Integrating students

7/29/2019 Integrating students

1/21

Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education

classes

Janney, Rachel E, Snell, Martha E,Beers, Mary K,Raynes, Maria. Exceptional

Children. Reston: Mar 1995. Vol. 61, Iss. 5; pg. 425, 15 pgs

Abstract (Summary)Interviews were conducted to gather advice about integration from general and special

education teachers and administrators from ten schools in five school districts where

students with moderate and severe disabilities had recently been integrated into general

education schools and classrooms.

Jump to indexing (document details)

Full Text (9068 words)

Copyright Council for Exceptional Children Mar 1995

There rarely seems to be a shortage of recommendations about how to improve our

schools (Fullan, 1991). The real task is more complex: to select recommendations that areboth needed and efficacious, to initiate the change, and to sustain its beneficial effects.

When school reform is involved, the change process is lengthy and may take 5-10 years

from initiation to stable establishment (Fullan).

The literature on educational change tells us that many factors influence the levels andpatterns of improvement outcomes. For example, if an innovation is initiated by someone

who has experience with it, particularly the chief district administrator, then change is

more likely (Huberman & Miles, 1984; LaRocque & Coleman, 1989). Huberman andMiles found that when teachers received assistance in mastering the skills required to

implement an innovation, they became more committed to the change as their effort and

skill increased. Huberman and Miles also found that initial use of an innovation typicallyis rough, and that smooth early use is "a bad sign" in terms of desirable outcomes (p.273). Finally, Bredo and Bredo (1975) found that incremental or localized change, in

contrast to systemwide change, may help a school's overall progress toward

institutionalizing the change for several reasons: Fewer conflicts arise with a small-scaletrial of the change, and professionals' autonomy is respected because those who are less

involved can observe the positive involvement of colleagues with a "wait and see"

attitude (p. 464).

Teachers, who characteristically are over-loaded to begin with, view proposed changewith skepticism (Lortie, 1975). Their initial perception of change is often in terms of a

variety of concerns about the impact of the change on their work and its benefits forstudents (Hall & Hord, 1987). As practitioners guided by an ethic of practicality,teachers' view toward change is similar to the notion of a cost-benefit comparison: They

weigh the impact that change will have on their time, energy, and routines against the

benefits it holds for their students (Doyle & Ponder, 1977-78). As Fullan (1991) noted,many innovations are adopted with no clear explanations to teachers of either their

benefits or implementation procedures. This fact, coupled with the provision of

inadequate resources to support implementation, often results in teachers' experiencing
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=17896&pcid=263043&SrchMode=3http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=26&did=1638964&SrchMode=1&sid=12&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1245092327&clientId=65085#indexinghttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=17896&pcid=263043&SrchMode=3http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=26&did=1638964&SrchMode=1&sid=12&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1245092327&clientId=65085#indexing


2/21

more costs than rewards. Further, the initial weighing of costs and benefits occurs before

teachers have had a chance to gain experience with the change and to reach an accurate

understanding of what it actually means for them.

Ambivalence about whether the change will be favorable is nearly always experienced

before the change is attempted. It is only by trying something that we can really know ifit works. The problem is compounded because first attempts are frequently awkward, not

providing a fair test of the idea. Support during initial trial is critical for getting throughthe first stages, as is some sign of progress. (Fullan, 1991, p. 129)

Special education has evolved with a tangential association to schools in general, and has

not been without its ills and recommended remedies. The ill of being separate and itsspillover effects on the children it serves has received considerable attention (Gartner &

Lipsky, 1987; Lytle, 1988; Oberti v. Clementon, 1993; Skrtic, 1991). The remedy of

integrating children with special needs into the mainstream of schools while providing

them with individualized sup ports is one educational reform made particularly complex

because it forces a tangential relationship between special and general education tointersect and become cooperative in nature (McLaughlin & Warren, 1992). (We use the

term integration to emphasize both the social and curricular aspects of attendance ingeneral education schools and classes by students needing special education supports and

services. We use the term full inclusion to refer to educating students with identified

disabilities in the school and classroom they would attend if not disabled viacollaboration by general and special educators to bring supports and services to the

student [Rogers, 1993]).

Several researchers have examined the change process involved in moving special

education students with moderate to severe disabilities into general education alongside

their peers (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, & Hollowood,1992; Ferguson, Meyer, Jeanchild, Juniper, & Zingo, 1992; Giangreco, Dennis,

Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Kozleski & Jackson, 1993; Salisbury,Palombaro, & Hollowood, 1993; York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neff, &

Caughey, 1992).

Collectively, these findings provide a stable foundation for the position that such change

can produce desirable results for children and schools, though they also lend support tothe complex nature of such change.

Most of the 19 kindergarten through 9th-grade teachers that Giangreco and his colleagues

(1993) studied who had an integrated student in their classes began with negative initial

feelings but later reported positive "transforming experiences" and benefits to allinvolved. Seventeen of the 19 teachers said their expectations and behavior toward the

included students had changed because of their willingness and action "to become

directly involved with the student with disabilities" (p. 370). With assistance and supportfrom special education staff, these teachers gradually began making both physical and

social contact with the student, learned how to include the student in class activities, and

developed a "sense of ownership" for the student. More than preparatory training, these


3/21

direct experiences with the included child were credited as being crucial to teachers'

changes in attitudes, expectations, and behavior.

