perceptions of special educ ation by regular …

PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL EDUC ATION

BY REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHERS

by

KELLY M C C O R M I C K , B.s.Ed.

A THESIS

IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

Approved

May, 1997

6.^

Copyright 1997, Kelly McCormick

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I will always be thankful to Rebecca Nathanson, PhD for the first words of

encouragement to write a thesis, and her continued encouragement, guidance, and support

during the completion of this thesis. To Carol Layton, Ed.D for her indescribably

valuable educational guidance, her support and confidence in my abilities, but most of all

for her spiritual inspirations. And to my committee chairperson, Alan Koenig, Ed.D., for

his keen eyes that so easily found my mistakes, and his kind guidance and suggestions to

fix those errors.

I am very thankful to my husband, Mark, who was supportive, understanding, and

helpful throughout the completion of my studies. To my children, McCrae and Madolyn,

who were too often times hushed and sent to other rooms while 'Mommy' had to work.

But perhaps the most influential people who have always been there to encouraged me,

who have always been there to help, and most importantly never, never gave up on me!

Without a doubt, the two most important people in my life...my Mother, and my Grandad.

Their unwavering support and 'you can do it' attitude was contagious not only for this

thesis, but throughout my entire life!

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT v

LIST OF TABLES vi

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Perception of Special Education 1

Knowledge of Special Education 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Research Questions 2

Statement of the Purpose 3

n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 4

Teacher Perception of Special Education 4

Special Education Process 5

Assessment 5

Eligibility 9

Individualized Education Program 12

Placement 15

Conclusion 17

m. METHODOLOGY 19

Subjects 19

Survey 19

Procedure 21

iii

IV RESULTS 22

Perceptions of Special Education 22

Inclusion 22

Teacher Preparation 24

Legal Perceptions 24


Referral to Special Education 25

Eligibility 25

Parental Rights 26

Legal Knowledge 26

Summary 35

V. DISCUSSION 36

Summary ofResuhs 36

Perceptions of Special Education 36


Discussion ofResuhs 37

Educational Implications 38

Directions for Future Research 38

Conclusion 39

REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX

A. WHERE STUDENTS RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES 43

B. SURVEY 45

C. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 54

iv

•ABSTRACT

A 50-item survey was given to 86 regular classroom teachers to examine seven areas

of special education. Three areas addressed their perceptions of special education

regarding inclusion, teacher preparation, and legal issues. This section contained 30

questions to be answered on a four-point Likert scale. The second section included four

areas on regular classroom teachers' actual knowledge of special education: referral,

eligibility, parental rights, and laws pertaining to special education. The second section

included 20 true/false questions

The resuhs of this study suggest that regular education teachers have skewed

perceptions of inclusion. Most teachers agree with inclusion, but then want to place

restrictions on who can be included. A majority of the teachers reported that they did not

have sufficient preparation or materials to educate students with special needs. Teachers

did not perceive that they understood IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

or the lEP (Individualized Education Plan). There were slightly higher percentages

reported for actual knowledge of special education. Teachers responded most correctly to

questions regarding referral, followed by actual legal knowledge of special education,

eligibility, and parental rights.

LIST OF TABLES

1. Perceptions of Special Education: Inclusion -7

2. Perceptions of Special Education: Teacher Preparation 29

3. Perceptions of Special Education: Legal Perceptions 30

4. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Referral 3 1

5. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Eligibility 32

6. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Parental Rights 33

7. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Legal Knowledge 34

8. Resuhs of the Survey 54

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Should all students receiving special education services be in regular classrooms? Do

regular classroom teachers really have the preparation needed to teach students whh

special needs' What do regular classroom teachers think they know about laws

governing special education, or better yet, what do they really know? How are students

referred to special education? Once referred, how do students become eligible to receive

special education services? Do regular classroom teachers understand parental rights?

These are the questions posed to 86 regular classroom teachers.

Perception of Special Education

How teachers perceive the special education process can determine the effectiveness

of the special education program. If teachers perceive that students with special needs

benefit from the program they are more likely to be open to learning the necessary steps

for placement into special education. Once students are placed in special education, the

regular classroom teacher must have the abihty to teach students with special needs in

the regular classroom. Their perception of how well prepared they are to teach these

students can affect not only the teachers' attitudes about these students, but also the

students' success.

Knowledge of Special Education

Teacher's actual knowledge about some of the issues of special education can also

affect the special education process. Unless teachers understand issues involving the

referral process and eligibihty, some students who may need and qualify for services may

be overlooked. There are certain legal issues that teachers must know about special 1

education, as well as be able to provide certam information to parents about their rights

Teachers who do not have a good knowledge base for special education are a disservice

to students with special needs and can place the school district they are working for in

legal jeopardy!

Statement of the Problem

In order to improve services and provide ongoing education for regular classroom

teachers, it becomes imperative to determine then- perceptions and actual knowledge

base of special education. The first portion of this study focuses on teachers'

perceptions of inclusion, teacher preparation, and legal aspects of special education The

second section that examines teachers' actual knowledge of special education in areas

concerning referral, ehgibihty, parental rights and legal issues. By exploring regular

classroom teachers' perceptions and knowledge base of special education, areas in need

of improvement can be identified. By identifying these areas and pursuing ways to

improve them, regular classroom teachers can seek to enhance and ensure a quality

education for all students, including those students with special needs.

Research Questions

Two questions were examined for the purpose of this study. These two questions

deal with two separate entities of regular classroom teachers and the special education

process.

1. How do regular education classroom teachers perceive special education in the

areas of inclusion, teacher preparation, and law?

2. What do regular education classroom teachers actually know about referral,

eligibility, parental rights, and legal issues concerning special education*

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the present survey was to determine the perceptions of special

education by regular classroom teachers. How the subjects responded to these questions

gave an msightfiil view of their perceptions. It is hypothesized that regular classroom

teachers would be well prepared and comfortable enough to ensure a productive and

efficient learning environment in the regular classroom for students with special needs.

Information was gathered in the form of a 50-question survey. The survey consists

of 30 perception questions using a four-pomt Likert scale: strongly agree, agree,

disagree, or strongly disagree; and 20 questions on actual knowledge in a true/false

format. The survey was handed out to 86 regular classroom teachers, that covered

grades K-12. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data and draw the

conclusions.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Special educators have a professional obligation to provide appropriate educational

opportunities to all ehgible students so that students with special needs might reaUze

their potential and function effectively in their ever-changing environments. To achieve

this, special educators must ensure that their students are provided a free appropriate

public education and that a wide variety of special education and related services are

offered to meet the needs of the students.

To promote effective social interaction, special educators must instruct their students

to the maximum extent possible in a setting with their nonhandicapped peers. This

requires that special education be an integral part of the regular education program.

Special educators must furthermore encourage active participation of both parents

and other school personnel m the development of Individuahzed Education Programs

(lEP's). Techniques, procedures, classroom materials, and equipment should be

designed to suit the needs of the students and ensure their educational success. The

special educator must also enforce certain procedural safeguards to protect students with

disabihties and theu parents. Regardless of where children are educated, the regular

classroom teacher plays a vital role in their education (Clarizio, 1992). If the student

with special needs is placed in special education or in a full inclusion setting, the regular

classroom teacher is responsible for that students' education. Moreover, regular

classroom teachers must perceive this notion.

Teacher Perceptions

Teacher perception has been studied by a number of investigators. Both child and

teacher/school variables have been found to affect this perception. Child-centered 4

factors, such as behavior, gender, age, and ethnicity of students have been shown to

mfluence teacher perceptions of students with special needs (Hersh & Walker, 1983;

Walker & Lamon, 1987; Walker & Rankin, 1983).

