ERIC EJ854363: Indiana Career and Technical Instructors' Perceptions of Program Expectations for Students with and without Disabilities

2005·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

4 Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2005
Indiana Career and Technical Instructors’ Perceptions of Program
Expectations for Students With and Without Disabilities
By Michael W. Harvey, Samuel E. Cotton, Kourtland R. Koch, Ball State University
Abstract There are several differing ment measures focus on grade
views concerning what second- level academic standards in lan-
This study investigated the rela-
ary level transition planning for guage arts, math, and science.
tionship between demographic
students with disabilities should The IDEA of 2004 reinforces
variables of secondary Indiana
involve (Phelps & Hanley-Max- high achievement for students
career and technical education
well, 1997). Recent educational with disabilities and supports
(CTE) instructors and program
reforms have narrowed this de- NCLB. The emphasis on aca-
expectations for students with
bate. As such, the recently re- demic performance for all stu-
and without disabilities partici-
authorized IDEA, the Individu- dents, including those with dis-
pating in CTE. Respondents’ gen-
als with Disabilities Education abilities, has been mandated
der, age, level of education, years
Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. through NCLB and also articu-
in current position, years in edu-
108-446), makes clear that lated in IDEA 2004.
cation, and training in special
transition planning/services Although there is an em-
needs (i.e., university coursework,
are to begin at age 16, eliminat- phasis on academics, Johnson,
in-service training) are reported. A
ing the age 14 program of study Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking,
survey research design using stu-
requirement of IDEA 1997. Al- and Mack (2002) indicated that
dent case studies and non-ran-
though the new IDEA continues students with disabilities need
dom survey methods were used to
to support transition, many in to have access to the full range
explore instructors’ perceptions of
the field believe that the change of general education curricu-
students’ social integration, aca-
de-emphasizes the important lum options. Transition plan-
demic and occupational skill at-
need to start planning early and ning for students with disabili-
tainment, and postsecondary oc-
focus transition programming ties involves aligning student’s
cupational employability. Signifi-
throughout the high school ex- interests and postsecondary
cant differences were found re-
perience. There is no conten- goals with the most appropriate
garding students’ social fit, aca-
tion that the new IDEA aligns secondary educational curricu-
demic attainment, occupational
with the national educational lum option (e.g., college prep,
skills competencies, and employ-
reform agenda under The No career and technical educa-
ment potential in the occupational
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of tion). Gray (2001) stated that
area by respondents’ demo-
2001 (P.L. 107-110). This CTE is designed to serve all stu-
graphic variables. Teacher train-
agenda has established rigorous dents who choose to participate
ing and future research efforts are
academic standards and ac- in secondary CTE within public
discussed.
countability measures for all education. The National Assess-
students. The intent of NCLB is ment of Vocational Education
to close the achievement gap (U.S. Department of Education,
and to ensure high levels of aca- 2002) reported that 37.5% of CTE
demic attainment for all stu- occupational concentrators
dents (National Association of (those concentrating in a spe-
Secondary School Principals, cific occupation program of
2005). States have interpreted study) were students with a dis-
NCLB mandates in the context ability. Secondary CTE pro-
of strict grade level academic grams, exploratory and CTE that
achievement due to the stated focuses on occupationally spe-
goal as having all children, with cific training, are important for
the exception of 1% who partici- students with disabilities
pate in alternative assess- (Harvey, 2001; Sarkees-
ments, on grade level by the Wircenski & Scott, 2003;
2013-2014 academic year. The Wagner, 1991). The U.S. Gov-
NCLB regulations establish fed- ernment Accounting Office
erally approved state systems of (2003) reported that work expe-
accountability for progress re- rience and vocational education
porting on annual yearly were significant factors leading
progress (AYP). State assess- to postsecondary employment
The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 5
for students with disabilities. ported that age, experience with Rowjewski, Pollard, & Meers,
Given the mandates of NCLB special needs students, educa- 1990; Trott & Holton, 1996).