Kozleski and Jackson's (1993) 3-year field study of Taylor, a student with severedisabilities, delved into the change process involved at the district, school, and classroom

levels for including this student in 3rd through 5th grade. At the district and school levels,Taylor's inclusion meant administrative and role changes due to the shift from a self-

contained, center-based model of special education to one where children with specialneeds were placed in their neighborhood school in general education classrooms with

individualized supports. Teachers and administrators reported that the difficulties were

related less to Taylor's disabilities than to staff skills and attitudes, mechanisms forproblem-solving, and the provision of supports to classroom staff. All three general

education teachers agreed that many out-of-class planning meetings should have been

replaced with supported assistance such as in-class observations of Taylor, teachercoaching, and direct modeling in the classroom (p. 169).

Salisbury et al. (1993) studied the inclusion of 26 students with mild to severe disabilitiesin general education elementary classrooms in their neighborhood school over a 2.5-year

period. Changes were observed in (a) policy that allowed more flexibility in staff rolesand reduced class size for teachers with included students, (b) pedagogy based on

collaboration and individualized curriculum adaptation, and (c) improvements in attitude

toward students with disabilities. The tone of classroom teachers toward these changesshifted over time "from resistance to cooperation to overt support" (p. 82). In agreement

with Huberman and Miles's (1984) study of innovations in schools, Salisbury et al. found

that "sustained progress occurred as staff experienced success in meeting the needs of

students with significant disabilities, felt supported, and made connections between theirvalues base and instructional practices" (p. 83).

In these studies, researchers reported initial resistance to the changes involved in moving

children with disabilities into general education classrooms, followed by generallywidespread approval of the reform as teachers gained supported experience with the

change and encountered success. Teachers and classmates voiced the power of their

direct experience with the included child, while teaching staff identified the critical

nature of collaboration with each other to define and provide support.

The present study extended the examination of the role of experience in altering teachers'

attitudes about educational change efforts designed to integrate students with moderate

and severe disabilities into general education classes. The purpose of the study was to

gather advice about integration from general and special education teachers andadministrators in five school districts where students with moderate or severe disabilities

had been recently integrated part time into general education schools and classes. The

intent was twofold: (a) to examine teachers' and administrators' judgments about thesuccess of integration efforts in which they had been involved, and (b) to examine their

perceptions of factors that had facilitated or hindered success. Implicit in the latter

purpose was an interest in examining general education teachers' perceptions of factorsthat had reduced their initial resistance to the change. It was assumed that the criteria by


4/21

which practitioners judge the success of integration efforts might be different from those

of an outside consultant or researcher. Therefore, the interest was not in determining

whether integration had been accomplished "successfully" according to recognizedindicators of effective practice. Rather, the interest was in studying participants' beliefs

and attitudes about the success of their own integration efforts.

METHOD

Participants and Settings

Participants were 53 teachers and administrators from five Virginia school districts thathad undertaken a planned effort to increase the integration of students with moderate or

severe disabilities into general education schools and classrooms. The initial change

efforts in these school districts had been promoted by special education directors who,with the approval of their district superintendents, had applied for technical assistance

from a statewide project. A total of 17 school districts were involved with the project,

which provided each school district with 3-4 days per month of onsite consultation.Project consultants facilitated systemwide planning efforts and also assisted up to three

schools per district to plan and implement their integration efforts. Although selecting

study participants from school districts that had been involved with the project created a

potential source of bias in the data, it should be noted that these districts were very nearlythe only school districts in the state that had systematically planned and implemented

integrated educational services for all their students with moderate and severe disabilities.

To examine possible effects of school district variables on perceptions of the integrationprocess, we conducted interviews in five school districts selected to provide a

representative sample of the 17 project districts, based on size, location, and degree of

integration (see Table 1). (Table 1 omitted) The stated integration goals in all five schooldistricts were to provide special education services for all students with moderate andsevere disabilities within age-appropriate, general education schools (not necessarily in

each student's neighborhood school), and also to provide several daily opportunities for

each student to be involved in classes and other school activities with their peers withoutdisabilities. All five districts had moved their students with moderate and severe

disabilities from age-inappropriate or separate schools into local, age-appropriate, general

education schools. However, much variation remained both within and across schooldistricts in the numbers and kinds of integrated classes and activities actually

implemented (Table 1).

We conducted interviews in the schools in these districts that had received on-site

technical assistance from the project for at least one semester. The sample of schoolscomprised three elementary schools, three junior high or middle schools, and four high

schools. These 10 schools had been involved with the project for from one to three

semesters. As shown in Table 1, the percentage of the school day for which individualstudents with moderate and severe disabilities were integrated into age-appropriate

general classes and activities ranged from 0% to 100%, with a median of approximately

25%. In the elementary school in District D, students were integrated from approximately


5/21

half-time to full-time into general classes. In elementary schools in Districts A, B, C, and

E, the majority of students were integrated into general classes for 1-2 hr per day,

primarily for "specials" (art, music, physical education, and library) and peer tutoring. Inthe middle schools, the junior high, and the high schools, students were integrated into

one or two class periods daily, typically vocational or nonacademic classes such as home

economics, chorus, or physical education.

We interviewed a special education director from each of the five school districts. In eachof the 10 schools, we interviewed the principal or assistant principal, 1 or 2 special

education teachers (12 in all), and from 2 to 4 general education teachers (26 in all). We

selected general education teachers on the basis of their having been involved in somecapacity with the integration effort. Because of time and scheduling constraints, we

interviewed approximately 80% of the general education teachers involved with

integration. General education teachers' involvement ranged from having a single studentwith a moderate or severe disability integrated into nonacademic classroom activities to

having an identified student integrated for the entire school day (Table 1). Because the

focus of the study was to gather advice from teachers and administrators experienced inthe integration process, we did not interview teachers who had not been involved in that

process.

