. Moreover, although the seven districts represent 52% of the total student population in Florida, the sample was limited to elementary schools in order to limit variability. The study is also limited to one (Correct I) of the five SINI categories (Prevent I & II, Correct I & II, and Intervene). The sample includes slightly fewer than half (n=35) of the SINI Correct I schools where students with disabilities were a counted accountability subgroup (n=79). This approach provided substantial information regarding Correct I schools, but confines interpretation of the findings to the 35 schools included in the study.

FindingsSchool Improvement Plans (SIP) from 5 elementary schools in each of the seven largest districts in Florida were examined for indications of inclusive practices and professional development (PD). Public schools in Miami-Dade (Miami), Broward (Ft. Lauderdale), Hillsborough (Tampa), Orange (Orlando), Palm Beach (Palm Beach), Duval (Jacksonville), and Pinellas (St. Petersburg) counties serve the following student enrollments: Miami-Dade (348,116), Broward (258,746), Hillsborough (193,062), Orange (174,033), Palm Beach (170,977), Duval (124,741), and Pinellas (107,882), totaling 1,377,557

166


students and representing 52% of the total K-12 student population (Florida Department of Education, 2009). This section includes an overview of each district, in order of largest to smallest. Particular emphasis is placed on schools that include a targeted reading objective and the instructional strategies and PD that address the reading objective. The analysis revealed a range of service delivery options for students with disabilities and the authors discuss how the language of SIP revealed efforts at inclusive practice.

District ProfilesMiami-Dade County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Feinberg-Fisher, Peskoe, Dupuis, Lenora Smith, and Silver Bluff Elementary Schools were reviewed. Dupuis Elementary School (2008) specifically included a reading objective targeting students with disabilities. This school included PD in addition to those in the general objective. The remaining SIPs in Miami-Dade indicate some level of inclusive practices. However, the extent of access to the general education curriculum, which is contained in the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards, remains unclear. Moreover, these schools included PD for the general reading objective only. Key terms and phrases that suggest inclusive education and/or targeting students with disabilities include FCAT Levels 1 & 2, differentiated instruction, flexible small groups, and include student with disabilities w/support/inclusion model.

Case exampleDupuis Elementary School (2008) includes a separate objective for reading for students with disabilities in addition to a general reading objective that also includes targeted strategies for these students. The reading objective that targets students with disabilities reads: Given instruction using the Sunshine State Standards, Special Education (SPED) students will improve their reading skills as evidenced by 65 percent of students achieving Level 3 or above on the 2009 administration of the FCAT Reading Test (Dupuis Elementary School, 2008). Strategies listed for accomplishing this objective appear more focused on targeted instruction based on individual student needs. These strategies incorporate the Continuous Improvement Model (CIM), which uses assessment and monitoring to guide instructional decisions, along with implementation of the district’s Comprehension Reading Plan (CRP) and Title I Extended Day tutorials to provide reading instruction to students with disabilities. Additionally, ongoing PD in reading is indicated as a means of ensuring that students with disabilities make achievement gains in Reading. Strategies unique to the targeted reading objective include parenting workshops focusing on the …social, emotional, and academic growth of SPED children and to assist them in improving their child's reading comprehension skills (Dupuis Elementary School, 2008) and the use of packaged curriculum programs such as the Voyager Passport Series and the Lexia Program.

One of the first strategies listed for achieving the general reading objective refers to implementing … the Inclusion Model and small group individualized instruction to assist Special Education (SPED) students, English Language Learners (ELL) and Advanced Academic students in making adequate learning gains (Dupuis Elementary School, 2008). Additionally, strategies in this section refer to the CIM, collaborative PD, and Title I Extended Day tutorials similarly to the Reading Objective for students with disabilities.

The reading objective and strategies contained in the Dupuis Elementary School (2008) SIP suggest that service delivery for students with disabilities is based on the continuum of services according to unique students needs as required under IDEA. The SIP indicates that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum, as students are included in general education settings with support. Additionally, strategies state that their teachers will be provided with PD and support in the use of effective reading strategies to improve students' reading skills as reflected in the Sunshine State Standards (Dupuis Elementary School, 2008). It is unclear whether students who are not fully included in general education receives reading instruction based on the CRP, if these students are taught reading primarily through a diagnostic/prescriptive approach using packaged programs, or a combination of the two. Both packaged programs are listed in the PD section for each objective.

Broward County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Croissant, Davie, Lloyd Estates, Oakridge, and Pompano Beach Elementary Schools were reviewed. Each of the five schools sampled included a reading objective targeting students with disabilities. Croissant Elementary School (2008), Davie Elementary School (2008), Lloyd Estates Elementary School (2008), and Oakridge Elementary School (2008) included numerous strategies targeting students with disabilities. These four schools referred to placement of students with disabilities in classrooms with dually certified teachers. Additionally, dual certification was

167


a stated focus of PD. Key terms and phrases suggestive of inclusive education and/or targeting students with disabilities include Safe Harbor/Growth Model, dual certification (Elementary Ed. & ESE), PD in inclusive strategies, push-in model, Individualized Education Program (IEP), differentiated instruction, PD in intervention programs, targeted instruction, and second dose/extended learning.

Case exampleOne example of a targeted Reading Objective comes from the SIP of Davie Elementary School (2008). This objective combines the school’s reading goal for students with disabilities with ELL students, bottom quartile students, and the remaining students participating in the FCAT. Reading objectives in the remaining Broward County schools’ SIPs incorporated all student subgroups similarly. The SIP lists strategies for all students in the same section:

By June 2009, 39% of Students with Disabilities will score a Level 3 or above on the reading portion of the FCAT, satisfying the Safe Harbor method of achieving AYP. By June 2009, 50% of English Language Learners will score a Level 3 or above on the reading portion of the FCAT, satisfying the Safe Harbor method of achieving AYP. By June 2009, 82% of all students meeting the criteria of DOE rule 6A-1.09981 will score Level 3 or above on the reading portion of the FCAT. By June 2009, 72% of bottom quartile students will demonstrate learning gains on the 2008 FCAT Reading Assessment and show improved performance in tested strands. (Davie Elementary School, 2008)

Although the SIP lists all student subgroups in the reading objective, certain strategies refer specifically to students with disabilities. These strategies refer to placing students with disabilities in classrooms with dually certified teachers, implementing a push-in model where the special education teacher works with students in the general education classroom as needed, and identifying and implementing packaged programs that target students with disabilities. Additionally, these strategies state that, Teachers will use strategies/provisions outlined in students Individual Educational Plan (IEP) (Davie Elementary School, 2008), suggesting that accommodations and modifications to curricula, materials, and/or methods will be implemented on these student’s behalf. The Davie professional development plan indicates that teachers are encouraged to become dually certified and that teachers will receive training in intervention reading strategies (Davie Elementary School, 2008).

