DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 408 772 EC 305 644

AUTHOR Mitchell, Melissa, Ed.TITLE Placement in Regular Classes and Separate Facilities: The

Role of Economic and Demographic Factors for Children withDisabilities. A Project ALIGN Issue Brief.

INSTITUTION Virginia Commonwealth Univ., Richmond. Commonwealth Inst.for Child and Family Studies.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services(ED), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE Feb 97NOTE 17p.

CONTRACT H023A50114AVAILABLE FROM Donald Oswald, Commonwealth Institute for Child and Family

Studies, Dept. of Psychiatry, MCV/VCU, P.O. Box 980489,Richmond, VA 23298-0489.

PUB TYPE Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) -- Opinion Papers (120) --Reports - Evaluative (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Demography; *Disabilities; Economic Factors; Elementary

Secondary Education; Emotional Disturbances; *InclusiveSchools; Learning Disabilities; Mainstreaming; MentalRetardation; Predictor Variables; Regular and SpecialEducation Relationship; Residential Schools; SpecialClasses; *Special Education; *Student Placement; SystemsApproach

ABSTRACTThis policy brief reports on a study exploring state by

state variation in placement rates for students with disabilities in eitherregular or special education settings and the relationship of economic,sociodemographic, and educational factors to these rates. The study analyzeddata for the school year 1992-93 and compared the percent of identifiedstudents placed into six settings: regular class, resource room, separateclass, separate school, residential facility, or homebound/hospital. It alsointerviewed state level personnel in three states with relatively high ratesof placement in regular class settings. Although overall, placement datashowed an orderly progression from most students served in the leastrestrictive setting (regular class) to the fewest number served in the mostrestrictive settings (separate facilities), analysis by disability categoryshowed that most students with learning disabilities are served in resourceroom settings and most students with severe emotional disturbances and mentalretardation are served in separate classes. Application of several predictionmodels found achievement variables emerged as predictors for all disabilitiescombined, but that a wide variety of other factors, including economic anddemographic variables, predicted placement of students with specificdisabilities. Results suggest the need to incorporate systems approaches tospecial education issues. Graphs detail study findings by disability andstate. (Contains 29 references.) (DB)

Placement in Regular Classesand Separate Facilities

A PrOject ALIGN Issue pief February. 1997

The Role of Economic and Demographic Factors for Children with Disabilities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

We' This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIALHAS BEEN GRANTED BY

D, P, (DsuJiscib

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Donald OswaldCommonwealth Institute for Child and Family StudiesDepartment of Psychiatry, MCVNCUPO Box 980489Richmond, VA 23298-0489

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

Placement in Regular Classesand Separate Facilities

A Project ALIGN Issue Brief February 1997 .

The Role of Economic and Demographic Factors for Children with Disabilities

The Continuing Debate

The reauthorization of theIndividual with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA; P.L. 101-476) symbolizes an enduringcommitment to quality of life andequality of educational opportunitiesfor all Americans, including thosewith disabilities. The contentiousdebate surrounding reauthorization,however, also signifies somedisagreement and disappointment.

No one could have anticipatedthe lively debate in the yearsfollowing the passage of P.L. 94-142, accompanying the issue ofwhere special education servicesare to be provided. Therequirement thatchildren be served in"the least restrictiveenvironment" (LRE) is amajor provision ofIDEA and "created apresumption in favor ofeducating students withdisabilities in generaleducation environments" (Hasazi,Johnston, Liggett, & Schattman,1994, p. 491). IDEA alsoacknowledged the need for a rangeof alternative placements and calledfor placement decisions to be madeon an individual basis. Thecommitment to increaseopportunities for children withdisabilities to be educated alongsidetheir nondisabled peers has beenevident in the many federal- andstate-sponsored initiatives (U.S.

Department of Education, 1994,1995, 1996). However, theregulations implementing the LRErequirement have failed to provideeducators and parents with sufficientguidance. The courts haveentertained related legal actions, andthe trend has been in favor of moreinclusive services, though notuniversally or uniformly (Coutinho& Repp, in press; Osborne, 1996).