Each participant was interviewed by one of the authors using a semi-standardized

interview with primarily open-ended questions. All four authors conducted interviews,but the two authors who were project consultants did not interview in school districts

where they had provided technical assistance (the other two authors were project

directors, and had not provided technical assistance to any project schools). The

interviews lasted from 30 to 90 min; most were conducted during the school day. Writtenpermission to tape record the interviews was secured from participants in advance.

Following background questions about professional experience and involvement with theintegration effort, we asked the following questions:

1. What is your general feeling about how integration is working here?

2. What makes you feel it has or has not been successful?

3. What has helped the most?

4. What have the biggest problems been?

5. Is there anything about this school or the school system that has either helped orhindered?

6. For integration to be successful, what do teachers need from central administration,from principals, and from other teachers?

7. Have your feelings about integration changed? If so, what made you change?


6/21

8. If another school district asked for advice about integration, what would you tell them?

Data Analysis

We transcribed interviews verbatim, and each interviewer reviewed them for accuracy.

As this was primarily a descriptive analysis, we purposefully sought out recurring themespertaining to the two primary interests that had served as the impetus for the study: (a) On

what factors did interviewees' judgments of successful integration efforts hinge

("success" themes)? and (b) What factors were perceived to have facilitated or hinderedsuccess ("advice" themes)?

The first author devised a preliminary list of themes related to "success" and "advice"

culled from all of the interviews. Advice themes were taken from responses to the

question specifically asking for advice to other school districts, as well as from anyreports of factors that had been helpful or detrimental to the integration effort. The other

three authors then searched their interviews for these themes, and for any additional or

contradictory themes. An average of nine advice themes and three success themes perinterview were identified. To assess the reliability of the coding procedure, the first

author's coding of six randomly selected interviews conducted by the other authors was

compared to that of the author who had conducted each of these six interviews. An

average of virtually 100% agreement on the identification of relevant units, and 87%agreement on the coding of those units, was achieved. The authors then revised the list of

themes and subthemes, using inductive analysis techniques (Patton, 1990). The initial 50

themes were eventually organized into 2 primary themes defining success and 15 themesof advice. For example, general education teachers' advice to their peers included a

variety of references to the importance of teamwork, cooperation, working together with

the special education teacher, and engaging in ongoing problem-solving. All such themes

were ultimately included in the major theme "Problem-solve as a team."

The ramifications of possible bias in the data because of the authors' involvement with

the technical assistance project were moderated in several ways. First, and most

important, the purpose of this study was not to generate or test generalizable educationalchange strategies; this task has already been ably accomplished (e.g., Fullan, 1991;

Goodlad, 1984; Sarason, 1990). However, as we see school districts continue to

undertake reform efforts in ways that are inconsistent with what we know about effectivechange strategies, we clearly need to increase our understanding of why those strategies

ought to be used. Thus, we also need to learn more about how teachers and principals

who implement integration or other changes think and feel about them. In addition, the

project was designed to maintain local ownership of the change process; districtrepresentatives and teachers themselves determined the exact nature, pace, and degree of

change implemented. Many of the changes made were not specifically recommended or

endorsed by the project, but were determined by local school district planning teams.

The themes presented in the following section are based on modal responses and

perspectives revealed by interviewees. Where there were distinctions among groups, or if

any individual's responses clearly contradicted the modal response, those distinctions are


7/21

discussed. All indented material and material within quotation marks are direct quotes

from the interviews. Teacher sources are identified by referring to the school district

(Districts A through E, as indicated on Table 1), the school level, and the subject taught.Administrator sources are identified by school district and role (i.e., special education

director or principal). Quotations were chosen based on their clarity and

representativeness, not on their uniqueness.

RESULTS

There were two major themes defining success (benefits and costs) and 15 themes of

advice. Advice themes essentially comprised the elements of support required from

district administrators, building administrators, special education teachers, and generaleducation teachers, and are organized accordingly. The primary role-specific divisions in

the advice given were in the direction in which those interviewed turned for support, with

special education administrators and principals turning to superintendents, and teachers

turning primarily to principals and to each other. Because of space limitations and the

centrality of the teacher' s role to implementation of the change, the perspectives ofteachers will be emphasized over those of principals and district administrators.

Criteria for Success: Benefits Outweigh Costs

All interviewees but one reported the integration effort in their schools to have beensuccessful. (The high school special education teacher in District D was dissatisfied with

the slow pace of the change, and believed the special education students could have been

integrated more frequently and more effectively.) When asked to describe the criteria forsuccess, interviewees in all roles related the many positive benefits for students; general

and special education teachers also related the limited effect on their workload. Thus,

teachers' judgments of success were based on weighing the costs in terms of their timeand energy against the rewards in terms of benefits for students. This implicit cost-benefitanalysis constituted the basis for the primary advice offered by teachers to professional

peers, as illustrated by the advice offered to other school districts by the elementary

school special education teacher in District D:

I'd tell them to do it. I think it's really beneficial and it's not as difficult as you might firstanticipate it to be. I think you see the benefits right away in the children with disabilities

and the children without disabilities.

Perceived benefits for integrated students included increased independence and improved

functional skills for students having moderate disabilities, and increased alertness andinterest in the environment for students having the most severe disabilities. However,

social benefits, including acquiring age-appropriate behaviors and tastes, developing

friendships, "being a part" of the school and classroom community, and increased self-esteem, were emphasized. The students without disabilities were perceived to have grown

in their self-esteem and in their acceptance of individual differences. Generalized benefits

to the school and community also were noted: "It's made a good atmosphere for ourwhole school. Our children are so much more aware of others, and I think it's made them


8/21

less self-centered. And it's made us teachers more aware, too," said one 3rd-grade teacher

in District B.