Hillsborough County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Bing, Lanier, J.S Robinson, Witter, and Edison Elementary Schools were reviewed. Each of the five schools sampled included a reading objective targeting students with disabilities. Additionally, there was a great deal of overlap among the strategies for the Hillsborough schools. Bing Elementary School (2008), Lanier Elementary School (2008), and J.S. Robinson Elementary School (2008) referred to a form of inclusion of students with disabilities for Reading instruction framed as a co-teaching or collaborative teaching model. Bing Elementary School (2008), Edison Elementary School (2008), and Witter Elementary School (2008) implemented individual student conferences with students with disabilities to discuss progress towards goals in reading; i.e., by examining progress towards benchmark goals. Moreover, these three schools discussed Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) globally as the primary PD model. Key terms and phrases referencing inclusive practices and/or students with disabilities include individual student conferences/ discussions, differentiated instruction, extended learning, Professional Learning Community (PLC), collaborative/co-teaching model, standard curriculum students, instructional accommodations (Bing Elementary School, 2008; Edison Elementary School, 2008; & Witter Elementary School, 2008). Case exampleThe Bing Elementary School SIP (2008) states, The percentage of AYP All Curriculum students in the students with disabilities subgroup scoring at or above a Level 3 in FCAT Reading will increase from 35% in 2007-2008 to 62% or decrease the percentage of non-proficient students by 10% in 2009. Target = 42%. Note that the last section regarding a 10% decrease refers to the Safe Harbor provision under State statute. A supporting strategy for this objective states, The use of a collaborative teaching model of instruction with ESE, ELL and classroom teachers will be implemented to enhance Reading instruction for all students (Bing Elementary School, 2008). This suggests that general and special education teachers will engage in some form of collaboration, such as planning and delivery of instruction, for students with disabilities. Additionally, the word model implies that instruction will take place in a general education setting.

Orange County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Fern, Orla Vista, Azalea, Lake Weston, and Hiawassee Elementary

168


Schools were reviewed. Hiawassee Elementary School (2008) and Lake Weston Elementary School (2008) included a targeted objective in reading for students with disabilities. The remaining three schools’ SIPs reference students in the lowest 25%, without reference to students with disabilities in the reading objective or the supporting strategies. These schools referred to learning gains (Growth Model) as the benchmark for meeting the reading objective. Key terms related to inclusive practices and/or students with disabilities include learning gains, reading intervention, Level 1 & 2/lowest 25%, and NCLB groups.

Case exampleThe reading objective for Hiawassee Elementary School (2008) states, By July 2009, 51% of all students with disabilities at Hiawassee Elementary School will score at level 3 or above on FCAT Reading . The schools’ SIP contained numerous strategies that differ from strategies for the general reading objective. These strategies explicitly state that the school is implementing an inclusion model; i.e., Continue the Instructional Support Model for ESE Inclusion students (Hiawassee Elementary School, 2008). One assumption that may be made from this statement is that these students have access to the Next Generation SSS. Push-in is defined in this SIP as a method to provide grade level reading instruction to self contained ESE students for 30 minutes daily (Hiawassee Elementary School, 2008). It is unclear whether this push-in effort will occur by providing instruction in the Next Generation SSS in the general education classroom or in a separate setting. Additional strategies indicated for targeted students with disabilities include use of research-based instructional packages such as Reading Mastery and PD in research based strategies such as Reading First strategies. Hence, the picture of inclusive service delivery for students with disabilities in this district appears mixed.

Palm Beach County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Belle Glade, Berkshire, Lake Park, Pioneer Park, and Starlight Cove Elementary Schools were reviewed. Belle Glade Elementary School (2008), Berkshire Elementary School (2008), and Lake Park Elementary School (2008) included reading objectives targeting students with disabilities. Each of the 3 schools referred to a form of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education during reading. Each of the five schools referred to learning gains (Growth Model) as the benchmark for meeting the reading objective. Three schools included students with disabilities in PD. Key terms referring to students with disabilities or inclusive practices include Safe Harbor/Growth Model/learning gains, inclusion/full inclusion, targeted instruction, extended learning, looping, and differentiated instruction (Berkshire Elementary School, 2008; Lake Park Elementary School, 2008; Pioneer Elementary School, 2008).

Case exampleThe Lake Park Elementary School SIP (2008) states its reading objective in terms of students in each subgroup, which includes students with disabilities. The SIP for Lake Park contains general strategies along with a subsection of strategies targeting students with disabilities. The strategies include provisions for students with disabilities to …access to the general education curriculum where differentiated instruction is utilized (Lake Park Elementary School, 2008), as well as research-based instructional and technological strategies and programs such as SRA Corrective Reading, Reading Mastery, and Read, Write, Gold – texthelp. The SIP states that these strategies would be implemented in either the regular or general education program. The SIP describes ongoing PD in multiple intelligences/cooperative learning, differentiated instructional strategies, and training on IEP development and the nature and learning styles of students with disabilities to improve their instructional delivery to a diverse population in the general curriculum (Lake Park Elementary School, 2008). SIP strategies suggest that students with disabilities receive instruction primarily in inclusive settings.

Duval County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Hyde Park, Pinedale, Cedar Hills, Reynolds Lane, and Robinson Elementary were reviewed. Neither of the schools sampled in Duval County Schools included a targeted objective in reading for students with disabilities. The closest references to students with disabilities in these reading objectives are goals for students in the bottom quartile, struggling students (lower quartile), and subgroup. However, three of the schools included strategies targeting students with disabilities. Cedar Hills Elementary School (2008), Pinedale Elementary School (2008), and Reynolds Lane Elementary School (2008) refer to a form of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education during reading. Schools address students with disabilities through accommodations and modifications (Cedar Hills Elementary School, 2008), differentiated instruction (Hyde Park Elementary School, 2008), as well as targeted interventions (Pinedale Elementary School, 2008). Pinedale Elementary School

169


(2008) included PD targeting students with disabilities. Key terms addressing students with disabilities or indicating inclusive practices include differentiated instruction, collaborative planning, inclusion, differentiated PD, and student subgroups.