Efficacy studies comparingoutcomes in various placementshave intensified rather than resolvedthe debate (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994,1995; Zigmond, 1995). It is nowquite possible to cite evidencesupporting and refuting the benefitsof inclusion for students with

disabilities. Studiesmust be examinedclosely to determine theconditions believedresponsible (e.g.,specific instructionalprocedures,administrativearrangements), the

reported benefits (e.g., social,achievement, or post schooloutcomes), and the actual disabilityconditions for which effects aredescribed (Fuchs, Roberts, Fuchs &Bowers, 1996; Mather & Roberts,1995; Zigmond, 1995).

Nowhere are the problems ofmisunderstanding and over-generalization more likely than instudies of national rates ofplacements in integrated settings. Inthe Eighteenth Annual Report to

It is nowciteand refof incluswith dis

quite possible toevidence supporting

uting the benefitsfor students

abilities.

Congress, for example, the U.S.Office of Special EducationPrograms reported:

During the past several years,the percentage of students withdisabilities served in regularclasses has increasedconsiderably, while thepercentage of students inresource rooms has graduallydecreased. Other placementpercentages have remainedstable . . . As a result, for 1993-94, States reported serving 43.4percent of students withdisabilities ages 6-21 in regularclassroom placements, 29.5percent in resource rooms, 22.7percent in separate classes, 3.1percent in separate schools, 0.7percent in residential facilities,and 0.6 percent in homebound /hospital placements (U.S.Department of Edudation, 1996,

P. 66).Whether this represents

progress depends on many factors,including (a) one's understandingof the definitions of placementsettings (e.g., regular class permitsservices outside of the regular classup to 20 percent of the day); (b)one's interpretation of variations inplacement rates across disabilityconditions; (c) one's opinionregarding whether servingapproximately seven percent morechildren in regular class settings isevidence of significant change; and(d) one's assumptions about theservices available in a given setting.

Indeed, many different conclusionsare possible but not all areresponsible, bringing to mindMacmillian, Semmel, & Gerber's(1994) advice to use utilizeempirical data, like the lamppost,for "illumination rather thansupport." Such guidance is quiteapropos when examining the dataregarding placement practices.

One approach to a betterunderstanding of current placementrates and practice has examined theattitudes of teachers regardinginclusive practices. In acomprehensive synthesis of 28studies spanning the 1958 through1996 period, Scruggs andMastropieri (19%) clarified themany seemingly different views thatteachers have reported aboutserving students with disabilities inmainstream environments. Ingeneral, although a majority ofteachers supported the concept andexpressed a willingness toimplement inclusive practices,teachers indicated differing levels ofsupport for including students withdisabilities, depending, in part, onthe severity of the disability and theamount of additional teacherresponsibility required. Scruggsand Mastropieri stated thatclassroom procedural concerns,including not having enough time orresources to implement inclusion,appear to influence teacher attitudesmore than "affective responses toworking with students withdisabilities" (p. 64). The continuingdebate, and the perception that themovement toward inclusion isinevitable, emphasize the need for abetter understanding of the factorsthat contribute to the tremendousvariation in placement rates.

Factors InfluencingPlacement Rates

Researchers are increasinglyinterested in the incorporation of a

' " ",

broad array of social and politicalfactors that may influence specialeducation practices. The impact ofpoverty is regarded as particularlyimportant (e.g., Gottlieb, Alter,Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994). Studiesof the relationships betweenplacement patterns and educational,socio-cultural, child, andeconomic variables arebecoming more common.Buysse, Bailey, Smith andSimeonsson (1994)investigated earlychildhood placement as afunction of childcharacteristics. Forchildren with serious

facilities for students with SED(Coutinho & Oswald, 1996).

Purpose of the Analyses

The purpose of this ProjectALIGN study was to explore state

by state variation inplacement rates for students

Placement rateracross the fiftystates and theDistrict ofColumbia alsoshow considerablevariation.

emotional disturbance(SED), a number of studies haveexamined the impact of child,teacher, and programcharacteristics, producing mixedresults (e.g., Martin, Lloyd,Kaufman & Coyne, 1995).