The assessment of costs was based on teachers' having received necessary and sufficientsupports so that integration had not resulted in extraordinary workloads for them. The

majority of general education teachers were hesitant initially to integrate a student in theirclassroom, and had anticipated a worst-case scenario wherein they and the integrated

student would be left to fend for themselves. Because the supports described later in thispaper had been provided, and because teachers became, in the words of the middle school

art teacher in District D, "hooked" on the benefits for students, teachers reported that their

fears were soon mitigated. Even the two teachers (the middle school art and high schooleconomics teachers in District D) who said that integration had resulted in more work for

them believed that the benefits outweighed the costs.

Advice for District Administrators

Specific advice from principals and teachers for district administrators was relativelyscant and can be summarized as follows: Give us the go ahead, provide the resources we

need, and then show us that what we've done is appreciated. For instance, when asked

what had been required from central office, the high school principal in District D

replied: "Support. That's all they can give us. Some direction maybe, and support. Wehave to do it on this level." Advice from district administrators for their peers did not

conflict with this synopsis, but indicated that providing direction and support required

more skill than was apparent on the surface.

Give a "Green Light" to Do What's Best for All Students, Principals and teachers

believed that their integration efforts had been facilitated by district administrators who

had clearly communicated a general goal or mission for the school district thatencompassed integration as a way to achieve positive outcomes for students withdisabilities. Principals and teachers were adamant in not wanting a mandate or specific

implementation guidelines, which were perceived as anathema to the flexibility needed to

address students' individual needs. (The 4th-grade teacher in District E advised districtadministrators: "Tell them to get rid of the curriculums and let us teach what we want so

we can include everybody in it.") The teachers and principals interviewed believed the

"opportunity" or "go ahead" to undertake school integration efforts was best provided bya district mission statement to the effect that a quality education should be provided for

all students. The middle school principal in District C reported finding the administrative

support needed for the school's integration efforts in such a mission statement: "The word

'all' is the key component....So we do have the green light to do whatever is educationalimprovement--to provide the very best opportunities for each student."

Direct Without Dictating, The district administrators interviewed had wanted to promote

integration and not just give schools a "green light." However, they also realized theimportance of participatory planning and decision making: "Do not plan it and then

present it to the people implementing it," warned the special education administrator in


9/21

District D. Like the other four district administrators, this administrator advised

promoting integration by focusing on its benefits for students.

I had to try to convince them [teachers] that what we wanted to do was a good programfor children. And if I didn't get caught up in what I philosophically believed in or what

legally was required, but [stressed that] it was good for children, I found that I couldconvince them that it was worth a try.

Many general education teachers who reported feeling "hesitant" initially said they hadlater decided to "give it a try," based precisely on the selling point of potential benefits

for students. As noted previously, those benefits became the basis on which they advised

other teachers to get involved with integration.

Once integration was adopted at the school level, district administrators then foundthemselves in the difficult position of recognizing the need for buildings to "do it at their

level" and yet wanting to provide support and leadership for effective implementation.

The special education administrator in District D described the conflict that had arisendespite efforts to provide needed information without pushing integration onto teachers.

This administrator had organized a planning meeting for teachers in schools where

students with moderate and severe disabilities already were integrated for significant

portions of the day. Just as the teachers and principals interviewed advised, the meetinghad been designed as a forum for district administrators to provide guidance and

information while also engaging teachers in participatory planning and indicating they

would be trusted to implement the change toward greater integration. Even so, themeeting resulted in misunderstanding and confrontation. The administrator reflected on

this during the interview:

People were frustrated that I was telling them what they had to do, and I made it veryclear, I was not telling them how the program would operate. But that was alsofrustrating, because they felt...they were just told: "This is the program," but they were

given no direction. And we [did that because we] want the program to be what is needed

for those students in that school So it's a real fine line, in staying out completely butgetting involved too much.

Advice for Principals

Advice regarding administrative support focused primarily on principals. Although the

principals and teachers interviewed realized that the initial responsibility for procuring

resources lay with district administrators, responsibility for getting access to resources,including staff, materials, and inservice training and for handling logistics such as

scheduling and transportation, was seen to lie with building administrators.

"Set a Positive Tone." The principal "sets the tone" in the building, and his or her positiveattitude toward the integration effort, and toward the students with disabilities

themselves, was seen as imperative to success. Interviewees from each school noted that

a collaborative, problem-solving orientation was one aspect of the tone established by


10/21

supportive principals. Phrases such as "This is a very team-oriented school" (District

E/middle school/reading) appeared in interviews from each school.

For teachers, a facilitative school climate also encompassed respect for teachers asprofessionals. The assistant principal of the elementary school in District D summarized

the need to treat teachers like professionals, especially when asking them to undertake therisks inherent in implementing change:

I think...they know that they have support, and also they are given a lot ofdiscretion...They feel like they're trusted, and that they are treated as professionals. So

therefore, they're more willing to take on new ideas and new challenges more so than a

teacher who...may be told everything to do and when to do it. I don't think that type ofteacher would be so willing to want to change.

Start with Teacher Volunteers. A primary recommendation for operationalizing this

respect for teacher autonomy was to begin with teacher volunteers--those who are

"interested and willing," perhaps because they have had previous contact with thestudents, or because they are "open-minded," "flexible," and "willing to take risks." The

high school English teacher in District E described the importance of this approach:

"[The special education staff] contacted people who were interested to begin with....If

they were to have pushed on us, I think the pushing would have created resistance."

Our interviewees believed that the best way to encourage more teachers to get involved

was by providing information and example, and were confident that using volunteers

initially would ultimately yield maximum results as "teachers with experience encourageothers" (District D/high school/drama). The elementary school principal in District B

explained: "Teachers here have seen the successes and want to be part of it....Everybody

looks on and says 'I'd love to be able to...have those successes.'" This was anotherexample of the positive outcomes for students being viewed as a powerful force forpromoting further integration.