and IDEA 2004, educators should tion level, and years of teach- Harvey and Pellock (2004), in a
not lose sight of the fact that ing experience were not factors more recent study, found that
secondary career and technical in CTE teachers’ attitudes to- CTE respondents’ variables did
education is a viable curriculum ward students with disabilities. influence perceptions and ex-
option for students with disabilities. Trott and Holton (1996) explored pectations of student perfor-
Career and technical educa- age, gender, and education level mance when comparing stu-
tion programs serve a diverse for postsecondary level techni- dents with and without a dis-
student population (Gray & Herr, cal educators. They found only ability. Several researchers
1995; NAVE, 2002). This diverse gender had a significant influ- have recommended further re-
student population has pre- enced on attitude and that fe- search concerning CTE educa-
sented CTE educators with in- males had more positive atti- tors’ attitudes toward special
structional challenges (Clark & tudes toward students with dis- needs students.
Kolstoe, 1995; Rojewski, 1991). abilities compared to males.
Purpose of the Study
A direct relationship has been Kraska (1997) found that age,
reported concerning CTE in- years of teaching, and education The purpose of this study was
structors’ attitudes toward stu- level were not significant influ- to explore the relationship be-
dents with disabilities and stu- ences on CTE attitudes toward tween Indiana career and tech-
dents’ success in CTE programs special needs students in Ala- nical educators’ demographic
(Rowjewski, Pollard, & Meers, bama CTE programs. Harvey and variables and program expecta-
1990). Inclusion, teacher atti- Pellock (2004) found that Penn- tions for students with and with-
tude, and instructional effec- sylvania CTE instructors did out disabilities. Respondents’
tiveness have been studied re- have significant differences gender; age; level of education;
garding teachers’ perceptions of when responding to students years in current position; years
their instructional effective- with and without disabilities. in education; and special needs
ness in providing for the needs Significant differences were training, involving university
of students with disabilities in found regarding CTE program coursework and in-service,
general education settings social fit, academic and occupa- were identified demographic
(Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, tional performance, and employ- variables. This study used sur-
2000; Treder, Morse, & Ferron, ability by CTE respondents’ vey research methods seeking
2000). Several studies have in- when variables of age, gender, CTE instructors’ perception rat-
vestigated CTE educators’ atti- education level, years in educa- ings of student case studies
tudes and expectations toward tion, and training experiences where all participants rated a
students with disabilities were disaggregated and sub- student without a disability
(Custer & Panagos, 1996; groupings of each variable (i.e. (control case) and all CTE par-
Harvey, 1999; Harvey, 2000; Age by 20-30 yr. old; 31-40 yr. ticipants rated a second pre-as-
Harvey & Pellock, 2003; Kraska, old…) were taken into account. signed case study for a student
1996; Kraska, 1997; Rowjewski, These findings differ from most with a specified disability (1 of
Pollard, & Meers, 1990; Trott & of the literature and are differ- 5 disability cases) presented in
Holton, 1996). Researchers ent due to the nature of variable this research. The cases of stu-
have reported CTE teachers’ definition in this investigation. dents with disabilities included:
lack of preparation and per- The literature indicates a) physical disability; b) specific
ceived training needs to effec- training needs are critically learning disability; c) behavior
tively serve special needs stu- important for CTE instructor’s to disorder; d) mental retardation;
dents (Custer & Panagos, 1996; more effectively teach students and e) visual impairment. All
Harvey, 1999; Harvey 2000; with disabilities enrolled in sec- student cases included informa-
Harvey & Pellock, 2004; Kraska, ondary CTE (Custer & Panagos, tion on educational abilities,
1997). Okolo and Sitlington 1996; Harvey, 1999; Harvey behaviors, labels and learning
(1988) found no significant ef- 2000; Kraska, 1997). The atti- characteristics. Student cases
fects on Iowa’s CTE teachers’ tudes of CTE instructors as re- were used to explore instruc-
attitudes by demographic vari- ported by age, gender, educa- tors’ views of students’ social
ables (i.e., occupational pro- tion, years of teaching experi- integration, academic and oc-
gram area taught, level of edu- ences were generally found not cupational skill attainment, and
cation, training experiences, to be a strong predictor of stu- post-school employability in the
years of teaching). Rowjewski, dent performance (Kraska, CTE program areas (see Harvey