Unfortunately, most studies haverelied on local or regional samples,and have not included economic anddemographic variables. Thesubstantial amount of informationcollected annually regardingchildren with disabilities by the U.S.Office of Special EducationPrograms and the data amassedregularly by the National Center forEducation Statistics abouteducational, economic, and socialindicators for all of the nation'sschool districts are relativelyuntapped resources.

Existing work has suggested theimportance of systematicinvestigations of national placementrates for children with disabilitiesand emphasized the importance ofthe role of demographics, school orprogram characteristics, economicsand other educational variables.Ethnicity and educational revenueshave been identified as significantpredicto,rs of states' rates ofplacement in regular classes,separate classes and separate

with disabilities and toinvestigate the contributionof economic, socio-demographic, andeducational factors on theserates. Descriptive profilesof state and national trendsare presented first toprovide a picture of theplacement rates for all

children with disabilities, and forthose with specific learningdisabilities (SLD), SED, and mentalretardation (MR) separately.Subsequent analyses producedpredictive models of therelationships between placementrates and a number of economic,educational, and demographicvariables.

Descriptive Findings

Our analysis of placement ratesdrew from data submitted to the USDepartment of Education by thestates for school year 1992-93. Thefederal definitions of the educationalplacement settings used in theanalyses are presented in Table 1.The following were used for thepresent analyses: regular class,resource room, separate class, andseparate facility (a variablerepresenting the total number ofstudents served in the federallydefined categories of separate publicand private day facilities,residential, and homebound/hospitalarrangements).

For each state, we calculatedthe proportion of the residentpopulation that was served in eachof the four placement settings. This

Table 1Definitions of Educational Environments

Regular class includes students who receive the majority of their education program in a regular classroom andreceive special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school day.It includes children placed in a regular class and receiving special education within the regular class, as well aschildren placed in a regular class and receiving special education outside the regular class.

Resource room includes students who receive special education and related services outside the regular classroomfor at least 21 percent but no more than 60 percent of the school day. Thismay include students placed in resourcerooms with part-time instruction in a regular class.

Separate class includes students who receive special education and related services outside the regular classroomfor more than 60 percent of the school day. Students may be placed in self-contained special classrooms withpart-time instruction in regular classes or placed in self-contained classes full-time on a regular school campus.

Separate school includes students who receive special education and related services in separate day schools forstudents with disabilities for more than 50 percent of the school day.

Residential facility includes students who receive education in a public or private residential facility, at publicexpense, for more than 50 percent of the school day.

Homebound/hospital environment includes students placed in and receiving special education in hospital orhomebound programs.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1994.

formula for calculating placementrates differs from the usual method,i.e., calculating what percent ofidentified students are served ineach setting. The rationale for theresident population formula is that itremoves the effect of varyingidentification rates across states. Forexample, if two states each serve 30percent of their identified students inregular class settings, but State Aidentifies 7 percent ofthe resident populationfor special educationservices and State Bidentifies 11 percentof the residentpopulation, theplacement rates cannotbe compared withintegrity. An accuratedescription of theplacement rates usedfor the analyses below is "thepercent of the resident populationthat is identified as a specialeducation student with X disabilityand is served in Y setting."

Because of the formula used forthe calculation of placement rates,

states' placement figures andrelative ranking in the analysespresented below differ from those .

published elsewhere (e.g., U.S.Department of Education, 1995).We believe, however, that thepresent method provides animproved means of characterizingnational placement patterns and ofcomparing states' placementpractices.

Population densityappears to play animportant role in states'use of separate schools forstudents with disability,appearing in all four ofthe models.

Comparison ofnational placementrates for all disabilitieswith rates for individualdisabilities revealssome strikingdifferences (see Figure1). The placement datafor all students withdisabilities shows anorderly progressionfrom the most students

served in the least restrictive setting(Regular Class) to the least studentsserved in the most restrictivesettings (Separate Facilities).However, when the disabilitycategories are examined separately,one can see that a plurality of the

students with LD are served inResource Room settings while aplurality of the students with SEDand MR are served in SeparateClasses. Further, although the totalnumber of students with SED issmaller than the total number withLD or with MR, the SED disabilitycategory has more students inSeparate Facility settings.