"Involve Everyone in Preparation and Planning." Virtually every interviewee

recommended taking a "team approach" to planning by getting input from everyone

involved, including parents, teachers, and related service providers, regarding how andwhen to integrate students. Team planning was valued not only because it resulted in a

smoother and more efficient change, but because it demonstrated respect for teachers'

professionalism by seeking their recommendations and opinions. Accordingly, theprincipal of the elementary school in District B advised other principals to "get

information yourself and share ideas with staff, ask how this can work in our school,"

rather than informing staff "we're going to do this."

Maintaining good communication among everyone involved was also viewed as criticalto success, although no specific strategies for doing so were provided.

Provide Information, Orientation, and Training. Over two thirds of our interviewees

spontaneously mentioned the value of principals' bringing in new and relevant


11/21

information from a variety of sources. They recommended the provision of inservice

workshops, on-site consultants, visits to integrated schools, and opportunities to talk with

other educators and parents who have implemented integrated services.

According to teacher interviewees, the purpose of initial informational and training

activities should be to address the personal and professional attitudes and fears that theybelieved to be the greatest initial barriers to integration. The high school home economics

teacher in District D expressed her initial concerns, which were very typical, this way:"For awhile I fought it, because I kept thinking: What can I actually give, how can they

learn from me, they won't be able to keep up, will I hamper my other students' progress?"

Initial resistance was also attributed to fears about persons with disabilities in general.This perception was expressed by the 4th-grade teacher in District E: "[It's] fear of the

unknown....You're afraid they might hurt you or you might hurt them. [It's a] lack of

education, not knowing what to expect."

General education teachers emphasized the importance of professional development

activities in reducing these apprehensions, correcting inaccurate assumptions, and hencechanging attitudes and garnering support for the effort. Early on, general education

teachers wanted to know what the purpose of attending general classes would be forstudents with disabilities, who presumably could not complete typical classroom

objectives. They wanted to know what would be expected of them as that student's

teacher, and what support mechanisms would be provided to them and to the student.Once a particular student was attending their class, classroom teachers wanted more

specific information about strategies to include that student in classroom activities. The

preference was for this information to come from the special education teacher and other

involved teachers via informal team meetings and personal exchanges, rather than fromformal inservice training sessions. Thus, principals needed to recognize special education

teachers' new responsibilities and provide time to fulfill them.

Provide Resources and Handle the Logistics. Though teachers described personal andprofessional fears as the greatest initial barriers to integration, they said that the primary

implementation barriers they had encountered were logistical and environmental.

Teachers advised that it is important for principals to facilitate and support integration

efforts by making sure the building is accessible, getting adequate resources (staff,equipment, and materials), and handling scheduling in a timely fashion. These logistical

and material supports were viewed as important in a practical sense and also important

strategically as a way to signify that integration is valued. Although administratorsemphasized the need to "sell it" and to provide "good public relations" for integration or

any change, teachers were cognizant of the distinction between just talking about it and

following through. The message to administrators was clear: If you want successfulintegration, make it a priority and follow up on it--do not just pay lip service to the

theory. Superficial support may help get things started, but ongoing support requires

following through on action plans.

Pace: "Start Small and Build." Advice regarding the pace of change was a strong theme.The nearly unanimous advice in this regard was to "start small and build." Slowly paced


12/21

change--in terms of the amount of time students with disabilities spent in general

education--was advised as one way to respect teacher's initial fears and perceptions.

"Take it one step at a time. Give yourself some time to get used to it and for the [generaleducation teachers] to get used to it," advised the elementary special education teacher in

District B.

Give Teachers "The Freedom to Do It." Virtually every teacher emphasized that respect

for their professional autonomy was important both to the initiation and implementationof integration efforts. Teachers explained they did not mind having to get permission

from an administrator to try something new or different, but once given that okay, they

wanted to have the professional autonomy to make decisions about implementation. "Itneeded to be understood what they expected of us and what they wanted us to do, and

then let us have the freedom to do that," noted the elementary special education teacher in

District B. In District E, one elementary special education teacher said of the principal:

She has been supportive, yet she's left us alone to work things through....I think she's

treated us like...professionals and...if we needed something or we wanted to talk with herabout something, her door was open...but as far as running the day-to-day type stuff...she

says "This is what's expected" in the beginning and then she has left us to do that.

Teachers in 4 of the 10 schools volunteered that even though they wanted to work outcertain aspects of the change for themselves, they did not want their efforts to go

unnoticed. Recognition for their efforts, and "pats on the back" from both building and

central office administrators were highly valued by these teachers.

Advice for Special Education Teachers

The general education teachers interviewed based their positive evaluation of theintegration effort on the fact that it had resulted in positive outcomes for students but had

not significantly increased their workloads. One reason integration had not resulted inmore work for general education teachers was that their special education counterparts

had provided effective supports, including both interpersonal and task-related supports.

Interpersonal Supports. General education teachers stressed the importance of the special

education teacher's manner and personality in determining their satisfaction with thesupports provided by him or her. Over one third of the interviewees mentioned the

importance of the special educator's personality or affect in ensuring the success of the

integration effort. "Good rapport with others," "enthusiasm," "a positive attitude," and

being "flexible," "low key, [and] nonthreatening," were among the recurring descriptorsof special education teachers' facilitating interpersonal qualities.

Task-Related Supports. The first task-related support special education teachers were

advised to provide for receiving teachers was preparatory information about integratedstudents' abilities, needs, and goals. "Let them know about their handicaps--things they

might do well and things that they might have a problem with," recommended the middle

school art teacher in District E.


