ERIC ED411639: Project REFORM: Regular Education Focus on Reintegration in the Mainstream. Final Performance Report.

39 Pages·1993·0.7 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 411 639
EC 305 830
Project REFORM: Regular Education Focus on Reintegration in
TITLE
the Mainstream. Final Performance Report.
Minneapolis Public Schools, MN.
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
1993-00-00
NOTE
49p.
H023A30059
CONTRACT
PUB TYPE
Reports - Descriptive (141)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
At Risk Persons; Change Strategies; Cooperative Programs;
Delphi Technique; *Disabilities; Elementary Secondary
Education; Inclusive Schools; Instructional Effectiveness;
Integrated Services; Mainstreaming; Mild Disabilities;
Models; Program Effectiveness; Questionnaires; *Reading
Achievement; *Regular and Special Education Relationship;
Resistance to Change; Special Needs Students; *Teacher
Attitudes; *Teacher Collaboration; Urban Education
ABSTRACT
This final project report describes three related studies
that examined reform efforts in a major metropolitan school district.
Emphasis was on seven schools that had developed collaborative service
approaches to reduce fragmentation of service delivery, increase
accountability for students "at risk," and eliminate duplication of services.
In Study 1, the characteristics of the seven collaborative models were
described in terms of instructional time, student caseloads, results of
interviews with principals and program coordinators using the Scales for
Assessment of the Accommodation of Differences among Pupils by Teachers
scale, and a survey of teacher engaged time and quality of services for 20
selected activities. Study 2 examined perceived barriers to implementation of
the collaborative model by using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Staff at
each school completed Stages of Concern Questionnaires and 70 staff
participated in a Delphi probe to identify barriers and propose solutions.
Finally, Study 3 examined reading improvement in 500 students with mild
disabilities as a function of implementation of the collaborative model.
Findings of Studies 1 and 2 are presented in tables. Study 3 found no
statistically significant differences in the reading progress of students
with disabilities served in collaborative and noncollaborative settings.
Attached tables and figures provide additional detail on the three studies.
An appendix lists suggested teacher solutions to identified barriers to
implementing collaborative models. (Contains 12 references.)
(DB)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
Final Performance Report
Regular Education Focus on
Project REFORM:
Reintegration in the Mainstream
Grant PR/Award # H023A30059
Minneapolis Public Schools
Minneapolis, MN
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
° Points of view or opinions stated in this
MT COPY MARLA LE
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
2
Final Performance Report
Regular Education Focus on
Project REFORM:
Reintegration in the Mainstream
educators have called for
In the past fifteen years many
One of the first and most
reform in special education.
the National Academy of
prominent reports urging change was
Holtzman, and Messick;
Sciences panel and report (Heller,
These experts noted problems in assessment,
1982).
in special education, and
placement, programming for students
In
overrepresentation.
highlighted the reality of minority
School Psychologists (NASP)
1985 the National Association of
of Students (NCAS)
and National Coalition of Advocates
outlining problems with
released a position statement
for instructionally
categorization of students, the need
reduced expectations for
relevant placement activities, and
These groups concluded general
students with disabilities.
students and that alternative
education had given up on these
of the
In 1986 Madeleine Will, as part
models needed study.
further delineated
Regular Education Initiative (REI)
education approaches and
deficiencies in traditional special
bring programs to students
called for a change that would
Others characterized
rather than bring students to programs.
fractionated and
the delivery of special education as
unification of general and
inefficient and called for the
Wang, and Walberg;
special education services (Reynolds,
National Association of
In 1987 NASP, NCAS and the
1987).
change in "Rights Without
Social Workers further encouraged
improved assessment procedures, an
Labels" by advocating for
2
interventions, and a commitment from
increase in prereferral
interventions for
develop more effective
general education to
Others noting the need for
1987).
students in need (NCAS,
include Gartner and Lipsky
changes in special education
Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Esson,
(1987); Cuban (1989);
Zins, and Curtis (1988);
Algozzine, & Deno (1983); Graden,
(1984).
and Stainback and Stainback
Boards
National Association of State
More recently, the
dual special
1991) remarked, "that the
of Education (NASBE,
that exist today in most
education/regular education systems
and
collaboration between special
states have hindered
where general
Systemic unity is required,
regular educators.
services complement and support
education and specialized
to call for dramatic
(p. 5). NASBE has gone on
each other"
schools."