Case exampleThe Reynolds Lane Elementary School SIP (2008) reading objective states, By June of 2008, 65% or higher of all 3rd – 5th grade students, in individual subgroups will score a 3 or higher on the SSS component of the FCAT. The SIP includes strategies stating that the school will implement inclusion for all students with disabilities, with the exception of EBD students. A strategy stating that All self contained students will be exposed to grade level curriculum and FCAT strategies (Reynolds Lake Elementary, 2008), denotes a level of inclusive practices in terms of access to the standard curriculum albeit not in the general education setting.

Pinellas County SchoolsSchool Improvement Plans for Fairmont, North Shore, Ponce de Leon, Skyview, and Westgate were reviewed. Fairmont Elementary School (2008), North Shore Elementary School (2008), Ponce de Leon Elementary School (2008), and Westgate Elementary School (2008) included a targeted reading objective for students with disabilities. Fairmont Elementary School (2008) and North Shore Elementary School (2008) referred to a form of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education during reading. Although North Shore, Ponce de Leon, and Westgate included a targeted reading objective, supporting strategies and PD were identical to other subgroups. Because four of five schools examined in this district stated explicit reading goals for students with disabilities, but duplicated strategies for other subgroups, it is difficult to determine the extent of targeted service delivery and the extent of access to Next Generation SSS for students with disabilities. PD varied widely among the five schools; however, Professional Learning Communities (PLC) is included in each school’s SIP as a PD strategy. Key terms referring to students with disabilities and/or inclusive practices include differentiated instruction, Professional Learning Community (PLCs), inclusion, collaborative planning, and the Classroom Instructional Support Model (CISM).

Case exampleThe Fairmont Elementary School (2008) targeted reading objective states, Fairmount Park will increase the percentage of Students with Disabilities scoring at grade level or above in reading from 25% to the required 65% for the '08-'09 school year. Targeted strategies include inclusion in third grade, 1-1 and/or small group instruction, and Title I Extended Day tutorials. Targeted PD at Fairmont is similar to the remaining four schools; however, IEP updates by the special education team is included in the PD section of the SIP (Fairmont Elementary School, 2008). It is unclear whether these updates occur as part of the CIM where general and special education teachers engage in collegial collaboration to revise instructional strategies according to achievement data or as part of IDEA requirements for annual reviews of IEP goals and objectives.

DiscussionPolicy guidelines delineated in IDEA and NCLB prescribe increased access to the standard/general education curricula and instruction for students with disabilities. Access to the standard curricula must coalesce with specialized instruction in order to provide a service delivery model that provides students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as required by IDEA (US Department of Education, 2006). Historically, these components of the law were accomplished through a continuum of services. Currently, the requirements under IDEA and NCLB call for broadened access to general education curricula and instruction. School Improvement Plans of 35 schools in SINI Correct I status were reviewed so as to examine implementation of access to the standard curricula and instruction for students with disabilities according to IDEA and NCLB. For this analysis, inclusion/inclusive practices are examined through SIP text that indicates that students identified with a disability are provided access to the standard curriculum comprised in Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (SSS) in reading through a CIM and professional development.

These areas were of particular interest because Florida embarked on an innovative pilot program in 2008, the Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP), which is designed to allow the State increased flexibility in designing instruction and professional development, in addition to other areas, to meet the needs of schools in improvement status (SINI). This program guided state (SEA) and local education agencies (LEA) to expand opportunities to address diverse student needs. The DAP was explicit in requiring the State to focus on target student groups experiencing persistent achievement gaps. Students

170


with disabilities form such a group in Florida, as these students as an aggregate have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) since the first year of reporting in 2003-2004 (Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Student Education, 2010). The following discussion will address the research questions posed by the study.

Does the language used in SIPs provide evidence that schools target students with disabilities through differentiated and supported instruction?The organizational schema used to analyze the texts of SIPs allowed quantification of schools that include a targeted reading objective for students with disabilities and their teachers. This schema was chosen because of the assumption that if the SIP incorporated a targeted reading objective, the supporting strategies would also differentially target the needs of students with disabilities. In the following section, this assumption is discussed. The analysis revealed a number of themes related to either the setting and/or the responsible personnel for providing instruction to students with disabilities. Common themes for instruction in SIPs with targeted direct (TD) reading objectives include implementing differentiated instruction, inclusion/inclusive strategies, push-in model, small group instruction, tutoring, and collaborative teaching/planning as instructional strategies. Inclusion/inclusive strategies were mentioned most among the differentiated instructional models, suggesting that these students would have access to the Next Generation SSS.

Duplication of strategiesThe assumption regarding compatibility between targeted reading objectives and supporting instructional strategies for students with disabilities was dispelled in some cases as evidenced by duplication of the strategies for other targeted groups of students. Twenty (57.1%) of the 35 schools included in the study incorporated targeted reading objectives in the SIP. Of the 20 schools, 12 (60%) schools incorporated Targeted Direct (TD) instructional strategies for students with disabilities. There is some evidence of centralization of SIPs in certain districts. For example, additional strategies that were uniquely consistent across the five schools in Hillsborough County Schools included conferences/discussions and targeted instruction in Broward and Palm Beach county school districts. Overall, instructional strategies across schools took a number of different forms with various levels of support for students with disabilities.

Differentiated instructionAlthough a number of schools referred to differentiated instruction as a strategy to support the reading objective, few defined the nature of differentiation or specialization to accommodate students’ with disabilities learning needs. Two exceptions to the lack of specificity found in the majority of SIPs provide evidence of more focused conceptualizations of differentiated instruction in inclusive settings (Lake Park Elementary School, 2008; Witter Elementary School, 2008). In the first example, Witter Elementary School (2008) explicates the types of accommodations/modifications that teachers will implement with students with disabilities.

Construct a master schedule providing appropriate classroom teachers the opportunity to teach (co-teach, support facilitate) with ESE and ELL teachers. Objective 4 ESE - Clarify directions and assist with assignments, write assignments and page numbers on the board, or provide a syllabus, write instructions and problems using shorter and less complex sentence structure.

In the second example, Lake Park Elementary School (2008) references differentiated instruction using research-based reading strategies for students with disabilities.

1) Have access to the general education curriculum where differentiated instruction is utilized; 2) Have access to successfully proven reading strategies offered through the regular or special education program (examples: Wilson Reading; Orton-Gillingham; SRA Corrective Reading; SRA Reading Mastery).