Placement rates across the fiftystates and the District of Columbiaalso show considerable variation.For example, the percent of theresident population that is identifiedas students with SLD and is placedin regular class settings ranges from1.8 percent (Georgia) to 5.8 percent(Massachusetts). (See Figure 2)Conversely, The percent of theresident population that is identifiedas students with SLD and is placedin separate facility settings (seeFigure 3) ranges from .001 percent(Georgia) to .38 percent (District ofColumbia). Figure 3 also illustratesthat the distribution is markedlyskewed with a large majority ofstates having fewer than .05 percentof their resident population

ensmip,aceineM-In Red u1 . *facititkts

identified as SLD and placed inseparate facilities.

Predicting PlacementRates

The descriptive findings citedabove make it clear that placementrates for students with disabilitiesshow considerable variation acrossstates. In an effort to understand themeaning of that variation, wecreated a set of predictive modelsthat examined the relationshipbetween placement variables andother educationally relevantcharacteristics of states.

A set of educational, economic,

Table 2Variables included in prediction models

and demographic predictors wereextracted from the National Centerfor Educational Statistics electroniccatalog (NCES, 1992). The catalogis a collection of tables summarizinginformation relevant to education.The selection of variables that werechosen for inclusion in the analyseswas informed by previous relatedstudies (Coutinho & Oswald, 1996;McLaughlin & Owings, 1992;Oswald & Coutinho, 1995, 1996).

Three types of variables wereincluded in the models: education-related variables, demographicvariables that characterizedsignificant features of states andtheir populations, and economicvariables that captured important

aspects of states' fiscalcircumstances. A detailed listing ofthe variables is found in Table 2.

Predictive models wereconstructed using a stepwise linearregression procedure that testswhich of the predictors contributesignificantly to a model designed toexplain the variation in the responsevariables. Inclusion in the fmalmodel means that the predictorcontributes significant uniquevariance to the model.

The placement modelsexamined the relationship ofpredictors to students' rate ofplacement in regular classesand in separate facilities.

Placement rate - the number of students identified as eligible for special education (with a particular disability) who areserved in a given setting, divided by the state's resident population, ages 6-21 years.

4th grade reading proficiency - State average for 4th grade NAEP reading proficiency scores8th grade math proficiency - State average for 8th grade NAEP math proficiency scoresStudent-teacher ratio - Ratio of students to teachers for state as a wholeAverage teacher salary - Mean of states' teachers' salariesPercent (of school staff) that are aides - Number of aides divided by total number of instructional and noninstructional

staffChapter 1 funding - Total amount of Chapter 1 program funding divided by school enrollmentPer pupil revenue - Total amount of states' education revenue divided by school enrollmentCurrent expenditure per pupil - States' current education expenditures divided by school enrollmentPercent revenue from local sources - Percent of states' educational revenue that comes from local sourcesPercent revenue from state sources - Percent of states' educational revenue that comes from state sourcesPercent revenue from federal sources - Percent of states' educational revenue that comes from federal sourcesElem/Sec Ed. expenditures per capita - Expenditures on elementary and secondary education divided by populationEducational expenditures per capita - Expenditures on all education divided by populationEducational Expenditures as % of GSP - Expenditures on all education divided by the Gross State ProductHuman Services expenditures per capita - Expenditures on all human services programs divided by populationGross State Product per capita - Gross State Product divided by populationMedian household income (1990) - Median income for all households in state.Percent of households earning < $2.5,000tyr - Percent of households that report earning less than $25,000 per yearPer capita income - Total personal income divided by populationPopulation density - Number of persons per square mileCommunity adult dropout rate - States' dropout rate for adultsPercent white - Percent of the population that is identified as WhitePercent of households below poverty level (1992) - Percent of households that report income below the poverty levelCommunity adult % unemployment - Percent of adults that are classified unemployed

"",%.

As seen in Table 3, achievementvariables emerged as predictors forall disabilities combined. Stateswith higher fourth and eighth gradeachievement scores tend to placemore special education students inregular classes and the modelaccounts for nearly one half of thevariation across states.