13/21

Mutual planning and cooperation were viewed as essential to the design of ongoing

supports. Special education teachers were advised to get input from general education

teachers about where and when to integrate the student, when an extra staff person isneeded, and when assistance is required in adapting materials or activities. None of the

general education teachers specifically advised that special education staff always

accompany the integrated student into the general classroom. Instead, they urged specialeducation staff to be present if the general education teacher felt it was necessary.

Although at least half of the general education teachers interviewed were taking much or

all of the responsibility for both the planning and the implementation of integratedclassroom activities, the special education teachers were still expected to coordinate the

process and to be accessible and willing to answer questions. The general and special

education teachers interviewed stressed the need for "flexible" supports, which in most

cases meant a decrease in the level of support over time.

Advice for General Education Teachers

"Have an Open Mind." Although classroom teachers reported that their own initial fearsabout integration had focused on questions about how they would teach the students with

disabilities, the dominant theme in the advice for their professional peers emphasizedchanging attitudes and beliefs. For example, the reading teacher at the middle school in

District E urged other teachers to "throw all your hesitation, anxieties, and predrawn

conclusions out the window [and] give the kids a chance." The high school physicaleducation teacher in District A advised:

Well, I just, I would go in with an open mind, don't be closed-minded....I think what's on

every teacher's mind [is] the fact that, oh no, this is double the workload and double the

problems that you might have. And I think the best thing they can do is wait, and talk it

over and see the situation, and at least try. There's always modifications you can make ifsomething is not working out.

General education teachers who initially had been hesitant to get involved (22 of the 26)

judged that their original fears and expectations were based on inaccurate preconceptionsabout the integrated student's needs and abilities. By getting to know the students with

disabilities on an individual basis, they had gained both knowledge of the student's

unique abilities and a new perspective on disabilities in general. "I guess we just reallyhad never thought about them being 'normal.' They really are," explained the junior high

math teacher in District C. These general education teachers' attitudes toward integration

also had been changed by finding that it was personally and professionally rewarding to

work with the integrated students, a sentiment expressed in these words by the highschool physical education teacher in District A: "These kids seem to appreciate you a lot

more...and that's a little pat on the back for the teacher." Such rewards had generated a

commitment to integration in these teachers such that several, including the high schooldrama teacher in District D, said that the only "problem" with integration in their schools

was "there's not enough of it."


14/21

Problem-Salve as a Team. Regarding the "how to" of implementing integrated classes,

the primary advice offered to general education teachers was to "work as a team" and

take a "problem-solving" approach. Although only the elementary school in District Dhad implemented formal, collaborative student-centered planning teams, few teachers

mentioned wanting more time to plan together. It is not clear whether this was because

intensive planning was not required to make the sorts of instructional adaptations beingused or because interviewees perceived such a request to be nonfeasible, but no doubt

both factors came into play. Nonetheless, teachers emphasized the need for collaborative

values and orientations and advised others to cooperate, develop good communicationbetween special and general education teachers, and ask a lot of questions. The middle

school reading teacher in District E summed up this theme as follows: "Work as a team,

do a lot of brainstorming...talk things through...and then experiment."

Help the Student to Belong. The majority of general education teachers advised that partof their role in ensuring successful integration was to help the integrated student feel he

or she belonged to the school community and was a member of the class. Teachers

proudly mentioned things they had done to that end, such as sending class newslettershome, including the student in the class picture and in daily roll call, putting the student's

work on the bulletin board, and making sure other students in the class knew how to

interact with him or her.

General education teachers stressed the primacy of their role in fostering positiverelationships among the students with and without disabilities, and noted that the

nondisabled students had taken their cue about how to interact from the teacher. For

example, the high school home economics teacher in District D said: "By my accepting

them and...talking to them just like the other students, and not making them different, theother kids will accept them like I did."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This commonsensical, practical advice provides insight into the ways administrators and

teachers view reform efforts designed to integrate students with moderate and severedisabilities into general education. The practicality ethic that influences teachers'

orientation toward change proposals (Doyle & Ponder, 1977-78) was much in evidence in

the initial "resistance" expressed by the general education teachers interviewed. Alreadywary of reforms and overloaded with work, general education teachers' initial balancing

of the anticipated high costs of integration against its uncertain benefits created hesitation

or resistance. Following their implementation experiences, teachers reevaluated the

balance between the costs of teacher time and energy as compared to the benefits forstudents, and judged the integration effort successful.

This advice also generally is consistent with the existing literature on implementing

educational change (e.g., Fullan, 1991; Sarason, 1990; Taylor, 1982). However, becauseit is expressed in terms of practitioners' perspectives and orientations, it can assist us to

better understand why effective strategies work. The findings regarding the process by

which the initial resistance of general education teachers toward integration was


15/21

overcome have several implications for those who wish either to initiate the first steps

toward integrated special education, or to ensure that incomplete change such as that

accomplished by these 10 schools will be enlarged and sustained. We discuss threeimplications: (a) leadership in setting goals and providing the resources to achieve them,

(b) gradual or incremental introduction of change, and (c) participatory planning and

decision making.

Top-Down Leadership and Bottom-Up Implementation: A Balancing Act forAdministrators

One challenge to the change process lies in the tension between the leadership and

support functions of administrators--especially district administrators--wishing topromote school integration or other reforms. Despite the perceptions of these teachers

and principals that district administrators had a limited role in their school's integration

efforts, these district administrators had not simply given a "green light" to the change,

but had procured technical assistance and had engaged in many months of advanced

planning and preparation. Each of the district administrators interviewed spoke of thechallenge of providing direction and assistance while at the same time ensuring

participatory planning, site-based decision making, and teacher autonomy. The use ofmethods consistent with Purkey and Smith's (1985) recommendation that school reform

efforts be guided by top-down leadership while allowing the teachers and principals who

ultimately must execute the change to engage in bottom-up planning and implementation,had resulted in reducing some of the initial resistance to the change at the school level.