Several teacher-centered factors have also been shown to be related to teacher

perceptions of students. Personal experiences and professional experiences, such as

academic preparation and teaching experience, have been found to be related to teacher

perceptions (Page et al., 1987). Other school variables, such as the availabihty of

support services and technical assistance, have also been found to eUcit concern m

regular classroom teachers when faced with the notion of incUision (Keogh & Levitt,

1976). Brophy and Rohrkemper (1982) found that teachers whose role definitions

stressed general student socialization, rather than a more narrow emphasis on soleK

instructing students in a academic curriculum, made greater efforts to help problem

students and were more wilhng to make allowances for them.

Special Education Process

Assessment

Comprehensive diagnostic evaluations are provided to children entitled to receive

educational instruction for a possible handicappmg condhion. The initial assessment

should be conducted prior to developing an EEP and before any special education

services are provided. U.S. law requires nondiscriminatory evaluation procedures.

Consequently, instruments and procedures are used to ensure nondiscriminatory

assessment. First, tests and other evaluation materials should be conducted m the child's

native language or another appropriate mode of communication. Second, test and

evaluation materials should show areas of academic needs rather than just IQ Third,

these should demonstrate the child's aptitude and not the child's deficits. Fourth,

different procedures have to be used to determine an appropriate program. Fifth, a 5

multidisciplinary team should participate in the assessment. Sixth, the child should be

assessed in all aspects of the disability in question (Podemski, Marsh, Smith, & Price,

1995; Tumbull, 1993).

Assessment plan. Assessment of students with handicapping condhions is governed

by federal legislation that is outlined in IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act, formerly known as PL. 94-142). The assessment process includes referring the

student to special education, determining for which services a student is ehgible, and

developmg and implementing an EEP for that student. A child may be assessed at the

request of his or her parents or by the school he or she attends (Kupper, 1993).

Once a student has been referred to special education, an assessment plan must be

developed within a period of 15 days. At this point, a case manager may be appointed to

oversee the entire assessment process. The purpose of the assessment plan is to

determine whether a child is eligible and in need of special education services and to

obtain information that can be used to improve the student's educational program. The

assessment plan must be written in a way that is easy to understand and m the primary

language of the student's parents. Furthermore, parents must be provided with

information explaining theu* rights and due process procedures. The parents are required

to furnish written consent prior to the beginning of testing, though schools may not seek

parental permission in all types of assessment procedures (Langdon & Parker, 1982).

Follov^ng the submission of a signed assessment plan, the school has a period of 50 days

to complete all assessments and develop an EEP (Langdon & Parker, 1982).

Assessment procedure Assessment procedures are used to determine the presence of

a handicapping condition and describe its adverse effects on a student's educational

performance, to identify the specific needs of the student, and to develop an educational

program that appropriately meets the needs of the student. Each of these procedures

should be individuahzed for each child to be assessed and used selectively, rather than 6

bemg based on the resuhs of standardized tests. In addition, these assessments should be

comprehensive and be performed m all areas that may be affected by a handicapping

condition, and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, culture, or sex (Langdon &

Parker, 1982). All assessments must be completed before a determination of eligibility

or the delivery of services.

Assessment procedures should be conducted only after necessary vision, hearing, and

medical screenings (Meador, 1979). In addition, all tests must be administered in the

student's primary language or other method of communication (Angehs, 1977). It is

imperative that the resuhs of an assessment reflect the child's overall level of

achievement, rather than focus on the limitations of the child's handicapping condition.

A number of criteria must be used in combination to determine the appropriate

educational program.

Assessment data should be collected from a number of different sources, in a variety

of environments, and over a period of time (Project FORUM, 1994). Testing and rating,

record reviews, observations, and interviews are included among the methods of

gathering information for the purpose of assessment. Acceptable tests include

standardized, norm-referenced tests, and performance- or curriculum-based

measurements. Ratings, such as checklists completed by assessment personnel, parents,

or the student, may also be useful. Review of previous academic performance,

attendance records, school assignments, and previous assessment findings are also

important to consider in the assessment process. Personal mterviews with parents or

teachers may also be used to collect this type of information. Finally, the student should

be observed in a variety of different environmental settmgs (e.g., academic, social) for

the purpose of collecting information regarding the student's behavior (Project FORUM,

1994).

Assessment personnel Successful assessments require the input of more than one

individual, because one person alone cannot determine ehgibihty and the need for

services. Quahfied personnel are responsible for determining the nature and extent of a

child's handicapping condition once that child has been referred to special education.

Apart from the initial assessment, these personnel shall also periodically review (at least

every three years) the progress of, and reassess, each child that receives special

education services (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 1995). These periodic reviews

should be designed with the individual student m mind and should take into account

performance, behavior, and mimediate needs at the time of reassessment.

All assessments should be conducted by multidisciplmary teams that consist of

quahfied personnel with different backgrounds, mcludmg speciahsts from the areas of

any suspected handicappmg conditions (Scott, 1979). Assessment procedures that

requu-e the use of specialized instruments or equipment should be performed only by

persons trained and quahfied to use those mstruments.

Following completion of the assessment procedures, the assessment team will submit

a written report. This report will entail several areas of information: (1) whether the

child has a specific learning disabihty; (2) the basis for making the determination; (3) the

relevant behavior noted during the observation of the child; (4) the relationship of that

behavior to the child's academic functioning; (5) the educationally relevant medical

findings, if any; (6) whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and

abihty that is not correctable without special education and related services; and (7) the

determination of the team concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic

disadvantages (TEA, 1995). The written report of the assessment team should also

mclude information pertaining to specific needs of the individual. Needs concerning

transportation, counsehng (if needed) for the student and/or family, and schedulmg or

classroom modifications should addressed in the report. Any specific physical education 8

needs or modifications should be hsted Also included should be plans for the future,

including vocational- and career-related needs. All mformation for each mdividual

student should be specific and should be mcluded in the written report.

Throughout the evaluation process, assessment personnel are responsible for

mforming parents of results for any procedure that required parental permission In

addition, they must provide the parents with ample opportunity to take part m the

meeting to determine ehgibilitv' for special education and related services (Cooper &

Rascon, 1994). When there are major inconsistencies between previous assessment

results provided by the parents and the results of the current assessment, the assessment

team shall determine the necessity of a third-partv evaluation of the student.

Eligibility

Ehgibihty can only be determined after concluding that a child does hav e a disabilitv

and that the disabihty may be partially or fully responsible for his or her ineffectiv e

progress in regular education (Meleen, 1992). Both of these conclusions point to the

fact that the child has an educational need to be placed in special education. EUgibihtv-

for special education and related services is determined by a committee that review s the

findings of the assessment team. It is the obhgation of this committee to guarantee that

no single assessor or determining factor decides eligibihty for services and that parents

and school personnel have a general "picture" of how the child performs m the school

environment (Meleen, 1992).

The process of determining ehgibihty is similar to that of assessing the student

because it requires observation of the student's performance, review of records, and

collaboration with experts m the field of the student's disabihty (Meleen, 1992) By

analvzing the student's progress in regular education versus his or her knowledge, skills,

and social/emotional development, the committee is able to estabhsh whether a student's

9

disability warrants special education services. The decision-making process requires

members of the committee to recognize that "effective progress" refers to a range or

specific baseline of achievement (Gonzalez, Aheam, & Osher, 1994). In knowing this,

the student's progress in regular education should be measured against this standard as

an indicator of his or her potential, rather than in relation to performance of a peer

group. When a child has been determined eligible to receive services, the student and the

types of services required may only be described in terms of his or her instructional

needs, not the handicapping condition, label, or criterion (Gonzalez et al., 1994).