The picture variessubstantially, however,across disabilities. Themodel predictingplacement of studentswith SLD in regularclasses is not statisticallysignificant, accountingfor only 7 percent of thevariation. The model forstudents with SED is

:;:;:,

disabilities combined, and an evenhigher proportion when disabilitycategories are examined separately.Population density appears to playan important role in states' use ofseparate facilities for students withdisabilities, appearing in all four ofthe models. In each case, states with

relatively higherpopulation density tend

The findings aretroubksome, becausethey provide evidencethat non - child -specificfactors influencevariations in placementrates in both the mostinclusive and the mostsegregated settings

somewhat stronger,"percent revenue from federalsources" accounts for about onethird of the variation. A selection oflargely demographic variablesaccounts for nearly two-thirds of thevariation for students with MR.Predictive models for placement inseparate facilities are strikinglyrobust (see Table 4), accounting fortwo thirds of the variation in theplacement of students with all

Table 3

to have more specialeducation students inspecial schools.

In many respectsthese findings are bothremarkable anddistressing. Thepredictive value ofeconomic anddemographic variablessuggests the influence

of many factors on placementdecisions. The influence ofpopulation density across thedisability conditions reinforces thebelief that services in rural districts,for any number of reasons, areprovided in more integratedsettings. The positive contributionof income and economic predictorsin the prediction of separate facility

placements is difficult to interpret.Should monies be re-directed tosupport more placements ininclusive settings, or conversely,does the relationship suggestcontinued support for the continuumof placement settings? This studycannot answer the questionsbecause the data do not indicate theappropriateness of the servicesreceived in regular classes or inseparate facilities.

An alternative explanation is thata full continuum of options is notalways available (Martin, Lloyd,Kaufman, & Coyne, 1995), butwhen resources are available tosupport of the full continuum, morechildren are served in morerestrictive placements. Althoughdifficult to interpret, the findings aretroublesome, because they provideevidence that non-child-specificfactors influence variations inplacement rates in both the mostinclusive and the most segregatedsettings. Additional research isneeded to detect and understand theinfluence of these variables at thedistrict and individual child level.

Predicting States Placement of Special Education Students in Regular Classes in 92-93

Disability Condition Predictors Entering Stepwise Model BivariateCorrelation

Model R2

All 4th grade reading proficiency .45 .488th grade reading proficiency .20

LD Per pupil revenue .27 .07

SED % Revenue from federal sources -.52 .35

MR Community adult dropout rate .60 .62Percent white .14Percent (of school staff) that are aides -.20

I

Elem/Sec Ed. Expenditures per capita -.50Median household income (1990) -.51

6 Placement in Regular Classes and Separate facilities

Table 4Predicting States Placement of Special Education Students in Separate Facilities in 92-93

Disability Condition Predictors Entering Stepwise Model BivariateCorrelation

Model R2

All Population density .64 .66Per capita income .61Human Services Expenditures per capita .26Current expenditure per pupil .62

LD Population density .84 .86Current expenditure per pupil .62Human Services Expenditures per capita .42Gross State Product per capita .82Average teacher salary .36.Percent white -.47

SED Per capita income .76 .78Median household income (1990) .51% Revenue from local sources .57Population density .61Gross State Product per capita .64

MR .Population density .74 .63Percent (of school staff) that are aides -.44Chapter 1 funding .60

Table 5State Characteristics

Feature State 1 State 2 State 3

Population Density Low Middle Middle

Location West Mid-Atlantic Midwest

Percent White -School Population

93 68 76

Number of School Districts 114 133 140

Percent of Adults WhoDropped. Out

20 30 33

Progress inimplementing the LREMandate: Three States'Experiences

To build on our understandingof factors influencing placementrates, three states were interviewedwhose rate of placement in regular

class settings was relatively higherthan other states and was increasingover a recent five year period. Thestates were selected on the basis ofthe percentage of students ages 3-21served in regular class settings inthe most recent five year period forwhich data was available (Schoolyears 1988-89 through 1992-1993).Table 5 summarizes demographiccharacteristics of the three states.

8

Special Education Directorsand others were asked to describecriteria for reporting placementsettings, including changes in recentyears, and state initiatives ortraditions that are believed to haveinfluenced increasing rates ofplacement in integrated settings.