Fullan (1991) recommends that "change should be a negotiated process," wherein

administrators create incentives and the conditions for change, but schools are given the

responsibility and flexibility to implement them (p. 211). Administrators must realize,

however, that simply giving teachers the freedom to execute innovations as they choosedoes not necessarily result in effective implementation; continued support and technical

assistance must be provided.

Incremental Introduction of the Change

A second important implication is that if general education teachers are to becomecommitted to the change, they need to gain an understanding of the purpose of

integration. The anxiety that general education teachers may feel about the prospect of

integrating a student with intensive needs relates to teachers' typical way of measuringtheir effectiveness and finding rewards. Teachers achieve their rewards by "reaching"

individual students, and they rely largely on their own powers of observation to

determine their effectiveness (Lortie, 1975). When the general education teachersinterviewed initially encountered students with moderate and severe disabilities, they did

not know how to determine what the students could do or learn; therefore, these teachers

did not understand what the benefits of integration would be. Over time, as they got toknow the integrated students, teachers became able to perceive the integrated students'

progress. Thus, some resistance was broken down by the development of a student-

teacher relationship. This process was facilitated by the self-selection of general


16/21

education teachers who had an "open mind," and by special education teachers who

provided practical information about integrated students' abilities and learning goals.

The process of educators' undergoing a "transforming experience" has been reportedelsewhere (Giangreco et al., 1993) and was reinforced in these interviews. One

implication of this process may be, as Giangreco and others have suggested, that initialprofessional development activities should emphasize person-to-person sharing of those

experiences, rather than inservice training in specific techniques for implementation.Teachers are more likely to believe their peers' judgments of the worth of an innovation

than those of an administrator or outside consultant (Huberman & Miles, 1984). In our

interviewees' terms, "start small and build" to create opportunities for teachers to seetrusted colleagues having success with the change.

Creating a Collaborative Culture

Another source of resistance to integration stems from the fact that teachers work under

conditions described by Goodlad (1984) as "autonomous isolation" (p. 186). That is, theyare used to working and making many decisions alone, with few links to other teachers.

Therefore, teachers assume that any change will have to be accomplished independently,

resulting in "double the workload" for them. However, when these general education

teachers realized that they had input into determining the pace and degree of integration,and also discovered the rewards of cooperative interaction with supportive, enthusiastic

special education teachers, the resistance that stemmed from fears about integration's

effect on their workload were quelled.

Even though the majority of general education teachers in these schools were not

engaged in the formal consultation or collaborative teaching with special educators that

probably is necessary for full social and academic inclusion of students with intensiveneeds, they were engaging in enough collaborative activity to have achieved a sense thatthey were not working alone, that there was someone to turn to for help, and that what

they were doing was valued and appreciated. Others who study educational reform

(Fullan, 1991; Sarason, 1990) have also concluded that real educational change occurs asa function of committed people and shared decision making. Fullan (1991) maintained

that the level and degree of successful educational change relates to the extent to which

teachers interact with one another. Change is a process that requires teachers to reachnew understandings about their work, its purpose, how to accomplish it, and how their

work connects with others'.

Thus, a third implication for promoters of change is to focus change strategies on

people--their fears and their needs for their opinions to be respected and their workvalued--and on building a collaborative culture in the school and assisting teachers to

develop the skills required for collaborative service delivery. Our interviewees translated

Fullan's (1991) comment that change is a step-by-step process of constructing a newshared reality as: "Go in with an open mind," "work together," and "talk things over."

Limitations


17/21

The perspectives of these interviewees may not generalize to school districts at all stages

in the change process, or to schools that have not received the technical assistance

provided to these schools. However, the consistency across school districts, schools, andindividuals with regard to the general thrust of the advice offered suggests certain

perspectives toward change in general and integration in particular that may be shared by

others who fill similar roles and are undertaking similar reforms.

One limitation of this advice is that it emphasizes achieving a rather modest degree ofintegration, and does little to increase our understanding of the process of making

instructional modifications and designing individualized supports for integrated students.

However, because 73% of students with mental retardation nationally are still in separateclasses and schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1992), many school districts are at

the stage of seeking greater physical and social integration and are not yet aiming for the

academic or instructional integration required for full inclusion. As many school districtscontinue to attempt to make changes without using sound change strategies, we clearly

need to better disseminate such strategies. Further, we must recognize that regardless of

how modest the changes that occurred in these school districts might appear to others,they were experienced as significant by these interviewees. Understanding educational

change requires understanding how it feels to implementers.

Because of the authors' roles in providing technical assistance to the school districts

involved in this study, the interview data regarding the effectiveness of that technicalassistance have not been used. Although it is not certain how interviewees' knowledge of

that involvement influenced their responses, it was evident that they did not succeed in

saying only what the researchers wanted to hear. For example, we had hoped that more

teachers would say integration did require extra work but was worth the effort, becausesuch a response would indicate that a great deal of change had occurred. Instead, all but

two general education teachers reported that it had not required much additional work,because significant curricular modifications were not being made. With regard to theinfluence of having received technical assistance on interviewees' attitudes about

integration, we would concur with Fullan (1991) and others who have studied educational

change: The provision of such assistance is a necessary condition for the implementationof a complex change such as integration.