The types of services to which a child is entitled based on his or her handicapping

condition may differ from state to state (Gonzalez et al., 1994). Each state determines

its own criteria for ehgibihty. Federal legislation estabhshed 13 categories of disability,

and states may choose to adopt these criteria or establish their own so long as the

purpose of federal mandate is retained. Some states may adopt ehgibihty requirements

that exceed those of federal legislation (Project FORUM, 1994). Federal disability

categories include the following criteria:

- autism: a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and non-verbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3;

- deafness: a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information, with or whhout amplification;

- deaf-blindness: simultaneous hearing and visual impahments;

- hearing impairments: an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating;

10

• mental retardation: significantly subaverage general mtellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior;

• multiple disabilities: the manifestation of two or more disabihties, the combmation of which requires special accommodations for maximal learning;

- orthopedic impairments: physical disabilities, mcluding congenital hnpairments, unpahments caused by disease, and impairments from other causes;

- other health impairments: having hmited strength, vitahty, or alertness due to chronic or acute health problems;

- serious emotional disturbance: a disabihty where a child of typical intelhgence has difficulty, over tune and to a marked degree, building satisfactory inter-personal relationships; responds inappropriately behaviorally or emotionally under normal circumstances; demonstrates a pervasive mood of unhappiness; or has a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears;

- specified learning disability: a disorder m one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which may manifest hself in an imperfect ability to listen, thmk, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations,

speech or language impairments: a communication disorder such as stuttering, impau"ed articulation, a language impahment, or a voice unpairment;

11

- traumatic brain injury: an acquu ed injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disabihty or psychosocial impahment, or both; and

- visual impairment: a visual difficulty (mcluding bhndness) that, even v^th correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. (Waterman, 1994, p. 3)

Categorical ehgibihty requkements, such as those stated above, have lead to much

controversy concerning their use. The information required to determine categorical

eligibility does not necessarily relate to a student's competence, but rather tends to

emphasize deficits or hmitations (Project FORUM, 1994). This may result in the

reinforcement of negative stereotypes for children with disabihties. Furthermore, the

assessment criteria are usually constructed to determine ehgibihty at a point m time,

rather than over a span of time during which improvement may occur. Finally, many of

the methods of assessing categorical eligibility have yet to be proven reliable or valid

(Project FORUM, 1994).

Individualized Education Program (lEP)

Following assessment and determination of ehgibihty, an mdividualized education

program committee meets to develop the placement, decide on placement alternatives for

the student, and ensure a least restrictive educational environment. The members of this

team should include an administrator or other specialist famihar with the program, the

student's teacher, and one or more of the student's parents or their representative

(Cooper & Rascon, 1994). The purpose of the lEP meeting is to develop specific goals

and objectives on the basis of information provided by the assessment team and to

12

develop a document (the lEP) that attends to these goals and objectives and the methods

of attaining them (Otos, Kilcrease, & Brazeau, 1992).

The specific purpose of the lEP document is used as a method of communication

between school personnel and parents. An EEP provides opportunity for mutual

agreement between school personnel and parents concerning the child. The EEP may

also be used as an evaluation device for charting progress and as a management tool to

guarantee that educational needs are being met (Otos et al., 1992).

Collaboration of committee members without presence of parents constitutes a

violation of parents' rights (Cooper & Rascon, 1994). The written reports on goals and

objectives then will be submitted to the case manager for organization and final

document preparation. At the EEP meetmg, parents have the right to question all

objectives, proposed modifications, and make addrtions or deletions. In addition, parents

may supply their own goals and objectives for their child to be considered during the

meeting.

The hand-written formal EEP document is provided to the parents at the meetmg.

The lEP document can be considered a contract between the school and parents or as a

lesson plan, and provides a specific hst of goals for each individual student This

document should contain the following elements:

- information on present levels of performance,

- statement of goals and objectives,

- activities to be provided to student,

- time constraints of the program,

- criteria and evaluation procedures,

- vocational needs of the student,

13

- information on assistive technology, and

- and Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) stating transition services to be provided. (Waterman, 1994, p. 5)

The Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) is a vital component of the lEP document

and mcludes information pertaining to post-secondary education, vocational training,

employment, continuing education, services, mdependent living, and community

participation (Kupper, 1993).

There are many suggested ways of conductmg the lEP meetmgs in a professional and

friendly manner (Otos et al., 1992). Some basic suggestions for and EEP meetmg are to

introduce those in attendance, to explain the purpose of meeting, and to invite all in

attendance to openly mteract so that the best plan may be created. Be sure that parents

are aware of theu" rights. Oftenthnes these must be explamed rather than just handing

them a booklet and hoping that they understand. Federal law, EDEA, requires school

districts to have an mterpreter if the parents speak a language other than the language

that is used to conduct the meetmg. A typed agenda is well accepted by both the parents

and others at the meeting, h can be used as an outline of the procedure for the meeting

that will help keep everyone focused and aware of what needs to be accomphshed. The

person who actually did the assessment on the student should explain the process and

summarize the student's progress smce the last lEP meeting. Everyone in attendance

should be allowed to provide their perspectives on the overall desired outcomes for that

individual student (Otos et al., 1992).

Federal legislation outhned m IDEA calls for the EEP to be reviewed at least on an

annual basis. As stated previously, a complete reassessment should be performed every

three years. It is important that the parents be notified of every procedure to occur in

the process of evaluation and review. Parents and school officials have the right to due

14

process m all matters concerning the child and are entitled to mediation conferences and

fair hearings (Langdon &, Parker, 1982).

Placement

The issue of placement is a decision that both parents and professionals will make

jointly about the education of a child with special needs. The overall objective of this

placement decision is to unprove the educational opportunity of the child in order to

enhance his or her progress through school (Meleen, 1992).

Upon completion of assessment, the EEP meeting, and approval for placement,

representatives of the school, and parents, are responsible for developmg a final

placement plan. Before student placement is made, several skills must be considered in

order to help determine placement m a least restrictive environment (Upper Midwest

Regional Resource Center, 1981). Dependmg on the disabihty, and the possible

placements, some students should be able to accept and respect authority, to follow

directions, and accept assignments without disagreement. Some placements require that

students should demonstrate appropriate management of tune in class, the ability to raise

their hand to gain recognition of teacher, and have minimal time spent in time-out. In

other settings students are expected to come to class prepared and with appropriate

materials. Still other situations call for the student to be able to demonstrate the ability

to organize theu* needed material and have the ability to work independently or with

others, as instructed (Upper Midwest Regional Resource Center, 1981).

The planning committee is challenged with the task of developing allied educational

programs and services that address the goals and objectives of each student (Meleen,

1992). For this to succeed, the committee must consider academic achievement goals,

social and physical development goals, and the classroom management needs of the

15

student. After placement of a student into a special education program, supportive

services may be offered.

Supportive services address the following needs of the student:

- adaptive physical education,

- special transportation,

- optimal participation in mclusion,

- audio-visual needs,

- special medical, psychiatric, etc., services,

- specific management techniques

for the student. (Meleen, 1992, p. 3)

Students will generally be placed into one of three programs: (I) regular classrooms;

(2) resource room; (3) separate or self-contained (special) classroom (O'Neil, 1988; see

Appendix C). Regular class programs include students that spend a majority of theu

time in a regular education classroom and spend less than 21% of their daily time outside

the regular classroom (Davis, 1994). Students with disabilities must be provided with

the opportunity to participate in a regular classroom program to the maximum

appropriate extent. These regular classroom students may require a related service or

supplemental assistance from a resource room.