With respect to reportingcriteria, all three states requireLEAs to report on at least as many

Nat

iona

l Pla

cem

ent R

ates

by

Setti

ng a

nd D

isab

ility

a R

egul

ar C

lass

['Res

ourc

e R

oom

Sepa

rate

Cla

ss

Sepa

rate

Fac

ility

Figu

re 1

Nat

iona

l Pla

cem

ent R

ates

9I0

Lea

rnin

g D

isab

ility

- R

egul

ar C

lass

Pla

cem

ent

Figu

re 2

Reg

ular

Cla

ss P

lace

men

t Rat

es f

or S

tude

nts

with

Lea

rnin

g D

isab

ilitie

s

12

11

Lea

rnin

g D

isab

ility

- S

epar

ate

Faci

lity

Plac

emen

t

Dos 0_

,,uw

ww

ww

ww

wil,

wW

witt

latia

ttlat

tlatta

ttlill

1111

16E

%9'

,7iV

V2)

8raW

5g6'

8cR

859b

r2S

Figu

re 3

Sepa

rate

Fac

ility

Pla

cem

ent R

ates

for

Stu

dent

s w

ith L

earn

ing

Dis

abili

ties

1413

s ss, s

r,. lit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,

environments as the U.S. Office ofSpecial Education Programsrequires. Two of the three requiredadditional specificity, e.g., up to 10options or the actual number ofminutes per day by setting. Allthree states had worked outacceptable policies to permitstudents with disabilities who areserved full-time in special educationto be reported as disabled.Reporting, for example, includeddesignation ofconsultativeassistance. None ofthe three states hadchanged theirdefinition ofeducationalenvironments in thelast several years.

All statesreported that stateinitiatives have beenimplemented to sustain progress inincreasing placements rates inintegrated settings. Common acrossall of these initiatives were theemphases on responsiveness tolocal conditions, ongoingprofessional development, andsustained state leadership.

In one state, local capacity wasbuilt through a two year effort inwhich a group of collaborativeteams were trained, followed bytraining to subsequent groups andextensive sharing and statewidedissemination of best practices.Systematic, regional technicalassistance provided throughinstitutions of higher education andother agencies, was a secondinitiative in which individualizedassistance was provided to localdistricts. A separate project,federally funded and supplementedwith local matching funds, providedassistance with curricularadaptations and team capacity at thelocal level. In sum, Part B set asideand other funds (federal, state, andlocal) were being used to support

ongoing changes responsive to localconditions.

In another state, leadership andsupport was created and sustainedthrough development of an inclusionposition statement. The positionstatement was the culmination ofwork by a broadly constitutedcollaborative team. A secondmechanism was special studyinstitutes formed to provide "bestpractice" training of teams at the

local level who, inturn, trained other

Common across all of theseinitiatives were the emphaseson responsiveness to localconditions, ongoingprofessional development,and sustained stateleadership.

teams. Anindependentfacilitator, supportedby the state, but basedin a local district, alsoworked with localdistricts individuallyto problem solveregarding localobstacles and issues.

The third state provided supportfor a state-department positiondedicated to assisting local districtsimplement more successfulinclusive practices. This assistancewas complemented by statesponsored workshops over a severalyear period. Also, a localeducational agency served as amodel program, acting as a host siteand consultant for visits by otherdistricts to learn first hand whatworks. Finally, the state authorizedwaivers for some districts to supportservices delivered appropriately byinstructional aides.

When asked about linkageswith other educational reforms ortraditions, one state reportedtremendous success building onalready-existing site-basedprereferral teams and assisting withinclusive programming for studentswith attention deficit disorders.

States were also asked to lookahead and indicate if any newinitiatives were needed or planned.One state was in the process ofdeveloping a statewide stakeholder

group on LRE--not inclusion. Asecond state was to begincomplementing professionaldevelopment with individualizedmonitoring and assistance to localdistricts whose placement ratesindicated that disproportionatelymore students were served insegregated settings than in otherdistricts. In a third state, proposalswere being studied to change thecurrent funding formula for supportof special education services to beplacement neutral, i.e., to offer noincentive or disincentive for servingstudents in a particular environment(e.g., a separate class).