In this case, the reading strategy refers to implementation in either the special or general education classroom, suggesting that a continuum of services model of LRE is in use. Additionally, North Shore Elementary School (2008) comes close to delineating specific instructional strategies for students with disabilities when stating, Teachers will use instructional strategies based on multiple intelligences research within the inclusion classroom. This suggests an attempt to match instructional methods, materials, and delivery to the needs of students with disabilities.

Inclusion/inclusive practicesSchool Improvement Plans (SIPs) included various arrangements of inclusion/inclusive practices as supporting strategies for TD reading objectives. These include placement of students with disabilities in

171


general education settings, push-in services, and collegial collaborations. In some cases, strategies for inclusion simply refer to placement of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. For example, Provide Students with Disabilities (SWD), an inclusion model with additional assistance from SPED teachers within the general classroom setting, as well as after school tutoring (Lenora Smith Elementary School, 2008). This suggests that special education teachers will assist students in the general education setting as needed. In other cases, inclusion strategies reference special education teachers implementing a push-in model for students in the general education classroom. Oakridge Elementary School (2008) presents such an example,

Identified intermediate ESE students who demonstrate a need for additional small group instruction as indicated on their IEP will be taught using a push-in model of instruction utilizing the following intervention programs: Wilson Reading Systems, Great Leaps, Quick Reads, QAR, and/or Direct Instruction. Primary ESE students will be taught a second dose of reading utilizing a pullout model.

The push-in model involves the special education teacher providing individualized or small group instruction in specific subject-area content for designated instructional segments in the general education setting. This may reflect differentiation of content, methodology, and delivery to address students’ unique needs. However, the level of inclusivity involved in the push-in model has been questioned (Capper & Fratturra, 2009; Furney, Hasazi, & Clarke-Keefe, 2005).

Another model for inclusion in SIPs refers to collaborative arrangements between general education and special education teachers. Cedar Hills Elementary School (2008) includes such strategies: Resource teacher support for students with disabilities…Accommodations and modifications will be made in classes for students with disabilities. The assumption here is that the accommodations and/or modifications of content, methodology, or delivery in the general education classroom would correspond to each student’s IEP. Hence, students with disabilities will have access to the Next Generation SSS with adjustments to curricula and instruction as needed.

These instructional models of inclusion/inclusive practices focus on various ways that students with disabilities may receive instruction in general education settings as well as give some indication as to the roles of general and special education teachers. None of the plans revealed language of full inclusion for all categories of disability.

Does the language used in SIPs provide evidence that targeted instruction was supported by providing professional development to special education and/or general education teachers responsible for teaching students with disabilities?Professional development for special and general education teachers was often streamlined in a similar fashion as instructional strategies. Thus, although schools may have included a targeted reading objective for students with disabilities, duplication of PD in the reading objective for other targeted groups is indicative of a lack of differentiation. Of the twenty (57.1%) schools that incorporated targeted reading objectives in the SIP, 7 (35%) incorporated Targeted Direct (TD) PD. Schools implemented a variety of PD. However, certain districts appear to have streamlined PD as evidenced by common language across SIPs. These districts include Broward, which indicated that teachers would be encouraged to become dually certified and included PD in PLCs and in inclusive strategies. In Broward’s case, inclusive strategies are described with generic language. Additionally, Hillsborough and Pinellas school districts also consistently included broader and non-specific frameworks of PLCs as PD for teachers working with students with disabilities. Professional development was framed in ways such as naming specific commercial programs for which training would be provided, focusing on monthly PD topics, establishing Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), and PD for inclusive practices.

Commercial programsThe planned use of commercial programs is extensive across the state. As a typical example, John G. Dupuis Elementary School (2008) lists K-3 Student Center Activities and 4-5 Student Center Activities training (which is part Florida’s Reading First initiative), Houghton-Mifflin, Empowering, Words Their Way, and Quick Reads as additional PD for teachers of students with disabilities. Schools indicate the use of research-based technology programs and packaged reading curricula such as Reading Mastery (Hiawassee Elementary School, 2008; Lake Park Elementary School, 2008; & Silver Bluff Elementary School, 2008). Commercial programs are those on the approved list for use in SINI schools (Florida Department of Education, 2008a) and offer school-based administrators concrete options for professional development that are easily represented in School Improvement Plans.

172


Focus calendarMany plans designate foci for professional development through a scripted calendar schedule. Lenora Smith Elementary School (2008) and Silver Bluff Elementary School (2008) designate a monthly PD focus. Lenora Smith Elementary School (2008) integrates the monthly focus with training in commercial programs, test preparation, and continuous improvement efforts as denoted by use of Houghton Mifflin Reading, Using Reading Data to Drive Instruction, and focusing on use of FCAT Item Specifications and FCAT Task Cards. Moreover, the PD drive ends in November. Although the reading objective is NTI (non-target indirect), inclusion is mentioned as a supporting strategy (Lenora Smith, 2008). The implication is that teachers of students with disabilities participate in the focus PD activities even as they are not.

Professional learning communities (PLC)Schools presented professional learning communities (PLC) in SIPs in a variety of formats and for various purposes. At Edison Elementary School (2008), PLCs were used to analyze student data, trends, and patterns of performance, and collaborate to improve teaching methods, impacting student achievement at their grade level. Conversely, PLCs were simply listed without explication as in the case of Fairmont Elementary School (2008). Finally, some schools provided teachers with a menu of PD from which to choose, as in the case of Pioneer Elementary School (2008), wherein teachers receive embedded staff development within weekly Learning Team meetings by grade level on self-selected topics . Among the self-selected topics was ELL/ESE strategies. Here PLCs serve as a means for implementing the CIM or for provided PD in selected topics (Pioneer Elementary School, 2008).

Inclusion model and/or inclusive strategiesOf the 35 schools, Pinedale Elementary School (2008) provided the single instance in which PD included training in the Inclusion Model; i.e.,

The Inclusion Team will meet monthly with the Coaching Team to celebrate successes, identify areas of need, and develop an action plan. ESE and regular education teachers will be trained and collaborate on the implementation of an ESE Inclusion Model with school and district follow up support.