Resource rooms are specialized supplemental mstructional programs designed for

students that requue services outside of the regular or special classroom. Instruction in

this setting may be given in small groups or on a one-on-one basis and must constitute at

least 21%, but not exceed 50%, of the school day (Davis, 1994). Special programs are

designed for students whose educational needs cannot be met, even with related services

or resource room programs. These programs include students that requu*e special

16

education services for more than 60% of the school day outside of the regular classroom

(Davis, 1994). It is important to realize, however, that the same objectives of the regular

classroom apply to the special classroom. Only the method of presentation of these

services differs (O'Neil, 1988).

Students may also be served as "504 students." Section 504 of the Rehabihtation Act

of 1973 pertains to students that have a debihtating mental or physical impairment that

presents hmitations for a major hfe activity. These activities may include such things as

walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, and learning. These students are entitled to special

education services that meet their particular needs (Meleen, 1992). Depending upon

these needs, school districts have several options that they may use independently or that

they may combine to develop the best options for the identified student. The student

may have curriculum modifications mcluding speciahzed instruction, adaptive equipment

and/or assistive technology. Students may have personal aides to assist in any way, even

with health-related acconmiodations. Students who are physically impaired may need

extra-curricular activity accommodations or even transportation to and from school

(Meleen, 1992).

Other students still may need more services than can best be provided in separate

schools, residential facilities, or home/bound hospital environments. Separate schools

are specialized facilities that provide services to students with disabihties for more than

50% of the school day. Pubhc or private residential facihties can provide similar services

for the same amount of time and can be at the pubhc expense. Homebound and

hospital-based programs are also available for providing these services (Davis, 1994).

Conclusion

Assessment, planning, and placement of individuals with special needs is a

multi-faceted process that, in order to succeed, depends upon the input of many

17

individuals and draws from many resources. The overall goal of this process is to

increase the number of educational opportunities for a student and to ensure that he or

she is provided a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The

process is driven by qualified professionals with the best interest of the student in mind

and guided by the input and suggestions of the student's parents. Collaboration between

all individuals and organizations involved in the process is a must.

How a regular classroom teacher perceives special education and students with

special needs can greatly influence how they respond to those students. Do they think

special needs students should be in regular classrooms? Do regular classroom teachers

know how to educate students with special needs? If not, how can they be better

prepared? Many times these perceptions are based on what regular classroom teachers

actually know about special education issues. Do regular classroom teachers know the

referral process for special education services? After they refer a student, do they know

the steps that will be taken to determine eligibility? Do regular classroom teachers know

about parental rights of students with special needs? Is special education legislation well

known by regular classroom teachers? These questions must be answered correctly and

with complete confidence to ensure that students with special needs are receivmg a

quality education by the regular classroom teacher.

There are many regulations pertaining to assessment, determining eligibility,

developing the Individuahzed Education Program (EEP), and determining the appropriate

placement of students with special needs. These regulations are vhal to ensuring the

rights of each student. As a resuh of these guidelmes and the protection they afford,

students with special needs are able to receive a quality and individualized education.

18

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Slibi££t&

The subjects were regular classroom teachers employed by a small Independent

School District with an enrollment of 1,321 students in West Texas. This survey sought

the input of regular classroom teachers; excluded from this study were teacher's aides,

custodians, administrators, diagnosticians, speech therapists, and counselors. Of the 86

subjects, 73 had a Bachelor's degree, and 13 had completed their Master's. Twenty-four

teachers taught in grades K-3, 17 teachers in grades 4-6, 14 teachers in junior high, and

31 teachers in high school. Twenty-four subjects had taught between zero to five years,

17 subjects had taught six to ten years, 13 subjects had 11-15 years of experience, 8

subjects had taught 16-20 years, and 24 teachers had taught 20 or more years. Nine

subjects were 20-30 years old, 30 subjects were between 31-40 years, 24 subjects fell

into the 41-45 age range, 19 subjects were 51-60 years old, and four subjects were 60 or

older.

Survey

A 50-question survey (Appendix B) was given to the subjects, and pencils were

provided. The survey included information on both regular classroom teachers

perceptions of special education and their actual knowledge of some of the issues of

special education.

p^yplnping the Survev

The survey was developed to determine regular classroom teachers perceptions and

knowledge of special education. Some of the questions were developed by looking at a 19

special education referral packet that regular classroom teachers must complete in Texas

before a student can be considered for special education. Other questions were taken

from the information provided in the review of literature m Chapter II. And still other

questions were added because of general questions raised by regular classroom teachers.

Revising of the Survey

Questions were field tested by allowing five elementary and five junior high school

regular classroom teachers to go through the survey and pomt out possible spots of

confusion. Four of the elementary teachers returned their surveys with noted

suggestions, as did 3 of the secondary teachers. There was also assistance of the thesis

committee members. Some questions were reworded to ehminate any double negatives,

and still other questions were deleted due to ambiguity. The completed rev ised survey

can be found in Appendix B.

Characteristics of the Survey

The perceptions' section asked the subjects to respond to a Likert scale. Options

included: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The 30 questions m

this section were broken down into three broad areas: inclusion, teacher preparation, and

legal perceptions. Following are sample questions that subjects were asked to respond

to: - Students with special needs are included in as

many testing and evaluation experiences with their non-disabled classmates as possible;

- My teacher preparation program has provided me with sufficient experiences for working with students with special needs;

- I understand EDEA (Individuals with Disabihties Education Act, formerly known as PL 94-142.)

20

Subjects were then asked to respond to 20 true/false questions based on then-

knowledge of special education. Knowledge questions covered four areas that mcluded:

referral to special education, ehgibihty, parental rights, and legal knowledge. For

example:

- Students may be referred because of excessive absences;

- Students can qualify for special education based solely on an IQ test;

- Parents can deny special education services for their children;

- Special education records are open to the pubUc.

Procedure

A cover letter provided the information that the survey was to complete requirements

for a master's thesis m special education. Confidentiahty was ensured and job security

was maintained as no names were used. Subjects were informed in the cover letter that

the survey covered two aspects: (1) how regular classroom teachers perceive special

education, and (2) what regular classroom teachers know about some of the issues of

special education. During a scheduled staff development day, permission was granted

to distribute the survey to the subjects. Tune was allowed for each subject to read and

complete the survey. After completion of the survey, it was placed m a box, and the

subjects returned to their staff development meetings. All surveys handed out were

completed and returned, hence a return rate of 100% was achieved.

21

CHAPTER FV

RESULTS

Data were collapsed to merge the responses "Strongly Agree" with "Agree," and

"Disagree" with "Strongly Disagree." Grouping questions together that targeted the

same general ideas allowed the resuhs to be broken down into seven areas. Three areas

dealing with teacher perceptions addressed mclusion, teacher preparation, and legal

perceptions. Four areas addressed teachers actual knowledge of the referral process,

ehgibihty, parental rights, and legal knowledge.

Perceptions of Special Education

Inclusion

Of the 20 perception questions in the area of mclusion, teachers responded agreeably

to nine statements. Responses on three items pointed to teacher planning or preparation

as a downfall for mclusion. Results as seen in Table 1 conclude that in this section of the

survey, some respondents favored total inclusion, while others favored self-contained

classrooms for students with special needs.