Pollard, and Meers (1990) re- 1997; Okolo & Sitlington, 1988; & Pellock, 2003 for further de-
6 Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2005
tail). The following questions reer and Technical Education In- Procedure
guided this investigation. structional Expectations Assess- The researchers sought permis-
1. Are there differences be- ment Survey, was developed by sion from CTE site administra-
tween CTE educators’ percep- Harvey and Pellock in 2000 (see tors to conduct this study and
tions of secondary CTE pro- Harvey & Pellock, 2003 for fur- developed procedures with the
gram socialization, academic ther detail). The study used de- ten CTE site administrators in
and occupational skill attain- mographic information from Indiana to complete the re-
ment, and employability of Section II of the survey instru- search. The study was pre-
students with and without ment to create study variables. sented to CTE instructors at staff
disabilities as identified by Section III of the survey instru- meetings and/or in-service ses-
respondents’ gender? ment used four specific ques- sions at each site. All CTE par-
2. …as identified by respon- tions regarding respondents’ ticipants were provided with
dents’ ages? perceptions of students’ poten- survey procedures prior to the
3. …as identified by respon- tial for social fit in CTE, aca- study. Student case studies in-
dents’ education level? demic skill attainment, occupa- cluded a student without a dis-
4. …as identified by respon- tional skill attainment, and ability (control case) and five
dents’ years in current posi- post-school occupational em- student cases with specified dis-
tions? ployability. A 5-point Likert-type abilities (comparison group).
5. …as identified by respon- scale (1=strongly disagree with Participants completed two sur-
dents’ years in education? statement; 5=strongly agree vey forms, one for each of their
6. …as identified by respondents’ with statement) was used to two case studies. The first case
special needs training through rate survey items. study CTE participant read was
university coursework? Six student case studies the non-disabled student case
7. …as identified by respon- were developed for the research study (control case). All CTE par-
dents’ special needs training project. A case study for a stu- ticipants were asked to rate
through in-service programs? dent without a disability (control survey items after reading the
case) and five specific disabil- first case study control case.
Methodology
ity case studies (comparison After completing the first sur-
Population and Sample group) were used. All cases in- vey, CTE participants were
cluded background information given a second pre-assigned
This study included the random
with basic academic profiles and case study to read and rate (a
selection of ten secondary CTE
narrative descriptors of the stu- student with one of the follow-
sites representing the northern
dent, including disability classi- ing disabilities: PHY; VI; LD; BD;
and southern regions of east cen-
fications and a statement of spe- MR). Data were analyzed using
tral Indiana (IN). The population
cial needs. The cases for stu- both descriptive and inferential
included all secondary level CTE
dents with disabilities included: statistical procedures. Kruskal-
educators serving students in
a physical disability (PHY) with Wallis tests were used to ex-
secondary occupational programs
mobility limitation; legal blind- plore the effects of specified de-
in this region. The study region
ness (VI) with low vision; lim- mographic variables concerning
represented an approximate 30%
ited reading comprehension respondents’ ratings for CTE pro-
of CTE programming in the state
with a learning disability (LD); gram social fit, academic and
of Indiana. Five schools were lo-
impulse control and hyperactiv- occupational skill attainment,
cated in northern east central IN
ity with behavior disorder (BD); and post-school employability in
and five schools were located in
limited IQ and adaptive behav- the occupational area. These
southern east central IN. One
ior skills with mental retarda- nonparametric measures were
hundred and forty-nine (n=149)
tion (MR). The disability cases used to explore differences in
secondary level CTE occupational
were grouped for comparison the response distribution by
instructors participated in the
purposes in this study. mean ranks. All significant ef-
research project. Participation by
Reliability of the instrument fects were set at the p < .05 sig-
site ranged from a low of 25% to
for this specific study was estab- nificance level. The variables
a high of 94% with an overall par-
lished with a Cronbach’s alpha explored included respondents’
ticipation rate of 68%. Participa-
internal consistency coefficient gender, age, level of education,
tion in this research study was
of 0.63. Sylvia and Ysseldyke years in current position, years
strictly voluntary.