Schools such as Oakridge Elementary School (2008), Pinedale Elementary School (2008), and Pioneer Elementary School (2008) list mostly undefined inclusive/ESE strategies for PD provided to teachers of students with disabilities. For example,

Teachers with ESE students in grades K-5 will participate in a variety of reading and ESE workshops offered by the district or school-based. This includes, but is not limited to, training in the High Yield Strategies…Teachers will be trained in strategies that address the effective instructional inclusion of ESE students into the basic classroom setting. (Oakridge Elementary School, 2008)

The diversity of PD provided across schools suggests that there is little consensus on the training needs of teachers of students with disabilities.

ImplicationsThis study examines the text of school improvement plans (SIP) in order to increase understandings regarding ways in which schools implement service delivery for students with disabilities. The variety of ways that schools frame their responses to federal policies and regulations in IDEA and NCLB indicate that there is a gap in agreement among educators regarding effective strategies and professional development targeting students with disabilities. As the guiding force for schools in needs improvement status (SINI) in Florida, the DAP requires schools to use a continuous improvement model (CIM) to steer curriculum and instruction. Moreover, the DAP includes provisions for professional development to prepare teachers and administrators to work effectively with students with disabilities and other targeted student groups. Implications from the findings and implications for further research follow.

Implications for PracticeThe findings from this study suggest that schools needs to identify inclusive practices that provide increased access to general education curricula and instruction to students with disabilities, provide sustained intensive PD in identified effective inclusive practices, monitor academic outcomes for individual students with disabilities in response to inclusive practices, and adjust curricula, instruction, and professional development in accordance with outcome data.

173


Identify inclusive practices that provide increased access to general education curricula and instruction to students with disabilitiesSchools with targeted direct reading objectives referred to inclusive practices in generic terms. This suggests that teachers either used a toolbox of accepted strategies for students with disabilities or they implemented strategies with all students, in some instances in inclusive settings. SIPs where accommodations and modifications were referenced suggest the latter. Interestingly, in some instances where schools did not state a targeted reading objective, strategies for reading referenced differentiating instruction according to student needs. For example, the SIP for Skyway Elementary School (2008) is non-targeted indirect, meaning that neither the reading objective nor related strategies mention students with disabilities. The strategies for Skyway Elementary School (2008) state,

Teachers will differentiate student instruction based on diagnosed student need and reading levels. Differentiation will occur through the use of varied materials, instructional strategies, small group instruction and technology. Assessment teams will administer the DAR to struggling students and teacher will individualize iii instruction for students based on these results. Will progress monitor all struggling students per PIAP/PCAS guidelines and make instructional decisions based on the results. Use professional learning communities (PLCs) to provide grade level and school level discussions of data results, planning where to we go from here, asking the 3 big questions (what are the students going to learn, how will we know that they learned it, what will we do for the students that didn't learn it). Provide substitutes for ESE Assistants in IVE classrooms as needed.

These strategies incorporate many of the components for curricula and instruction suggested in the literature. The strategies refer to specialized instruction in its reference to adjusting materials, methods, and delivery as stipulated in IDEA (US Department of Education, 2006). Clements and Read (2008) that international human rights approaches can inform a practices that recognize that categories for supports must be fluid so that, for example, opportunities for teachers to implement a CIM should be designed to review multiple forms of student data and adjust curriculum and instruction accordingly. Overall, these findings suggest that teachers need more information regarding effective curricula and instructional methods, including differentiating curricula and instruction.

Provide sustained intensive PD in identified effective inclusive practicesThe review of literature on professional development points to a need to consider teacher, student, and school characteristics when planning professional development, as well as to allow teachers to help plan professional development whenever possible. Attending to stakeholder characteristics and the interplay between these and the school culture is essential for inclusive education because changing beliefs about students with disabilities can be and often is a major challenge for general educators. Once decisions regarding professional development are made, activities should be job-embedded, context-specific, content-focused, intensive, and sustained over time. Additionally, literature on professional development for inclusive education, suggests that general education teachers respond more positively when knowledge and skills can be applied to all students.

A number of the schools included in the study appear to be using recommended practices for professional development generally. However, the degree to which these practices apprehend the needs of students with disabilities and their teachers is less encouraging. One example is that PLCs were referenced in a number of schools in various forms as either a strategy or as professional development; i.e., CIM, book study, etc. This suggests that PLCs are being designed according to identified needs of the staff. For instance, when used in a CIM process, PLCs provide opportunities for teachers to review student data, discuss student issues, and address concerns as appropriate. Conversely, when used as a mechanism for professional book study, PLCs can serve as professional development, particularly when led by experts such as reading coaches. In this case, PLCs become a means to address site-specific professional development needs as suggested in the literature. The literature also recommends that professional development incorporate opportunities for collegial collaboration and job-embeddedness. PLCs provide a mechanism for both to occur. Similarly, although Pioneer Elementary school (2008) is not referring to PLCs, the SIP states that teachers, Receive embedded staff development within weekly Learning Team meetings by grade level on self-selected topics. This strategy not only provides for embedded professional development, but also provides teacher-selection of topics based on need; another recommendation presented in the literature.

Schools that use professional development calendars with designated monthly topics are unlikely to

174


receive the needed doses of professional development to impact practice. These are typically one-shot workshops with one day of the month dedicated to the topic. This situation occurred in a few of the schools in the study, with at least one school focusing on students with disabilities during one of the months. This suggests that students with disabilities and their teachers were not the target of the professional development in the other months.

Valeo (2008) argues that concerns around administrators providing sufficient resources and supports to promote inclusive practices among teachers who identify as general education teachers is a global concern. The findings suggest that schools should specify in SIPs exactly how professional development addresses all teachers of students with disabilities. Moreover, schools should attend to other recommended practices such as duration and intensity to ensure that when needed professional development is identified, teachers receive sufficient training and feedback to create change in practice. An example of questionable duration and intensity is in the case of Lloyd Estates Elementary School (2008),

Professional development in differentiated instruction to meet individual learning needs, Eighteen teachers attended nine days of instruction of meeting the needs of ELLs and SWDs students by using programs such as Differentiated Instruction and A+Rise.

The professional development cited in this example demonstrates that only a portion of the faculty would receive limited professional development in differentiated instruction. The wording suggests that teachers would learn to adjust materials, methods, and delivery. Left unanswered are whether the eighteen teachers teach in inclusive settings, whether they are special education or general education teachers, and whether these teachers will share what they learn with the remaining faculty.

Schools in Broward County included in SIPs that teachers were encouraged to obtain dual certification. This strategy addresses what the literature refers to as teachers’ diverse learning styles and different contexts in which learning occurs. It stands to reason that dual certification would go far to prepare teachers to work with students with disabilities by providing teachers with accredited training as well as with opportunities to implement knowledge and practices in their classrooms, thus providing a feedback loop for teachers.