Teachers reported that they were comfortable with the idea of having a student with

special needs in their classroom (69.8% Agree), open to a different evaluation scale for

student with special needs placed m a regular classroom (91.8% Agree), understood that

students with learning disabilities can take more time to master a specific skill than their

peers without learning disabihties (79.1% Agree), and were comfortable using a different

behavior management plan for students with special needs (74.4% Agree). Teachers

also wanted students with special needs in then- neighborhood schools (66 2% Agree),

reported that students with mild handicapping conditions should be placed m the regular

classroom (88.4% Agree), and beheved that individual needs were addressed (or should 22

be) before placement m the regular classroom (57% Agree). The survey reflected that

students with special needs are mcluded in as many testing and evaluation experiences

with their non-disabled classmates as possible (73.2% Agree) and that students with

special needs are encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities (75.6% Agree).

On average approxhnately 75% of the regular classroom teacher surveyed reported that

they agreed with inclusion.

The respondents also placed restrictions on total inclusion by disagreemg (57%) that

education is strengthened by combining general and special education students

(mclusion). Only 33.7% of the teachers responded that mclusion provides equal

educational opportunity for all students. Over half (51.2%) of the teachers reported that

students with special needs should not be placed with their chronological-age peers.

Teachers (61.6%) were not open to having students with severe handicapping conditions

in theu- regular classroom, and 84.9% responded that special self-contained classrooms

should be available within the regular school. Inclusion on a full-tune basis was not

favored by 72.1% of the teachers surveyed, 65.2% stated that the least restrictive

environment is a self-contamed classroom, and 65.2% also perceived that special

educators have separate rooms or departments. On average 65% of the subjects

beheved that some sort of restrictions on inclusion were necessary or that they perceived

that they were not comfortable with total inclusion for some students with special needs.

Most teachers agreed that there is little or no support services for students with

special needs who are included in regular classrooms. Over 60% reported there were no

planned preparations made for the student before they were placed m the regular

classroom. Almost 80% noted that there were no special material or equipment available

to them if needed, and 89.5% reported that there was no reduction of the number of

students in a regular classroom when a student with special needs was placed in that

classroom. On average approximately 76% of the teachers perceived that they did not 23

have what they needed, either m materials or m support services, to appropriately

educate students with special needs.

Teacher Preparation

Teacher preparation for regular classroom teachers who are, or will be, working with

special education students is vital to ensure every student success. Resuhs of teacher

perceptions of special education are presented in Table 2.

Five perceptual questions were addressed concerning this issue. Only 21% of the

regular classroom teachers surveyed agreed that they had sufficient experiences in

working with students with special needs as part of theu teacher preparation programs.

Only 32.6% agreed that the school district provides necessary support services to

educate students with special needs. As few as 19.8% reported that the school district

made special education inservice training available. Time for meeting with other

professionals or parents to plan for students with special needs was also reported to be

msufificient by 64.5%.

According to the subjects surveyed, teacher preparation or support is an area in need

of improvement. On average, it was found that 70% of the teachers perceived that they

were hot provided with the support services or the training needed to appropriately

educate students with special needs.

I .egal Perceptions

Of the 86 subjects surveyed, only 37.3% claimed that they understood IDEA

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, formerly known as PL 94-142). The lEP

should follow the regular curriculum according to 54.7% of the teachers surveyed, and

74.7% of the teachers agreed that lEP's are to be hnplemented m both special education

and regular education classes. School buildmgs were thought to be accessible to 24

students who are physically challenged by 83.7% of the subjects. Overwhehningly,

SI.2% of regular classroom teachers surveyed beheved that special education teachers

have separate budgets and/or supervisors. Resuhs are hsted m Table 3.


Referral to Special Education

All regular educators (100%) agreed that referral to special education begins with

them. Two statements on why students may be referred were also heavily agreed upon.

In correct agreement, 90.7% of regular classroom teachers knew that referral may not

occur because of excessive absences. Teachers were also correct (89.5%) that students

may be referred because of academic diflficuhies in the classroom. Most teachers

(76.7%) correctly identified the statement that vision and hearing must be checked and

reported to be with normal range before assessment can begm. Overall, 89.2% of the

teachers surveyed correctly identified questions regarding the referral process. Results

are hsted in Table 4.

Eligibility

Subjects overwhehningly responded correctly in the area of ehgibihty to receive

special education services (resuhs are listed in Table 5). Most subjects (94.2%)

responded correctly to the statement that students who have been retained may be

eligible for special education services, and 88.4% of the subjects knew that students

identified as 'hmited English proficient' are ehgible for services. Most teachers (80.2%)

knew that you cannot quahfy a student based solely on an IQ test, but 53.5% thought

that two IQ assessments are required for qualification. Chronic health problems was a

correctly identified quahfier for services by 77.9% of the subjects. ADD and ADHD was

an area of disagreement for these subjects; 47.7% incorrectly agreed that students could 25

qualify for services based only on these disorders, while 52 3% disagreed. Teachers

correctly identified eligibihty issues m special education at a rate of 73%.

Parental Rights

Subjects responded accurately in the area of parental rights, with only one exception

(resuhs are hsted in Table 6). Subjects responded correctly that parents must be notified

before the assessment begins (100%), that initial assessment may not occur without

parental consent (84.9%), that parents must attend the initial placement meeting (64°o).

and that a parent can deny special education services for theu children (91.9° o).

However, subjects responded incorrectly that parents do not have to agree with the

placement; 89.5% of the subjects reported that parents must agree, which is false If

parents disagree, they can withdraw consent, or go to hearing for their child. Ov er 70%

of the teachers surveyed would have correct answers for parents concerning their rights

Legal Knowledge

Subjects had good understanding of most of the legal questions asked (resuhs are

listed in Table 7). Teachers responded correctly (58.1° o) that school principals do not

have final placement decisions, and 95.3% knew that special education records are not

open' to the pubhc. Subjects also responded correctly to questions that regular

educators have the right to disagree with the EEP by 86%, and 98.8° o responded that

modifications approved m the lEP must be followed in the regular classroom The only

legal issue to which subjects responded incorrectly was that a student's lEP may only be

changed during the annual ARD; this statement was answered mcorrectly by 65.1% of

the teachers surveyed Legal issues concerning placement, records and the lEP were

correctly responded to at a rate of 74.6%.

26

Table I. Perceptions of Special Education: Inclusion.

Statement Agree Disagree (%) (%)

Students with learning disabilities (LD) take 79.1 19.8 more time than their non-learning disabled peers to master a specific skill.

There should be a different evaluation scale 91.8 7.0 for a student with special needs in regular' classes.

I am comfortable usmg a different behavior 74 4 24 5 management plan for a student with special needs.

I am not comfortable with the idea of having 29 1 69 8 students with special needs in my classroom.

Education is strengthened by combming general 40 7 57.0 and special education students (inclusion).

Integrating students with special needs in regular 33 7 66 2 classrooms provides equal educational opportunity for all students.

Students with special needs should be placed in 66 2 33 7 their neighborhood schools.

Students with special needs should be placed in 48 8 512 classrooms with theu chronological-age peers.

Students with a mild handicapping condhion 88 4 11.7 should placed in a regular classroom setting.

Students with special needs with severe 61.6 38.4 handicapping condhions should not be placed in regular classrooms.

27

Table 1 continued


Special self-contained class programs should 84.9 15 2 be situated within regular schools.

Integration or inclusion means that every student 27 9 72.1 with special needs should be in the regular classroom on a full-time basis.

Before placement of a student whh special needs 37.2 60.5 in a regular classroom, carefully planned preparations are made with the regular classroom teacher.

Special materials and equipment are readily 19.8 79.1 available to the regular classroom teacher.