(1985) suggest a conservative in education, and special needs
Instrumentation minimum reliability coefficient training (i.e. university
The assessment instrument, of .60 for group assessment data. coursework and in-service
Student Characteristics and Ca-
The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 7
training). Mean, standard devia- their CTE programs. Males also Question 3. CTE educators’
tion, Chi-square (χ2), and level of indicated that students with dis- perceptions by respondents’
significance are reported (see abilities would have more chal-
education level
tables 2-8). lenges in being employed in the
Education level was found to be
full range of employment within
Results a significant factor concerning
the occupational trade area
Indiana CTE perception ratings
The results are reported by sec- compared to female respon-
of students with and without dis-
tion addressing the findings for dents’ ratings.
abilities by all four areas (see
each research question posed in
Question 2. CTE educators’
table 4). Significant differences
this study. (See Exhibits A and
perceptions by respondents’ were found concerning students
B for a summative and graphic
ages fitting in socially with others in
representation of the data.)
CTE programming (χ2=38.804),
Table 1 presents demographic Age was found to be a significant
similar academic attainment
information by region for the factor concerning Indiana CTE
(χ2=24.578), gain occupational skill
study participants. Indiana CTE educator’s perception ratings of
competencies (χ2=44.012), and
instructors were predominately students with and without dis-
postsecondary employability in the
male (62%), were 51 years old or abilities by all four areas (see
full range of jobs within the occu-
older (39%), held a graduate de- table 3). Significant differences
pational area (χ2=77.956). Indiana
gree (39%), had been in their cur- were found concerning students
CTE instructors rated students
rent position for 1-5 years (41%), fitting in socially with others in
and had been in the field of edu- CTE programming (χ2=38.772), with disabilities lower in all areas
compared to the student with-
cation for 21 years or more (31%). similar academic attainment
(χ2=18.200), gain occupational out a disability. Respondents
Question 1. CTE educators’
skill competencies (χ2=42.031), who had earned a high school
perceptions by respondents’ diploma indicated that students
and postsecondary employability
gender in the full range of jobs within with disabilities would have
more challenges in their mind
Gender was found to be a signifi- the occupational area
cant factor concerning Indiana (χ2=76.165). Respondents rated concerning all areas compared
to other education level groups.
respondents’ perceptions of stu- students with disabilities lower
dents by disability classification across all areas compared to the Question 4. CTE educators’
in all four areas (see table 2). student without a disability. In- perceptions by respondents’
Significant differences between diana CTE instructors between
years in current position
males and females were found the ages of 20-30 and ages 41-
Respondents’ number of years
concerning students fitting in so- 50 indicated that students with
in their current position was
cially with others in CTE pro- disabilities would have more
gramming (χ2=38.661), similar challenges with social fit. Rat- found to be a significant factor
concerning their perceptions of
academic attainment ing differences were noted re-
(χ2=17.386), gain occupational garding students with disabili- students with disabilities re-
skill competencies (χ2=35.632), ties having similar academic garding all four areas (see table
5). Significant differences were
and postsecondary employability attainment compared to others
found concerning students fit-
in the full range of jobs within in their CTE program. Respon-
ting in socially with others in
the occupational area dents who were in the older age
(χ2=74.410). Female respon- groups (41-50, 51+ years old) had CTE programming (χ2=41.677),
similar academic attainment
dents indicated that students lower ratings for students with
(χ2=26.591), gain occupational
with disabilities would have disabilities regarding the ac-
skill competencies (χ2=44.457),
more challenges fitting in so- quisition of occupational skill
and postsecondary employability
cially compared to others in competencies at the same level
in the full range of jobs within
their CTE programs. Male re- as others in their CTE program.