Fluidly adjust curricula, instruction, and professional development in accordance with outcome dataThe DAP requires that teachers implement a CIM in which teachers use data to monitor students’ progress and to adjust instruction accordingly. Furthermore, DAP requires that districts provide schools with professional development on assessing student progress. All schools in Florida, regardless of improvement status, are required to incorporate a CIM in SIPs. The State Education Agency and School District provide certain aspects of the CIM such as Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) and Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS) to aid in progress monitoring (Florida Department of Education, 2010a; 2010b). These instruments accommodate progress monitoring for all students by culling and presenting student data to teachers in useful forms.

Rayner (2007) notes that in various national contexts benchmarking and progress monitoring is now well established in school development planning-the [challenge] is to avoid being dominated by performativity or infected by sterility associated with completing an endless accounting exercise (p.148) and rather to manage continued organizational learning around authentic educational practices. Mandates that schools implement a CIM for all students may cloud understandings regarding the level to which this process is applied to students with disabilities. IDEA requires that students’ IEPs delineate goals for students to participate in and progress in general education settings. Although schools are required to review IEPs annually, another aspect of this provision requires reviews whenever changes to students’ programs occur. Thus, CIM for students with disabilities would imply that in theory, IEPs might be reviewed numerous times throughout the school year. However, when referenced in SIPs, IEPs appear to be rigidly enforced within special education settings (Davie Elementary School 2008; Lloyd Estates Elementary School, 2008; Oakridge Elementary School, 2008; & Pinedale Elementary School, 2008). Rather than advancing a notion that all teachers are responsible for students with disabilities, these plans seem to reflect and reproduce commonly held linear notions of organizational responsibility: special education teachers working in special (and separate) settings are responsible for the goals listed in an IEP (Black & Burrello, 2010; Capper & Fraturra, 2009; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010). These plans may also reflect Olson & Sexton’s (2009) study of teacher and school response to external accountability mandates in which teachers and administrators narrow their concerns and scope of responsibility.

175


Exceptions to this trend is in case of Pinedale Elementary School SIP (2008), which states, Regular education and ESE teachers will collaborate on IEP targets for the SWD sub group and develop best practices within the workshop model. This statement intimates rigidity in implementation, but flexibility in terms of seeking strategies to address students’ learning goals. The workshop model has limitations, such as lack of intensity, duration, and subsequently, transfers to various contexts that are acknowledged in the literature. In another case, the Fairmont Elementary School SIP (2008) states that, Staffing Coordinator and Team will meet to monitor IEP updates. It is unclear whether these are the mandated annual updates, or if updates occur more frequently in response to progress monitoring.

Lake Park Elementary School (2008) provides the single instance of professional development targeting students IEPs, Access training on IEP development and the nature and learning styles of students with disabilities to improve their instructional delivery to a diverse population in the general curriculum . This strategy includes recommendations from the literature that professional development include familiarizing teachers with the unique learning characteristics that students with disabilities may bring to the classroom and providing targeted training to equip teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to differentiate instruction.

The findings suggest that schools should ensure that students with disabilities benefit from progress monitoring by applying flexibility to IEP implementation and monitoring (Furney et al. 2005). This will require additional time and possibly personnel; however, it will provide teachers with current information that can inform curricula and instruction for students with disabilities.

This descriptive study reveals a number of areas requiring further attention. Based on the analysis more effort needs to be dedicated by researchers to find a way to compete with commercial programs and more directly bridge the research to practice gap between inclusive strategies and effective teaching for students with disabilities. The application of New Public Management theoretical frameworks to school-based performance accountability responses suggests that the use of commercial programs may represent efforts to demonstrate increasing specification on targets that serve to legitimize local school response vis-à-vis the state mandates (Hood & Peters, 2004; Maxcy, 2009) rather than more authentic attempts to provide comprehensive networks of supports for students with disabilities (Rayner, 2007). Clearly, leadership matters and if only one of the 35 schools expressly embraced a fully inclusive stance, there is a need to develop and support individuals who promote inclusive leadership that builds capacity for all teachers to have dispositions that allow them to accept responsibility for all students. As Rayner (2007) points out in the context of practice in the United Kingdom, education, special education, and inclusion entail uncertainty and complexity, as context, contest, and circumstances present dilemmas and contradiction (p.3) and coordination and tightening from state policies are almost inevitably going to be held in tension with the profusion of local practices that contain such contradictions. In addition, while it is important to recognize that in many respects the United States led the world in the passage of federal legislation in 1975 that established free and appropriate public education as a right for individuals with disabilities, a consequence was the early creation of separate special and general education systems that continue to influence federal and state policy, as well as school based improvement processes (Itkonnen & Jahnukainen, 2007).

Nevertheless, there continue to be legal requirements under IDEA in the United States and provisions in other countries that are relatively complex and require that teachers and other school personnel be trained in those areas. Given the temptations to expend huge amounts of time and effort in monitoring student progress and other acts of performativity in an era of high-stakes accountability, explicit attention needs to be placed on professional development that entails training in authentic practices that can include commercial programs and/or be inquiry and locally based (Olsen & Sexton, 2009). Intention needs to be aligned with action in program planning efforts for students with disabilities. Despite the need to clearly accommodate local practices and individual school and community needs and voices, the formulation of common language across state, district, and school level educators continues to be a useful endeavor that can provide clarity on what instructional strategies and professional development initiatives entail. The SIPS reflected little in terms of a language of common interest or fates. As globalizing trends towards devolution and market solutions, as well as standards-based reforms continue and are reflected in policies such as the Differentiated Accountability Program, further attention to localized language and practice of common interest and membership may need to be articulated by local leaders in school planning processes (Berhanu, 2010; Black & Burrello, 2010).

