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#indexing7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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?
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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.
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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."
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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.
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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.
7/29/2019 Integrating students
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=37/29/2019 Integrating students
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