All: A call for inclusive
changes in it's "Winner's
education
restructuring in special
However, the call for
In
debate with little research.
has generated considerable
evidence
(1988) noted a scarcity of
1988 Fuchs and Fuchs
(1993)
Five years later, Kauffman
supporting major reforms.
and
movement in both general
writes, "The current reform
logical or
be weakly linked to
special education appears to
(p. 6).
unmindful of history"
empirical analyses and largely
designed a series of research
Within this context we
metropolitan
efforts in a major
studies examining reform
Project
research project, known as
school district. Our
in the
Eocus an Reintegration
REFORM (Regular Education
had
the efforts of schools that
Mainstream), investigated
4
3
services approach that would reduce
developed a collaborative
delivery, increase
the fragmentation of service
risk," and eliminate
accountability for students "at
duplication of services.
Study
I
the characteristics of seven
In Study I we described
documented how these models
unique collaborative models and
and
Two of these schools, Schools A
overlapped and varied.
experience with collaborative/inclusion.
B, had considerable
of
both schools had high numbers
The principals and staff at
developed alternative models for
students "at risk" and had
district administrators
serving these students before
form of
Both schools had implemented a
required reform.
three years prior to our
collaborative/inclusion for at least
Schools C, D, E and F, had one
Four of the schools,
study.
These
with collaborative/inclusion.
year of experience
specific models and, in general,
schools had developed their
The last
toward reform.
felt good about their progress
the process of developing a
school, School G, had just begun
A comparison of school
collaborative service model.
in
achievement data is presented
demographic information and
Table 1.
Insert Table 1 Here
characteristics of the seven
To help report the
investigators used three methods
collaborative models REFORM
number of
First, we determined the average
for description.
teacher
each special education
special education students for
5
4
"collaborative
in each school who were instructed in
of time per
settings" and "pull-out" settings and the amount
Second, we used Reynolds
week spent in these settings.
Pupils by
(Undated) Accommodation of Differences Among
of the seven
Teachers rating scale to evaluate the progress
Third, we asked school personnel to
school on key variables.
engaged and the quality of
rate the extent to which time
educational activities as a
service changed for a variety of
collaborative/inclusion
result of implementation of the
model.
Instructional Time and Student
Description of
Caseloads
schools we examined the
For each of the seven REFORM
that were instructed by
number of IEP and non-IEP students
In
pull-out settings.
SERTs in regular education and
time that SERTs spent
addition, we documented the amount of
These data are
settings.
instructing these students in these
presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Here
Accommodation of
for Assessment of the
Scales
(ADAPT Survey)
Teachers
Differences Among Pupils by
and coordinator of the
At each school the principal
interviewed by
school's collaborative services program were
Using
Survey.
project investigators with Reynold's ADAPT
of the
Reynold's (undated) Scales for Assessment
Pupils by Teachers (ADAPT)
Accommodation of Differences Among
the six schools on some of the
we were able to contrast
5
The purpose
collaborative/inclusion.
elements important to
for (a) describing the
of ADAPT is to "provide a framework
classes and
organizational characteristics of effective
effective
(b) assessing implementation of
schools;
(c) identifying the professional
instruction principles;
selected areas of practice;
development needs of teachers in
activities; and (e)
(d) planning staff development
collaboration needed by
identifying the kinds of support and
exceptional students in
teachers in order to accommodate
scales:
ADAPT contains thirteen
their classes" (p. 1).
and furnishings; resources and supports,
space, facilities,
self-directedness, classroom
social environment, student
teaming arrangements, instruction,
management and climate,
individual
curriculum flexibility, accommodation to
evaluation, appreciating
differences in previous learning,
and parent-
cultural differences, child study processes,
"1"
Ratings on the ADAPT range from
teacher collaboration.