Implications for Further Research

176


Since the implementation of the DAP in Florida began in 2008, more states have adopted the policy framework. This study has provided one glimpse into how districts have planned for its implementation. While more inclusionary professional development and continuous improvement efforts were identified in the 35 schools across the seven large urban districts, more in depth analysis is warranted. Further examination of outcome data, particularly for students with disabilities could be useful in beginning to examine if any relationships exist between the emphases in the plans and patterns in outcome data. Perhaps more revealing would be in depth case studies of several of the schools that are purposively sampled in order to capture the dynamics of different approaches. The extent to which inclusive practices occurred varied and coming to understand how and why those variations occurred would be very useful. In particular, are there any additional intersections betweens types of disability, race, compliance, and effective inclusionary practices? As Cohen (2007) argues, Since most of the knowledge problems remain unsolved, outcome-oriented policies are in no position to rationally reorder the preexisting stock of education policies. They coexist with earlier policies and programs, rather than reordering them (p. 353). Tracking shifts over time in the SIPs can help illuminate the impact of the Florida DAP on planning over time and can provide more questions for investigation around how various policies for students with disabilities interact.

Within the United States, the landscape of education policy has been fundamentally altered, as many more interest groups and reformers are actively involved in constructing accountability policy instruments, such as the Differentiated Accountability Program (Debray-Pelot & McGuin, 2009). Whereas the SIPs in this study reflected a partial focus on students with disabilities, critics nationally and internationally could argue that the plans provided an appearance of equal treatment without providing any more funding resources, resulting in continued unequal distribution of resources and lack of attention to contexts outside of special education such as employment, health, and welfare policies (Itkonnen & Jahnukainen, 2007; Maxcy, 2009: Turnbull, 2009). However, arguments in support of efficient efforts to provide targeted support to the schools and students will continue to be supported by arguments of moral persuasion and future economic productivity and policies such as the ones developed throughout Europe and the rest of the world that aim at utilizing indicators and benchmarks to monitor progress for students with disabilities (Deluca & Stillings, 2008). Studying how policies are received, articulated, and implemented, particularly with groups of students that have not traditionally done as well in school by various measures, will continue to be a rich area for inquiry across multiple contexts.

177


ReferencesAnfara Jr., V.A., Patterson, F., Buehler, A., & Gearity, B. (2006). School Improvement Planning in EastTennessee Middle Schools: A Content Analysis and Perceptions Study. NASSP Bulletin, 90(4), 277-300.Azalea Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ocps.netBelle Glade Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachschools.org Berhanu, G. (2010). Even in Sweden? Excluding the included: Some reflections on the consequences of new policies on educational processes and outcomes, and equity in education. International Journal of Special Education, 25 (3), 148-159. Berkshire Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachschools.org Bing Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us Birman, B., Desimone, Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.Black, W. & Burrello, L. (2010). Towards the cultivation of full membership in schools. Journal of Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 8(2), 1-11.Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.Borman, K. & Dorn, S. (Eds.). (2007). Education reform in Florida: Diversity and equity in public policy. Albany: SUNY Press.Boyd, W. & Crowson, R. (2002). Quest for a new hierarchy in education: From loose coupling back to tight? Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (6), 521-533.Brown, K.M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equality: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700-745. Brownell, M.T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Van Hover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185.Bryant, D.P., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2001). The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education; Teachers on implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (4), 251-264.Buell, M.J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice need as concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 46(2), 143-156.Capper, C. & Frattura, E. (2009). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cedar Hills Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.duvalschools.org Clements, L. & Read, J. (2008). Introduction: Life, disability, and the pursuit of human rights. In L. Clements & J. Read (Eds.). Disabled people and the right to life, (pp. 1-29), London: Routledge. Cohen, D. (2007). Problems in education policy and research. In D. Cohen, S. Fuhrman, & F. Mosher (Eds.) The state of education policy research, (pp. 349-371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Cole, P. G. (1999). The structure of arguments used to support or oppose inclusion policies for students with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 24, 215-225.Coombs-Richardson, R., & Mead, J. (2001). Supporting general educators' inclusive practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 383-390. DOI: 10.1177/088840640102400412Croissant Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.browardschools.com Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf Davie Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.browardschools.comDebray-Pelot, E. & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the Federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Education Policy (23), 1 15-42.Deluca, M. & Stillings, C. (2008). Targeting resources to students with special educational needs:

National differences in policy and practice. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 371-385.

178

http://www.browardschools.com/

http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf


http://www.duvalschools.org/

http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/


https://www.ocps.net/


Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B.F., Garet, M.S., & Sukyoon, K. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record, 104, 1265-1312.Dorn, S. (2007). Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and taming the monster. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Dupuis Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net Edison Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us Fairmont Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_templateFern Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ocps.netFienberg-Fisher Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net Florida Department of Education. (2008a). Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model: Guidance for Implementation 2008-09 School Year. Retrieved from www.fldoe.orgFlorida Department of Education. (2008b) School Accountability Reports. Retrieved from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?report=AYP Florida Department of Education (2009). Florida Education and Community Data Profiles, Series 2009-14D, (2009). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs Florida Department of Education. (2010a). Early Learning /Prekindergarten (2010). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/earlylearning Florida Department of Education. (2010b). Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (2010). Retrieved from http://www.justreadflorida.com/instrreading.aspFlorida Department of Education, Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention. (2010). Professional Development System Evaluation Protocol, Protocol System, Third Cycle, 2010-2014. Retrieved from www.fldow.org/profdev/pdstandards.asp Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Student Education, (2010). 2010 SEA Profile. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp Florida House of Representatives, Schools & Learning Council, Committee on K12. (2008). Teacher Professional Development Programs in Florida, Interim Project Report. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pdstandards.asp Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fuhrman, S., Goertz, M., & Weinbaum, E. (2010). Educational governance in the United States: Where are we? How did we get here? Why should we care? In D. Cohen, S. Fuhrman, & F. Mosher (Eds.) The state of education policy research, (pp. 41-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Furney, K.S., Hasazi, S.B., & Clark-Keefe, K. (2005). The impact of state policies on special education and supports for all students. Journal of Disability Studies, 16(3), 169-176. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915- 945.Hiawassee Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ocps.net Hochberg, E.D., & Desimone, L.M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards, Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89-106.Hood, C. & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of the new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 267-282. Hyde Park Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.duvalschools.orgItkonen, T. & Jahnukainen, M. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54(1), 5-23.J.S. Robinson Elementary School (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.usKazemi, E. & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers' participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428-441. DOI: 10.1177/0022487108324330