When a student with special needs is placed in a 10.5 89.5 regular class, the number of students in the class is reduced.

The least restrictive environment can be a 65.2 33.8 self-contained classroom.

Students with special needs are included in as 73.2 26.7 many testing and evaluation experiences with their non-disabled classmates as possible.

Special educators are isolated in separate rooms 65.2 34.9 or departments.

Students with special needs are placed m the regular 43.0 57.0 classroom without concern for their individual needs.

Students with special needs are encouraged to 75.6 23.2 participate in extracurricular activities.

28

Table 2 Perceptions of Special Education: Teacher Preparation.


My teacher preparation program has provided 21.0 779 me with sufficient experiences for working whh students with special needs

My school district has provided me with the 32.6 66.3 support necessary to educate students with special needs.

Special education in-service training is available 19 8 80 2 to regular classroom teachers on a regularly scheduled basis.

Time is made available to the regular classroom 43 0 57.0 teacher for consultation with parents, resource personnel, and coUeagues.

In-school teams meet regularly to plan for 27.9 72 1 students with special needs who have been integrated into regular classrooms.

29

Table 3 Perceptions of Special Education: Legal Perceptions.

Statement -\gree Disagree {%) (°o)

I understand EDEA (Individuals with Disabihties 37 3 61.6 Education Act, formerly known as PL 94-142)

Individualized Educational Plans (lEPs) are only 23 3 74 4

implemented m special education classes

An lEP follows the regular curriculum. 54 7 43 1

School buildings are accessible to the 83 7 14 0 students with special needs who are physically challenged. Special educators have separate budgets 87 2 12 8 and/or supervisors.

30

Table 4. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education; Referral.

Statement Correct Incorrect (%) (%)

Referral for special education services can 100.0 0.0 be initiated by a regular classroom teacher.

Students may be referred because of excessive 90.7 8.1 absences.

Students may only be referred to special 89 5 10.5 education because of academic difficulties in the classroom.

Vision and hearing must be checked and reported 76.7 22.1 to be within normal range before assessment can begm.

31

Table 5. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Eligibihty.


Students who have been retamed are not ehgible 94.2 5.8 for special education services.

Students who are identified as Timited Enghsh 88.4 11.6 proficient' are not ehgible for special education services.

Students can quahfy for special education 80 2 19.8 services based solely on an IQ test.

Children who are diagnosed as 'Attention Defich 52.3 47 7 Disorder' (ADD) or 'Attention Defich Hyperactive Disorder' (ADHD) can receive special education services based only on these disorders.

At least two IQ assessments are requhed before 45.3 53.5 qualification for placement in special education may occur.

Students that have chronic heahh problems may 77.9 20.9 qualify for special education services.

32

Table 6. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Parental Rights.


Parents must be notified before the assessment 100.0 0.0 begins.

Initial assessment may not occur without parental 84.9 15 1 consent.

Parents must attend the initial placement meeting. 64.0 36.0

Parents must agree with the placement. 10.5 895

Parents can deny special education services for 91.9 8.1 their children.

33

Table 7. Accuracy of Knowledge of Special Education: Legal Knowledge.


School Principals have authority for the final 58.1 41.9 placement for each child receiving special education services withm their buildings.

Special education records are 'open' to the public 95.3 3 5

A regular educator has the right to disagree whh 86.0 12 8 the lEP.

Modifications approved in the EEP must be followed 98.8 12 in the regular classroom.

A student's lEP may only be changed during the 34 9 65 1 annual Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) meeting.

34

Summary

Most of the teachers surveyed agreed that inclusion is the best educational method

for students whh special needs, but a few still favored self-contained classrooms. A

majority of the teachers perceived that they did not have what they needed to

appropriately educate students with special needs. Many teachers perceived httle was

provided for support services or training for educating students with special needs.

Teachers were in disagreement, reflecting low understanding, relating to questions

regarding legal perceptions, most teachers thought they had limited understanding of

legal issues. Teachers actual knowledge of special education was higher, reflecting a

good understanding , in the areas of parental rights, eligibility, and legal knowledge. It

was found that the strongest area of teacher knowledge was in the referral process.

35

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine regular classroom teachers perceptions of

special education and their actual knowledge of the special education process. It was

hypothesized that regular classroom teachers would be well prepared and comfortable

educating students with special needs in the school environment that was best for the

student. To examine at this hypothesis, two research questions were asked: (1) How do

regular education classroom teachers perceive special education in the areas of inclusion,

teacher preparation, and law; and (2) What do regular education classroom teachers

actually know about referral, eligibility, parental rights, and legal issues concerning

special education? While teachers generally reported that they were comfortable with

the inclusion of special education students in the regular classroom, there were several

areas that need to be addressed to ensure a quality individualized education for each

student with special needs. A total listing of the resuhs can be found in Appendix C.

Summary ofResuhs


Teachers' perceptions of inclusion was spht. Many of the same teachers who

support inclusion, also reported that there should be restrictions on who should be

allowed in regular classrooms, and there was strong support for self-contained classes

for students with severe disabihties. Many teachers reported that they did not have the

teacher preparation, the supplies, or the support services from the school district needed

to educate students with special needs. Teachers reported limited understanding of

IDEA and lEP.

36


Regular classroom teachers' actual knowledge of special education was an area of

better understanding. Overall regular classroom teachers had a good understanding of

the referral process for special education. Teachers also responded accurately to

questions regarding actual legal implication involving special education Ehgibilitv' issues

were correctly understood, as were parental rights.

Discussion of the Results

It is unrealistic to expect regular classroom teachers to welcome, successfully teach,

and manage a classroom of students with special needs when they feel unprepared to do

so. This survey did not determine which came first: that teachers perceived they did not

have the support services needed or necessary training to teach students with special

needs, or that they did not want some students with special needs in the regular

classroom setting. Most teachers agreed that students with special needs should be

included in the regular classroom setting, yet were leery of students with severe

disabilities. Regular classroom teachers may not get the necessary teacher preparation

for working wdth students with special needs in university training programs, or that the

school district does not place proper emphasis on the importance of the regular

classroom teacher knowing how to educate students with special needs, or a

combination of both. It could be that regular classroom teachers do not perceive that

they are responsible for educating all students, especially those with special needs. Or,

regular classroom teachers may just need to be educated and/or trained to work with

students with special needs.

37

Educational Implications

If k is truly that teachers do not get the necessary preparation for teaching students

with special needs in the college or university curriculum, then the school districts should

take the initiative to keep their teachers educated. This can be done by providing

inservice training, needed materials, and support services necessary for the regular

classroom teacher to be comfortable educating students whh special needs so that the

student will be successful in school. Another way to ensure that regular classroom

teachers are prepared to teach students whh special needs is to implement mandated

special education courses at the university level for every person seeking a professional

teaching certificate.

Based on the resuhs of this study, teachers perceive that they have limited support

services available and limited knowledge of special education. This particular school

district could opt to improve in these areas. Inservices or staff development on legal

issues of special education would benefit the regular classroom teachers. Areas to

address, in this particular school district, would pertain to legal issues, such as IDEA; or

EEP development; parental rights; and eligibility.

Directions for Future Research

Further research is needed to determine the most beneficial avenue for preparing

teachers to educate students whh special needs. The resuhs of the present study

suggested that regular classroom teachers are not prepared to deal with students whh

special needs in a regular classroom.

Further research is also needed to examine addhional factors that could affect teacher

perceptions of students with special needs, e.g., teacher-pupil ratio, administrative

support, or availability of materials needed. If school districts made the information

38

available on the issues needed, would teachers be more accepting of ALL students with

special needs in the regular classroom?