Conclusions

The purpose of this study wasto provide a broader context withinwhich to investigate the issue ofwhere special education servicesare to be provided. Theconsideration of economic,demographic, policy, and programvariables to the study of these issuesintroduces more complexity but alsooffers the possibility of a morecomprehensive understanding.

The findings suggest a need toincorporate systems approaches tospecial education issues. A wealthof special education research is nowavailable that examines student,teacher, and curriculum variableswithin well-designed studies oflearning and behavior. Many recentstudies, however, have included abroadening array of inputs andoutputs when investigating issuesrelated to the placement of studentswith disabilities (Buysse et al.,1994; Fuchs et al, 1996; Hasazi etal., 1994; Janney, Snell, Beers, &Raynes, 1995; Martin et al., 1995;Rock, Rosenberg, & Carran, 1995).These reports, and the present study,indicate that economic, educationalprogram, teacher, and demographicinputs, in addition to specific child

15

WA':3COMP:m6"-

characteristics (e.g., behavior,vocational skills, and achievement),function in a complex manner toinfluence where students withdisabilities are served.

Results of thisstudy support disabilityspecific investigationsand development ofrecommendationsresponsive toconditions andopportunities at thelocal district level,potentially throughapplications of full-

4:titities

inclusion ofchildren with disabilities:perspectives, trends, and implicationsfor research and practice. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994).Inclusive schools movementand the radicalization ofspecial education reform.Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-309.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs,L. (1995). CounterpointSpecial education-Ineffective? Immoral?Exceptional Children, 61,303-306.

Fuchs, K., Roberts,P., Fuchs, L., & Bowers, J.

Results of this studysupport disabilityspecific, system levelinvestigations, anddevelopment ofrecommendationsresponsive to conditionsand opportunities at thelocal district level

service school models."At a gross level ofabstraction, we all agree that everychild deserves a free appropriate,public education. The pinch comesin allotment of scarce resources . . .

Who is to get how much?" (Morse,1994, p. 536). With adequateunderstanding, schools can aligncommitment with resources in anequitable fashion that ensures thateach child with a disability iseducated in the least restrictive,appropriate environment.

References

Benz, M.R., Yovanoff, P., &Doren, B. (1997). School-to-workcomponents that predict postschoolsuccess for students with and withoutdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 63,151-165.

Buysse, V., Bailey, D., Smith, T., &Simeonsson, R. (1994). The relationshipbetween child characteristics andplacement in specialized versusinclusive early childhood programs.Topics in Earb., Childhood SpecialEducation, 14 (4), 419-435.

Coutinho, M., & Oswald, D.(1996). Identification and placement ofstudents with serious emotional ,

disturbance. Part II: National and statetrends in the implementation of LRE.Journal of Emotional and BehavioralDisorders, 4, 40-52.

Coutinho, M. , Repp, A., & Russell,J. (In press). Enhancing the meaningful

(1996). Reintegratingstudents with learning

disabilities into the mainstream: A two-year study. Learning DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 11 (4), 214-229.

Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B.,& Wishner, J. (1994). Special educationin urban America: It's not justifiable formany. The Journal ofSpecialEducation, 27 (4), 453-465.Glassberg, (1994)

Halpern, A., Yovanoff, P., Doren,B., & Benz, M. (1995). Predictingparticipation in postsecondary educationfor school leavers with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 62 (2),151 -164.

Maui, S. B., Johnston, AP.,Liggett, A.M., & Schattman, R.A.(1994). A qualitative study of the leastrestrictive environment provision of theIndividuals with Disabilities EducationAct. Exceptional Children, 60, 491-507.

Heal, L., & Rusch, F. (1995).Predicting employment for students wholeave special education high schoolprograms. Exceptional Children, 61,(5), 472-487.

Janney, R., Snell, M., Beers, M., &Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating studentswith moderate and severe disabilitiesinto general education classes.Exceptional Children, 61 (5), 425-439.

Kaufman, J. (1995). Why we mustcelebrate a diversity of restrictiveenvironments. Learning DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 10 (4), 225-232.