the occupational area
spondents indicated that stu- Respondents who were 41 years
(χ2=87.754). Indiana CTE re-
dents with disabilities would old or older indicated that stu-
spondents who had been in
least likely have similar aca- dents with disabilities would
their current position 6-10
demic attainment compared to have more challenges being
years, 16-20 years, or 20 years
others in their CTE programs. employed in the full range of
or more disagreed that students
Males indicated that students employment within the occupa-
with disabilities would gain oc-
with disabilities would not gain tional trade area compared to
cupational skill competencies
occupational skill competencies those without a disability.
at the same level as others in
at the same level as others in
8 Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2005
Table 1
Indiana Career and Technical Education Participation by Region and
Demographic Characteristics.
IN Northern Region IN Southern Region Total
n % n % n %
Participants' Gender
Male 39 26.2 53 35.6 92 61.7
Female 34 22.8 23 15.5 57 38.3
Total 73 49.0 76 51.0 149 100
Participants' Age
20-30 yrs. 6 4.0 2 1.3 8 5.4
31-40 yrs. 17 11.4 16 10.7 33 22.1
41-50 yrs. 25 16.8 24 16.1 49 32.9
51+ yrs. 25 16.8 34 22.8 59 39.6
Total 73 49.0 76 51.0 149 100
Educational Level
HS Diploma 10 6.8 31 20.9 41 27.7
2 yr. Associate 10 6.8 9 6.1 19 12.8
4 yr. Bachelors 19 12.8 11 7.4 30 20.3
Graduate 33 22.3 25 16.9 58 39.2
Total 72 48.6 76 51.4 148 100
Years in Current Position
1-5 years 27 18.1 34 22.8 61 40.9
6-10 years 14 9.4 19 12.8 33 22.1
11-15 years 9 6.0 6 4.0 15 10.1
16-20 years 6 4.0 10 6.7 16 10.7
21+ years 17 11.4 7 4.7 24 16.1
Total 73 49.0 76 51.0 149 100
Years in Education
1-5 years 14 9.4 19 12.8 33 22.1
6-10 years 17 11.4 16 10.7 66 22.1
11-15 years 8 5.4 5 3.4 13 8.7
16-20 years 8 5.4 16 10.7 24 16.1
21+ years 26 17.4 20 13.4 46 30.9
Total 73 49.0 76 51.0 149 100
University Coursework
None 31 20.9 36 24.3 67 45.3
Within 6 months 9 6.1 6 4.1 15 10.1
Within 1 year 6 4.1 8 5.4 14 9.5
Within 2 years 6 4.1 8 5.4 14 9.5
More than 2 years 20 13.5 18 12.2 38 25.7
Total 72 48.6 76 51.4 148 100
In-Service Training
None 22 15.0 15 10.2 37 25.2
Within 6 months 29 19.7 22 15.0 51 34.7
Within 1 year 8 5.4 12 8.2 20 13.6
Within 2 years 3 2.0 17 11.6 20 13.6
More than 2 years 10 6.8 9 6.1 19 12.9
Total 72 49.0 75 51.0 147 100
Note: Percentages represent data reported by category.