There are many more questions for future research in the area of regular classroom

teachers perceptions of special education. For example, if this survey were replicated in

another towTi whh more support services, would regular classroom teachers have the

same perceptions of special education'' Are today's teachers better prepared in the

college or university curriculum for dealing whh students with special needs than

established teacher's? Are today's college educated teachers given opportunity for

practical experience in teaching students whh special needs'i

Conclusion

It was hypothesized that regular classroom teachers would be well prepared and

comfortable educating students with special needs in the school environment that was

best for the student. What was discovered was that teachers are willing to educate most

students with special needs in the regular classroom setting. On the other hand, teachers

feel unprepared and unsupported to do so

39

REFERENCES

Angelis, P.J. (1977). Language testing and intelligence testing Friends or foes? Occasional papers on linguistics, no 1 Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers m Language Proficiency and Dommance Testing, Southern fllinois University, Carbondale, IL

Brophy, J.E., & Rohrkemper, M.M. (1982, March). Motivational factors in teachers' handhng of problem students Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Clarizio, H. (1992). Social maladjustment and emotional disturbance: Problems and positions II. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 331-341.

Cooper, K.L. & Rascon, L. (1994). Building poshive relationships on the border whh parents of special students: effective practices for the lEP Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Austin, TX.

Davis, S. (1994). 1994 update on inclusion in education of children with mental retardation. Arlington, TX: The Arc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 760).

Gonzalez, PA., Aheam, E.M., & Osher, T.W. (1994). Ehgibihty determination in special education: a review of state regulation pertaining to protecting in evaluation Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 519).

Hersh, R. & Walker, H.M. (1983). Great expectations; Making schools effective for aU children. Policy Studies Review. 2. 147-188.

Keogh, B. & Levitt, M. (1976). Special education in the mainstream; A confrontation of the limitations. Focus on Exceptional Children. 8. I-IO.

Kupper, L., (Ed). (1993). Questions and answers about the EDEA. NICHY News Digest^(2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 273).

Langdon, H., & Parker, D. (1982). Developing and bilingual individual education plan for language minority students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 456).

40

Meador, WW (1979). The public health nurse as a health professional in the special education process, Paper presented the 57th Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Dallas, TX

Meleen, P.J. (1992). Ehgibilitv guidelines for special education Boston, MA. Massachusetts Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 056).

O'Neil, J. (1988). How special' should the special ed curriculum be'' Experts debate merits of academics,'life skills' Curriculum Update (Sept 1988V (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 026).

Otos, M., Kilcrease, M., & Brazeau, K., (1992). Individualized education program: a special education technical assistance document Eugene, OR: Oregon Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 668).

Page, F.M. et al. (1987). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of discipline problems and methods of managing disruptive student behavior Research Association, Mobile, AL.

Podemski, R.S., March, GE., IE, Smith, T E C , & Price, B.J. (1995). Comprehensive administration of special education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Project FORUM. (1994, July). Assessment and eligibility in special education.

School, B.A., & Cooper, A. (1992). The lEP primer and the individualized program preschool through postsecondary transition Novato, CA Academic Therap\ Publications. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 789).

Scott, L.S. (1979). Identification of declassified smdents: characteristics and needs of the population. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 737).

TexasEducation Agency (1995). Rules and regulations for providing special education services: including federal regulations, state laws, and state board of education rules Division of Special Education, Austin, TX

Tumbull, H.R., III. (1993). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (4th ed V Denver, CO; Love

Upper Midwest Regional Resource Center. (1981). Programming for emotionally disturbed students in rural public schools. Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 785).

41

Walker, H.M. & Lamon, W. (1987). Social behavior standards and expectations of Australian and U.S. teacher groups. The Journal of Special Education. 2i(3), 56-82.

Walker H.M. & Rankin R. (1983). Assessmg behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settmgs. School Psychology Review 12, 274-284.

Waterman, B.B. (1994). Assessmg children for the presence of a disability NICHY News Digest. 4(n. 3-23

42

APPENDIX A

WHERE STUDENTS RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

43

Where Stlldents Receive Special Education Services

Resource (41%)

Other (8%)

Separate (24%)

Regular (26%)

Figure 1. Where Students Receive Special Education Services (O'Neil, 1988)

Other (includes separate public and private school or residential facility, correctional facility, or homebound environment).

Note: Figures do not total 100% due to rounding.

44

APPENDIX B

SURVEY

45

Dear CoUeague:

This survey is a portion of my thesis that will complete a degree of Master's of Special Education at Texas Tech University.

Completion of this survey wiU NOT affect your job, but your cooperation wih help me tremendously! Confidentiality will be maintained as your mane wiU not be used. However the resuhs of this report will be available after completion.

This survey is looking at two different points of view; (1) how regular classroom teachers perceive special education, and (2) what regular classroom teachers know about some of the legal issues of special education.

I am interested in your first thoughts, please refrain from changing any of your initial responses.

Please circle to indicate your response.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Kelly McCormick Graduate Student

46

1. Level of Education:

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctorate

2. What grade levels do you teach?

K-3

4-6

7-8

9-12

3. Number of years teaching experience:

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

20+

4. Age:

20-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61+

47


STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE .\gree Disagree DISAGREE

1. Students with learning disabihties S.A. A D SD (LD) take more time than their non-learning disabled peers to master a specific skiU.

2 I understand IDEA (Individuals SA A D SD with Disabihties Education Act. formerly known as PL 94-142).

3. Individuahzed Educational Plans S.A. .A. D SD (EEP's) are only hnplemented m special education classes.

4. There should be a different SA .A D SD evaluation scale for a student with special needs m "regular" classes.

5 .An lEP foUows the regular SA A D SD curriculum.

6. I am comfortable using a SA A D SD different behavior management plan for a students with special needs.

7. I am not comfortable with the S.A A E) SD

idea of having student with special needs m my classroom.

8. My teacher preparation program has provided me with sufficient experiences for working with students with special needs.

SA A D SD

48

STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE Agree Disagree DISAGREE

9. My school district has provided SA A D SD me with the support necessary to educate students with special needs.

10. Education is strengthened by SA A D SD combining general and special education students (inclusion).

11. Integrating students whh special S A A D SD needs in regular classrooms provides equal educational opportunity for all students.

12. Students with special needs SA A D SD should be placed in their neighborhood schools.

13. Students with special needs SA A D SD should be placed in classrooms whh their chronological-age peers.

14. Students whh a mild handicapping SA A D SD condhion should be placed m a regular classroom setting.

15. Students with special needs with SA A D SD severe handicapping conditions should not be placed in regular classroom settings.

16. Special self-contained class SA A D SD programs should be situated whhin regular schools.

49


17. Integration or inclusion means SA A D SD that every student with special needs should be in the regular classroom on a fiiU-time basis.

18. Before placement of a student SA A D SD whh special needs in a regular classroom, carefiilly planned preparations are made whh the regular classroom teacher.

19. Special materials and equipment SA A D SD are readily available to the regular classroom teacher.

20. When a student with special SA A D SD needs is placed in a regular class, the number of students in the class is reduced.

21. Special education in-service S A A D SD training is available to regular classroom teachers on a regularly scheduled basis.

22. Time is made available to the SA A D SD regular classroom teacher for consuhation with parents, resource persormel, and colleagues.

23. In-school teams meet regularly SA A D SD to plan for students with special needs who have been integrated into regular classrooms.

50


24. School buildings are accessible SA A D SD to the students with special needs who are physically chanenged.25. The least restrictive SA A D SD enviromnent can be a self-contained classroom.