in traditional educational
(representative of little change
school restructuring in
arrangements) to "5" (which represent
children are met with new
which the needs of exceptional
special and regular
cooperative arrangements between
each ADAPT variable for
The average ratings for
education.
in Figures 1 to 7.
each school are presented
Figures 1-7 Here
7
6
Quality of Service for
Survey of Time Engaged and
Selected Educational Activities
participants to consider
This questionnaire asked REFORM
decisions and rate the extent to which
a set of educational
increase or decrease time in these
the school staff had to 1)
the quality of service improved or
areas; and 2) whether
the implementation of
declined in these same areas during
activities rated were:
collaboration. The key educational
Teaming with other services
Accountability
Inservice planning
Building planning
Financial and personal support
collaborative model
Instruction for students not in
Evaluation of program effectiveness
effectiveness
Evaluation of individual instructional
Comparison to peers
Monitoring/assessing programs
Communication of instructional goals
strategies
Providing a range of instructional
Providing behavior instruction
Providing academic instruction
learning plans
Developing individualized student
Identifying behavior needs
Identifying academic needs
Eligibility
Prereferral interventions
Prereferral planning
used for each item with "3"
A "1-5" rating scale was
"1"
On the Time Engaged category a
representing no change.
"5' represented a
represented an increase in time and a
dimension a "1"
On the Quality of Service
decrease.
and a "5" represented a
represented an improvement in service
both categories a "3"
decline in the quality of service. For
school a total of
At each participating
signified no change.
complete the questionnaire.
ten staff members were asked to
either special education
At least half of the teachers were
7
the remaining teachers were
teachers or Chapter I teachers,
The average
education classrooms.
recruited from the regular
schools is presented
ratings for Engaged Time for all seven
Quality of
The average ratings on changes in
in Figure 8.
Service are shown in Figure 9.
Figures 8 and 9 Here
Performance
Summary of Study
I
during the 15 month grant
The methods described were used
the
All research objectives for
period to collect all data.
achieved.
seven schools were
Study II
barriers to implementation of
The concerns and perceived
the subject of Study II research.
the collaborative model was
completed Stages of Concern
Staff at each of the schools
to provide us with
Questionnaires and Delphi Probe surveys
this information.
of Concern Questionnaire
Stages
basis for assessing the
The model that used as a
regarding the Collaborative
developmental concerns of teachers
activities to facilitate further
Model and for designing
(CBAM)
Adoption Model
development is the Concerns-Based
The model is a
Rutherford (1977).
developed by Hall, George, and
3 major
that the authors group into
sequence of seven stages
--
0,1,2; 2) Task Concerns
categories: 1) Self Concerns---stages
4,5,6.
and, 3) Impact Concerns---stages
stage 3
;
make clear how the focus
The terms used by the authors
When an innovation is
change.
of an individual's concerns
9
8
for the meaning and
proposed, the first concerns are
Only
individual.
implications of that innovation for that
satisfied does the
when these "self" concerns are
developing the skills and
individual's attention turn to
the innovation.
knowledge necessary for implementing
have been
Finally, when the self and "task" concerns
individual is able to refocus
adequately addressed, the
(i.e.,
"impact" of that innovation on others
concerns on the
and using the innovation
students, staff, parents, etc.)
ratings for each
The average Stages of Concern
creatively.
aggregated average of all schools,
of the schools, and the
Figure 10.
are shown in
Figure 10 Here
Probe
Delphi
the seven REFORM schools were
Seventy staff members from
Delphi Probe. Recruitment was
asked to participate in the
the participants with the
based on random selection of
addition to regular
stipulation that each school, in
least three special education
education teachers, include at
Sixty-
and a social worker.
teachers, a Chapter I teacher
agreed to participate.
seven teachers
because they were involved
The panelists were selected
Those
in their building.
in the collaborative program
informed that they had been
agreeing to participate were
project because of their
chosen to participate in the
They were informed
models.
experience with the collaborative