The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 9
Table 2
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by Gender and
Disability Level
Career and Technical Program
Expectations and Outcomes Male Respondents Female Respondents
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 4.15 0.72 3.54 1.01 4.02 0.93 3.23 1.06 298 38.661***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.38 1.06 3.04 1.18 3.79 1.03 3.11 1.34 298 17.386***
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.65 1.18 2.79 1.20 3.80 1.06 2.95 1.30 296 35.632***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.47 0.73 3.24 1.25 4.36 0.92 3.32 1.16 295 74.410***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
Table 3
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by Age and
Disability Level
Career and Technical Program
Expectations and Outcomes Respondents Ages 20-30 Respondents Ages 31-40 Respondents Ages 41-50 Respondents Ages 51+
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 4.13 0.35 3.25 0.88 4.21 0.82 3.64 0.96 3.96 0.93 3.29 1.11 4.15 0.73 3.44 1.03 298 38.772***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.25 1.16 2.88 0.83 3.82 0.88 3.24 1.22 3.37 1.14 2.86 1.25 3.56 1.07 3.17 1.19 298 18.200*
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.38 1.06 3.13 1.12 3.91 1.12 3.09 1.25 3.48 1.20 2.56 1.28 3.83 1.08 2.92 1.19 296 42.031***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.63 0.51 3.38 1.30 4.55 0.56 3.42 1.09 4.47 0.73 3.12 1.23 4.30 0.99 3.29 1.27 295 76.165***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
10 Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2005
Table 4
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by Level of
Education and Disability Label
Career and Technical Program Respondents with High School Respondents with 2 yr. Respondents with 4 yr. Respondents with Graduate
Expectations and Outcomes Diploma Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Degrees
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 4.20 0.84 3.41 1.14 4.16 0.60 3.68 0.88 4.00 0.91 3.53 1.04 4.09 0.80 3.31 1.01 298 38.804***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.41 1.02 2.76 1.17 3.32 1.20 3.26 1.24 3.90 0.88 3.53 1.27 3.52 1.12 3.02 1.10 298 24.578***
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.66 1.08 2.53 1.19 3.89 1.23 2.95 1.31 4.03 1.06 3.27 1.31 3.53 1.17 2.86 1.16 296 44.012***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.43 0.81 3.08 1.30 4.58 0.50 3.42 0.90 4.53 0.68 3.57 1.16 4.37 0.89 3.21 1.26 295 77.956***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
their program. Respondents who employability in the occupa- occupational area (χ2=78.426).
were in their current position tional trade area. Most CTE re- The CTE instructors in this
20 years old or more disagreed spondents who had been in edu- study rated students with dis-
that students with disabilities cation for 6-10 years or 16-20 abilities lower in all categories
had the potential to be employed years indicated that students compared to the student with-
in the full range of employment with disabilities would not have out a disability. Respondents
within the occupational area com- similar academic attainment who had taken a special needs
pared to those without a disability. compared to others. Respondents university course within the
Question 5. CTE educators’ who had been in education be- last year agreed that students
tween 1-5 years, 6-10 years, or with disabilities would gain oc-
perceptions by respondents’
16-20 years disagreed that stu- cupational skill competencies
years in education
dents with disabilities would gain at the same level as others in
Respondent’s number of years occupational skill competencies their program. Respondents who
in the field of education was at the same level as others. had taken a university course
found to be a significant factor
within the last two years dis-
Question 6. CTE educators’
concerning Indiana CTE percep-
agreed that students with dis-
perceptions by respondents’
tion ratings of students with and
abilities had the potential to be
without disabilities (see table university coursework
employed in the full range of
6). Significant differences were University coursework in the employment within the occupa-
found concerning students fit- area of special needs was found tional area compared to those
ting in socially with others in to be a significant factor con- without a disability.