MacMillan, D., Semmel, M., &Gerber, M. (1994). The social context of

s sA%se szAss s

Dunn: Then and now. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 27 (4), 466-480.

Martin, K.F., Lloyd, J.W.,Kaufman, J.M., & Coyne, M. (1995).Teachers' perceptions of educationalplacement decisions for pupils withemotional or behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 20, 10-117.

Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1995).Sold out?: A response to McLeskey andPugach. Learning Disabilities Researchand Practice, 10 (4), 239-249.

McLaughlin, M.J., & Owings,M.F. (1992). Relationships amongstates' fiscal and demographic data andthe implementation of P.L. 94-142.Exceptional Children, 59, 247-261.

Morse, W. (1994). Commentsfrom a biased viewpoint. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 27 (4), 531-542.

NCES. (1992). EDSearch: 1992condition of education and digest ofeducation statistics. Washington, D.C.:Author.

Oswald, D.P., & Coutinho, M.(1995). Identification and placement ofstudents with serious emotionaldisturbance. Part I: Correlates of statechild-count data. Journal of Emotionaland Behavioral Disorders, 3, 224-229.

Oswald, D.P., & Coutinho, M.J.(1996). Leaving school: The impact ofstate economic and demographic factorsfor students with serious emotionaldisturbance. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 4, 114-125.

Osborne, A.G. (1996). Legalissues in spei:ial education. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Repetto, J.B., & Correa, V.I.(1996). Expanding views on transition.Exceptional Children, 62, 55.1-563.

Rock, E.E., Rosenberg, M.S., &Carran, D.T. (1995). Variables affectingthe re-integration rate of students withserious emotional disturbance.Exceptional Children, 61, 254-268.

Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M.(1996). Teacher perceptions ofmainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: Aresearch synthesis. ExceptionalChildren, 63, (1), 59-74.

U.S. Department of Education.(1994). Sixteenth annual report toCongress. Washington, D.C.: author.

U.S. Department of Education.(1995). Seventeenth annual report toCongress. Washington, D.C.: author.

U.S. Department of Education.

n e ularClasses and Sepa e,. 0-cJ ies

(1996). Eighteenth annual report toCongress. Washington, D.C.: author.

Zigmond, N. (1995). Models fordelivery of special education services tostudents with learning disabilities inpublic schools. Journal of ChildNeurology. 10 (1), 86-92.

The preparation of this Issue Briefwassupported, in part, by a grant from theUS Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services (H023A50114).Points of view or opinions expressed inthis paper do not necessarily representthe official agency position of the USDepartment of Education.

Pro GN:

Itypotti4Dita Based Duilio lddmgTo Aka the kat al

isplemecitica ofIDEATA Garb ofNical &beton Rica'

For more information about this IssueBrief or other Project ALIGNproducts, please contact:

Donald Oswald, Ph.D.Commonwealth Institute for Child andFamily Studies, Medical College ofVirginia, P.O. Box 980489, RichmondVirginia 23298OrMartha Coutinho, Ph.D.East Tennessee State University,HDAL, P.O. Box 70548, Johnson City,Tennessee 37614.

Issue BriefNewsletter Editor.Melissa Mitchell, East Tennessee StateUniversity

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

ERICe- C 305 Gcf(fr

Title:Placement. in Regular Classes and Separate Facilities

Author(s): Oswald, D.P. & Coutinho, M.J.

Corporate Source:

Commonwealth Institute for Child and Family StudiesVirginia Commonwealth University

I Publication Date:February, 1997

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announcedin the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ERRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of each document, and, it reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.

Check hereFor Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6' film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

affixed to all Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS

MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

\e

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

r-1L_I

ICheck here

For Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permiazir.,-; from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.'

Sign Signature:

here)please

Commonwealth Institute for Child andFamily StudiesDepartment of Psychiatry, MCV/VCUP.O. Box 980489

P

Richmond, VA LiLVd-u4S9

Printed Name/Positionaide:

T4tanald P.-Q§Na414:Clinical Paysholnist

(804) 828-9900 (804) 828-2645

EMail Addrus: ,bate:

DOSWALD(5GEMS.VCU.EDu 6/5/97

(over)