26. Students whh special needs are SA A D SD included in as many testing and evaluation experiences with their nondisabled classmates as possible.

27. Special educators are isolated in SA A D SD separate rooms or departments.

28. Special educators have separate SA A D SD budgets and/or supervisors.

29. Students with special needs are SA A D SD placed in the regular classroom without concern for their individual needs.

30. Students whh special needs are SA A D SD encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities.

51


True False 1. Referral for special education services can be initiated by a regular

classroom teacher.

True False 2. Students may be referred because of excessive absences.

True False 3. Students who have been retained are not eligible for special education services.

True False 4. Students who are identified "limhed English proficient" are not eligible for special education services.

True False 5. Students may only be referred to special education because of academic diflficuhies in the classroom.

True False 6. Students can qualify for special education services based solely on an IQ test.

True False 7. Vision and hearing must be checked and reported to be within the

normal range before assessment can begin.

True False 8. Parents must be notified before the assessment begins.

True False 9. Initial assessment may not occur without parental consent.

True False 10. Parents must attend the placement lEP meeting.

True False 11. Parents must agree with the placement.

True False 12. Parents can deny special education services for their children. True False 13. Children diagnosed as "Attention Defich Disorder" (ADD) or

"Attention Defich Hyperactive Disorder" (ADHD) can receive special education services based only on these disorders.

True False 14 Two IQ assessments are required before quahfication for placement in special education may occur.

52

True False 15. School principals have authority for the final placement for each

child receiving special education services within their buildings

True False 16. Special education records are "open" to the public.

True False 17. A regular educator has the right to disagree with the EEP

True False 18. Students that have chronic health problems may qualify for special education services.

True False 19. Modifications approved in the EEP must be followed in the regular classroom.

True False 20. A student's lEP may only be changed during the annual Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) meeting.

53

APPENDIX C

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

54

Table 8. Resuhs of the Survey.

STRONGLY STRONGLY QUESTION AGREE Agree Disagree DISAGREE

(%) (%) (%) (%)

special needs in my classroom.

8. My teacher preparation program has provided me whh sufficient experiences for working with students whh special needs.

1. Students with learning disabilities 32.6 46.5 19.8 0.0 (LD) take more time than their non-learning disabled peers to master a specific skiU.

2. I understand IDEA (Individuals 4.7 32.6 45.3 16.3 whh Disabihties Education Act, formerly known as PL 94-142).

3. Individualized Educational Plans 1.2 22.1 52.3 22 1 (lEP's) are only implemented in special education classes.

4. There should be a different 17.4 74.4 7.0 0.0 evaluation scale for a student whh special needs in "regular" classes.

5. An lEP follows the regular 3.5 51.2 38.4 4.7 curriculum.

6. 1 am comfortable using a different 16.3 58.1 19.8 4.7 behavior management plan for a students whh special needs.

7. I am not comfortable with the 7.0 22.1 57.0 12.8 idea of having student with

7.0 14.0 40.7 372

55

Table 8. Conthiued


(%) (%) (%) (%)

9. My school district has provided 3.5 29.1 44.2 22 1 me with the support necessary to educate students with special needs.

10. Education is strengthened by 7.0 33.7 33.7 23.3 combining general and special education students (inclusion).

11. Integrating students with 5.8 27.9 45.3 20.9 special needs in regular classrooms provides equal educational opportunity for all students.

12. Students with special needs 8.1 58.1 26.7 7.0 should be placed in their neighborhood schools.

13. Students with special needs 2.3 46.5 44.2 7.0 should be placed in classrooms with their chronological-age peers.

14. Students with a mild 12.8 75.6 10.5 1.2 handicapping condition should be placed in a regular classroom setting.

15. Students with special needs 25.6 36.0 34.9 3.5 with severe handicapping conditions should not be placed in regular classroom settings.

56

Table 8. Continued


(%) (%) (%) (%)

16. Special self-contained class 15.1 69.8 14.0 12 programs should be situated within regular schools.

17. Integration or inclusion means 1.2 26.7 60.5 116 that every student with special needs should be in the regular classroom on a fuU-time basis.

18. Before placement of a student 9.3 27.9 37.2 23.3 with special needs in a regular classroom, carefiilly planned preparations are made with the regular classroom teacher.

19. Special materials and equipment 0.0 19.8 55.8 23 3 are readily available to the regular classroom teacher.

20. When a student with special 1.2 9.3 48.8 40.7 needs is placed m a regular class, the number of students in the class is reduced.

21. Special education in-service 3.5 16.3 52.3 27.9 training is available to regular classroom teachers on a regularly scheduled basis.

22. Time is made available to the 5.8 37.2 46.5 10.5 regular classroom teacher for consultation with parents, resource personnel, and colleagues.

57

Table 8. Continued

QUESTION STRONGLY

AGREE (%)

23. In-school teams meet regularly 3.5 to plan for students with special needs who have been integrated hito regular classrooms.

24. School buildings are accessible 16.3 to the students with special needs who are physically chahenged.

25. The least restrictive 10.5 environment can be a self-contained classroom.

STRONGLY Agree Disagree DISAGREE

(%) (%)

24.4

67.4

54.7

53.5

12.8

32.6

18.6

1.2

1.2

26. Students with special needs 8.1 are included m as many testing and evaluation experiences with their nondisabled classmates as possible.

27. Special educators are isolated in 14.0 separate rooms or departments.

28. Special educators have separate 19.8 budgets and/or supervisors.

29. Students with special needs are 7.0 placed in the regular classroom without concern for their individual needs.

30. Students with special needs are 11.6 encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities.

65.1 24.4 2.3

51.2

67.4

36.0

64.0

31.4

11.6

54.7

20.9

3.5

1.2

2.3

2.3

58

Table 8. Continued

Question True False (%) (%)

1 Referral for special education services can be initiated by a 100.0 0.0 regular classroom teacher.

2. Students may be referred because of excessive absences. 8.1 90 7

3. Students who have been retained are not eligible for 5.8 94.2 special education services.

4. Students who are identified "limited English proficient" are 11.6 88 4 not eligible for special education services.

5. Students may only be referred to special education because 10.5 89.5 of academic difficulties in the classroom

6. Students can qualify for special education services based 19.8 80 2 solely on an IQ test.

7 Vision and hearing must be checked and reported to be 76.7 22 1

within the normal range before assessment can begin.

8. Parents must be notified before the assessment begins,

9. Initial assessment may not occur without parental consent.

10. Parents must attend the placement lEP meeting.

11. Parents must agree with the placement.

12 Parents can deny special education services for their children.

13. Children diagnosed as "Attention Defich Disorder" 47 7 52 (ADD) or "Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder" (ADHD) can receive special education services based only on these disorders.

100.0

84.9

64.0

89.5

91.9

0.0

15 1

36.0

10.5

8.1

59

Table 8. Continued

Ime False Question (%) (%)

14. Two IQ assessments are required before quahfication for 53.5 45.3 placement in special education may occur.

15. School principals have authority for the final placement 41.9 58.1 for each child receiving special education services within

their buildings.

16. Special education records are "open" to the public. 3.5 95.3

17 A regular educator has the right to disagree whh the EEP. 86.0 12.8

18. Students that have chronic health problems may quahfy 77.9 20.9 for special education services.

19. Modifications approved in the lEP must be followed in 98.8 12 the regular classroom.

20. A student's lEP may only be changed during the annual 65.1 34 9 Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) meeting.

60

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a

master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely

available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly

purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor.

It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain

shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user

may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

lail. Student's Signature Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student's Signature Date

perceptions of special educ ation by regular …

Documents