CTE programming (χ2=46.380), cerning Indiana CTE perception
Question 7. CTE educators’
similar academic attainment ratings of students with and
(χ2=25.685), gain occupational without disabilities by all four perceptions by respondents’
skill competencies (χ2=37.605), areas (see table 7). Significant in-service programs
and postsecondary employability differences were found concern- In-service training designed to
in the full range of jobs within ing students fitting in socially support special needs students
the occupational area with others in CTE program- in CTE was found to be a signifi-
(χ2=76.560). Indiana CTE in- ming (χ2=41.369), similar aca- cant factor concerning Indiana
structors rated students with demic attainment (χ2=20.431), CTE ratings of students with and
disabilities lower compared to gain occupational skill compe- without disabilities for three of
the control group in three cat- tencies (χ2=43.565), and the four areas (see table 8). Sig-
egories: a) academic attain- postsecondary employability in nificant differences were found
ment; b) occupational skills; c) the full range of jobs within the concerning students fitting in
The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 11
Table 5
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by Years in Current
Position and Disability Label
Career and Technical Program Respondents' Years in Current Respondents' Years in Current Respondents' Years in Current Respondents' Years in Current Respondents' Years in Current
Expectations and Outcomes Position 1-5 Years Position 6-10 Years Position 11-15 Years Position 16-20 Years Position 20+ Years
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 3.97 0.91 3.54 0.99 4.21 0.85 3.18 1.13 4.40 0.73 3.53 1.12 4.19 0.54 3.38 1.08 4.04 0.62 3.42 0.97 298 41.677***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.56 1.08 3.13 1.23 3.73 1.06 3.06 1.27 3.87 0.83 3.00 1.51 2.56 0.96 2.88 1.14 3.67 0.91 3.08 0.92 298 26.591**
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.78 1.10 3.02 1.21 3.67 1.21 2.76 1.32 3.93 0.88 3.00 1.55 3.00 1.15 2.69 1.19 3.92 1.13 2.57 0.99 296 44.457***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.49 0.76 3.33 1.19 4.52 0.83 3.33 1.31 4.36 0.92 3.93 1.38 4.13 0.91 3.06 1.12 4.38 0.77 2.79 0.93 295 87.754***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
Table 6
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by Years in
Education and Disability Label
Career and Technical Program Respondents' Years in Respondents' Years in Respondents' Years in Respondents' Years in Respondents' Years in
Expectations and Outcomes Education 1-5 Years Education 6-10 Years Education 11-15 Years Education 16-20 Years Education 20+ Years
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 3.82 0.80 4.09 0.72 4.24 0.86 3.45 0.86 4.23 1.16 3.21 1.13 4.25 0.61 3.92 0.95 3.17 1.23 3.54 0.95 298 46.380***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.39 1.02 3.00 1.17 3.76 1.00 2.88 1.29 3.92 1.03 3.54 1.39 3.08 1.13 2.75 1.26 3.61 1.06 3.28 1.04 298 25.685**
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.79 1.05 2.82 1.15 3.73 1.18 2.76 1.32 3.85 1.06 3.00 1.58 3.42 1.13 2.67 1.34 3.76 1.20 3.00 1.11 296 37.605***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.52 0.56 3.21 1.16 4.58 0.61 3.27 1.20 4.46 0.96 3.46 1.45 4.27 0.88 3.22 1.27 4.33 0.99 3.28 1.20 295 76.560***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
socially with others in CTE pro- ployed in the full range of em- had the potential to be employed
gramming (χ2=39.310), gain oc- ployment within the occupa- in the full range of employment
cupational skill competencies tional area compared to CTE re- within the occupational trade
(χ2=37.405), and postsecondary spondents who had no special area compared to those without
employability in the full range needs in-service training, had a disability.