179




http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pdstandards.asp

http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp

http://www.fldow.org/profdev/pdstandards.asp

http://www.justreadflorida.com/instrreading.asp

http://www.fldoe.org/earlylearning

http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?report=AYP

http://www.fldoe.org/

http://www.dadeschools.net/


http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_template




Ladner, M. & Burke, L. (2010). Closing the racial achievement gag: Learning from Florida’s reform. Washington: Heritage Foundation. Lake Park Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachschools.org Lake Weston Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ocps.netLanier Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us Lenora Braynon Smith Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net Lloyd Estates Elementary School (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.browardschools.comLittle, M.E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75 – 87. DOI: 10.1177/07419325030240020301Maxcy, B. (2009). New public management and district reform: Managerialism and deflection of local leadership in a Texas School District. Urban Education, 44 (5), 489-521. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools: Reflections on effective practice, The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.North Shore Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_templateOakridge Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.browardschools.com Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current educational policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44.Orla Vista Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ocps.netPeskoe Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net Pinedale Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.duvalschools.org Pioneer Park Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachschools.orgPompano Beach Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.browardschools.comPonce de Leon Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_templateRayner, S. (2007). Managing Special and Inclusive Education. London: BELMAS and Sage.Reynolds Lane Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.duvalschools.org Robinson Elementary School (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.duvalschools.org Rowan, B. & Miskel, C. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational administration, 2nd ed. (pp. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Silver Bluff Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.net Skyview Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_templateSkyway Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dadeschools.netSmith, T.M., & Desimone, L.M. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in teachers’ professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 119-129.Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive classrooms: Some food for thought, The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 173-185.Starlight Cove Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachschools.org Turnbull, H. R. (2009). Today’s policy contexts for special education and students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 3-9.

180





















U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110, 107th Congress. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.htmlU.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Vol. 1, Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2008a). Differentiated accountability pilot program: Florida’s proposal. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/dapstates.html#fl U.S. Department of Education. (2008b). U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announces statesapproved to use differentiated accountability under NCLB at ECS national forum. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2008/07/07012008.html U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2007–08 (NCES 2010-349). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010349.pdf Valeo, A. (2008). Inclusive education support systems: Teacher and administrator views. International Journal of Special Education, 23 (2), 8-16. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T., French, H., McGowan, S. Worley, B, Quek, C., & Bai, W. (2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52 (4), 297-312. Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm, J.S., Klingner, J. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 57-74.Wayne, A.J., Yoon, K.S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M.S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.Westgate Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.flbsi.org/0809_sip_templateWitter Elementary School. (2008). Florida Differentiated Accountability Program 2008 – 2009 School Improvement Plan. Retrieved from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us

181



http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010349.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2008/07/07012008.html

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/dapstates.html#fl

http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/index.html

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html


Appendix A: Florida K-12 Schools in Need of Improvement and Schools Placement Within Each Differentiated Accountability Program Category (2007-2008)

2007-2008 SINIs Category I:(A’s, B’s, C’s, and Ungraded Schools with at Least 80% AYP Criteria Met)

Category II:(Schools with Less than 80% AYP Criteria Met, and All D’s and F’s)

SINI-Prevent(SINIs 1, 2, & 3)

416 SchoolsFocus planning on missed elements of AYP.

85 SchoolsImplement comprehensive school improvement planning.

SINI-Correct(SINIs at Year 4 and Up)

248 SchoolsFocus reorganization on missed elements of AYP.

181 SchoolsReorganize the school.

SINI-Intervene(MOST CRITICAL)

7 SchoolsRestructure/Close the school.

Source: Florida Department of Education. (2008). Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model: Guidance for Implementation 2008-09 School Year. Retrieved from www.fldoe.org

182

http://www.fldoe.org/


Appendix B: Florida Differentiated Accountability Program Guidelines for Professional Development and Continuous Improvement

Professional Development

Individual Professional Development Plans (IPDPs) are aligned with the needs of subgroups not making AYP, reform efforts, and state protocol requirements. The master schedule provides time for both common planning and job-embedded professional development (PD) for Prevent II, Correct II, and Intervene schools.

School ensures IPDPs for teachers of targeted subgroups includes PD targeting the needs of subgroups not making AYP and include mentoring or coaching by a highly effective teacher.

School ensures that Individual Leadership Development Plans (ILPDs) include PD targeting the subgroups not making AYP.

School PD Plan aligns with state professional development protocol standards. School ensures equitable access to technology resources, integration, and professional

development. District provides technical assistance in identifying professional development, ensures that

school professional development plans meet protocol standards and align with school reform efforts and that sufficient human resources are provided to deliver, follow-up, and evaluate professional development.

District PD Plan meets state PD protocol standards and ensures that school PD plan meets protocol standards.

Continuous Improvement

Ongoing formal and informal assessments are administered to monitor student progress, redesign instruction as needed, and provide remediation, acceleration, and enrichment.

School administers diagnostics and provides remediation, acceleration, and enrichment. School develops and implements a curriculum calendar. District provides progress monitoring tools and analyzes data to determine effectiveness of

instruction and to allocate resources based on need. School implements a Response to Intervention model. School ensures real-time access to student achievement data. District provides technical assistance on formative and summative assessments. District monitors and analyzes progress monitoring three times per year for students requiring

reading intervention. District monitors and analyzes progress monitoring on tested core-content areas twice per year. District ensures that schools demonstrating the greatest need, based on data analysis, receive the

highest percentage of resources.

Source: Adapted from Florida Department of Education (2008). Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model, Guidance for Implementation 2008-09 School Year.

183


Appendix C: Sample Schools and Percentage of Students At or Above Grade Level in Reading (2007-2008)

Miami-Dade Reading Broward ReadingFienberg-Fisher 33/SH Croissant 31Peskoe 29 Davie 32John G. Dupuis 21 Lloyd Estates 38Lenora Smith 34/SH Oakridge 25Silver Bluff 31/SH Pompano Beach 36Hillsborough Reading Orange ReadingBing 35 Fern 34Lanier 51/SH Orla Vista 23J.S. Robinson 49/GM Azalea 34Witter 18 Lake Weston 16Edison 34 Hiawassee 45Palm Beach Reading Duval ReadingBelle Glade 16 Hyde Park 43Berkshire 38 Pinedale 21Lake Park 38 Cedar Hills 49/SHPioneer Park 33 Reynolds Lane 29Starlight Cove 40/SH Robinson 19Pinellas ReadingFairmont 25North Shore 41Ponce de Leon 44Skyview 34Westgate 34For 2008-09, the state objective is to have at least 65% of all students and each subgroup reading at or above grade level.SH – Safe Harbor (see Notes for description)GM – Growth Model (see Notes for description)

Source: Florida Department of Education. (2008). School Accountability Reports. Retrieved from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?report=AYP

184

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?report=AYP

pre-service special education teachers ... issue vol26 n... · web viewbeginner pre-service special...

Documents