Resistance Is Natural

General education teachers faced for the first time with the prospect of integrating a

student having a moderate or severe disability into their classrooms will naturally respond

based on their existing expectations about schools, classrooms, students, and teaching. Itis clear that if the educators who were the original proponents of integration in these 10

schools where we interviewed had been daunted by the initial resistance, these efforts,

later perceived as positive by the educators involved, would never have transpired.Resistance is by definition a response to an impending change that will have a personal

impact; it would not arise without change efforts (Karp, 1984). The initial resistance that

stems from natural fears and confusion about how change will affect one's work should


18/21

be viewed as a natural part of the change process, rather than as an indication that the

change will be impossible to accomplish.

Promoters of change should also remember that the resistance felt by those who willimplement a proposed change is exacerbated when the central role they must play in the

change process is not acknowledged. School integration efforts must addresspractitioners' fears through initial collegial exchanges focused on personal reflection.

These change efforts must also continue to support the refinement and expansion ofintegrated learning activities through the development of a collaborative ethos and

practice. These collegial exchanges and support systems will best serve the needs of both

supporters and implementers--students and teachers alike.

REFERENCES

Bredo, A. E., & Bredo, E. R. (1975). Effects of environment and structure on the process

of innovation. In J. W. Baldridge & R. E. Deal (Eds.), Managing change in educational

organizations (pp. 449-467). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Cole, D. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: Alongitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 340-351.

Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977-1978). The practicality ethic in teacher decision making.

Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.

Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro. M. M., Berryman, J., & Hollowood, T. M.(1992). Peer interactions and social acceptance of elementary-age children with severe

disabilities in an inclusive school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe

Handicaps, 17, 205-212.

Ferguson, D. L., Meyer, G., Jeanchild, L., Juniper, L., & Zingo, J. (1992). Figuring outwhat to do with the grownups: How teachers make inclusion "work" for students with

disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17. 218-226.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality systemfor all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). "I've

counted Jon": Transformational experiences of teachers educating students withdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York:

McGraw-Hill.


19/21

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation close up: How school improvementworks. New York: Plenum Press.

Karp, H. B. (1984). Working with resistance. Training and Development Journal, 24, 69-

84.

Kozleski, E. B., & Jackson, L. (1993). Taylor's story: Full inclusion in her neighborhood

elementary school. Exceptionality, 4, 153-175.

LaRocque, L., & Coleman, P. (1989). Quality control: School accountability and district

ethos. In M. Holmes, K. Leithwood, & D. Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for

effective schools (pp. 168-191). Toronto: OISE Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 315 420)

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Lytle, J. H. (1988). Is special education serving minority students? A response to Singer

and Butler. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 116-120.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Warren, S. H. (1992). Issues and options in restructuring schoolsand special education programs. College Park, MD: University of Maryland and Westat,

Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 774)

Oberti v. Clementon, 995 S.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993).

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of

the effective school literature. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353-389.

Rogers, J. (1993, May). The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin of Phi Delta Kappa,No. II, 1-6.

Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., Hollowood, T. M. (1993). On the nature and changeof an inclusive elementary school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe

Handicaps, 18, 75-84.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.


20/21

Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence.

Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148-206.

Taylor, S. J. (1982). From segregation to integration: Strategies for integrating severelyhandicapped students in normal school and community settings. Journal of the

Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(3), 42-49

U.S. Department of Education. (1992). Fourteenth annual report to Congress on the

implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Washington, DC: Author.

York, J., Vandercook, T., MacDonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992).Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in general

education classes. Exceptional Children, 59 244-258.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

RACHEL E. JANNEY, Visiting Professor, School of Education, College of William andMary, Williamsburg, Virginia. MARTHA E. SNELL (CEC #383), Professor,

Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

MARY K. BEERS (CEC #271), Teacher, Chesapeake City Schools, Chesapeake,Virginia. MARIA RAYNES, Teacher, Augusta County Schools, Fishersville, Virginia.

This project was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Education Cooperative

Agreement #G0087C360-88. The content and opinions expressed herein do not

necessarily reflect the position or policy of the sponsor, and no official endorsementshould be inferred.

Manuscript received January 1993; revision accepted July 1994.

References

Cited by (1)

Indexing (document details)

Subjects: Students, Special education, Mainstreaming, Handicapped people

Author(s): Janney, Rachel E, Snell, Martha E, Beers, Mary K, Raynes, Maria

Documenttypes: Feature

Publication

title:

Exceptional Children. Reston:Mar 1995. Vol. 61, Iss. 5; pg. 425, 15

pgs

Source type: Periodical

ISSN: 00144029
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD&RQT=594&did=1638964&Fmt=3&refType=CITEDBY&b2=d&SrchMode=1&sid=12&index=26&TS=1245092375http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22students%22%29/http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22%3Chhl%3Especial%20education%3C/hHl%3E%22)http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22mainstreaming%22%29/http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22mainstreaming%22%29/http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22handicapped%20people%22%29/http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=17896&pcid=263043&SrchMode=3http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=17896&pcid=263043&SrchMode=3http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD&RQT=594&did=1638964&Fmt=3&refType=CITEDBY&b2=d&SrchMode=1&sid=12&index=26&TS=1245092375http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22students%22%29/http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22%3Chhl%3Especial%20education%3C/hHl%3E%22)http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22mainstreaming%22%29/http://searchsideways%28%22sub%22%2C%22handicapped%20people%22%29/http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=17896&TS=1245092375&clientId=65085&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=17896&pcid=263043&SrchMode=3


21/21

ProQuest

document ID:

1638964

Text Word

Count

9068

DocumentURL:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1638964&sid=12&Fmt=3&clientId=65085&RQT=309&VName=

PQD

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	miha4adi
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Integrating students

Documents