of jobs within the occupational training within the last two
Discussion
area (χ2=78.744). No significant years, or had training more
differences in respondents’ rat- than two years ago. Respondents This research explored the ef-
ings were reported for academic who had no in-service special fects of demographic variables
attainment. Respondents who needs training or training that of secondary CTE instructors in
had special needs in-service was not recent (within the last northern and southern east
training within the last two year) disagreed that students central Indiana concerning stu-
years felt students with disabili- with disabilities would gain oc- dents with and without disabili-
ties would more likely achieve cupational skill competencies ties. The results of this study
social fit, gain occupational at the same level as others in focused on differences between
skills competencies, and would their CTE program. Neither did respondents’ ratings of student
have the potential to be em- they feel that these students participation in secondary CTE
12 Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2005
Table 7
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by University
Coursework and Disability Label
Respondents' University
Career and Technical Program Respondents' University Respondents' University Respondents' University Respondents' University Coursework - More than 2
Expectations and Outcomes Coursework - None Coursework - Within 6 Months Coursework - Within 1 Year Coursework - Within 2 Years Years
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 4.07 0.85 3.39 1.07 4.40 0.50 3.13 0.99 4.00 0.55 3.79 0.97 4.29 0.61 3.36 1.15 3.97 0.94 3.45 0.97 298 41.369***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.49 1.07 2.94 1.21 3.87 0.91 2.93 0.96 3.86 1.03 3.64 1.08 3.14 1.29 3.00 1.30 3.50 1.03 3.16 1.28 298 20.431*
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.70 1.16 2.67 1.20 4.00 0.75 2.93 1.16 3.86 1.02 3.43 1.45 3.07 1.38 2.71 1.26 3.76 1.12 2.95 1.22 296 43.565***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.54 0.65 3.27 1.23 4.43 0.51 3.71 0.91 4.64 0.49 3.64 1.08 4.36 0.92 2.86 1.29 4.16 1.18 3.13 1.29 295 78.426***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
Table 8
Indiana Career and Technical Education Expectation and Outcome Ratings by In-Service
Training and Disability Label
Career and Technical Program Respondents' In-Service Respondents' In-Service Respondents' In-Service Respondents' In-Service Respondents' In-Service
Expectations and Outcomes Training - None Training - Within 6 Months Training - Within 1 Year Training - Within 2 Years Training - More than 2 Years
Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for Ratings for
Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Nondisabled Disabled Total
This student will: M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD n χ2
fit socially with others in my program. 4.08 0.86 3.51 1.09 4.00 0.75 3.47 1.04 4.10 0.85 3.55 0.82 4.30 0.65 3.00 1.17 4.16 1.01 3.47 0.96 298 39.310***
have similar academic attainment
compared to others in my program. 3.51 1.09 3.05 1.15 3.69 0.90 3.24 1.22 3.35 1.13 3.30 0.92 3.45 1.23 2.90 1.29 3.37 1.21 2.74 1.36 298 15.215
gain occupational skill competencies at
the same level as others in my program. 3.86 1.17 2.76 1.27 3.80 0.96 2.86 1.29 3.55 1.27 3.30 0.86 3.35 1.38 2.65 1.18 3.63 1.16 2.84 1.46 296 37.405***
have the potential to be employed in the
full range of employment in the
occupational trade area. 4.62 0.68 3.22 1.31 4.38 0.67 3.34 1.22 4.10 1.19 3.45 0.94 4.70 0.57 3.25 1.33 4.22 1.11 3.05 1.22 295 78.744***
Note: *p<.05, **p.<01, ***p<.001
programs and student’s social grams. The findings provide an sites (68% participation rate).
fit, academic attainment, gain- overview of perceptions based on Caution should be used in gen-
ing occupational skill competen- Indiana CTE respondents’ expe- eralizing the results beyond the
cies, and post-school employ- riences and knowledge that parameters of this study.
ability in the full range of em- shape teaching behaviors and The findings of this study
ployment within the occupa- personal interactions in CTE indicate that demographic vari-
tional area. The researchers programming. The results ables (i.e. age, gender…) of In-
wanted to identify which vari- should be viewed with the fol- diana CTE instructors had sig-
ables concerning age, gender, lowing limitations in mind: a) nificant effects concerning stu-
education level, length of time the sample represents northern dent perception ratings.
in education, and special needs and southern east central Indi- Twenty-seven of the 28 items
training efforts (e.g. university ana; b) the sample was limited analyzed had significant effects
coursework or in-service train- to ten CTE sites; c) the sample and twenty-five were found to be
ing) influenced CTE perceptions consisted of 149 secondary CTE significant at the p<.01 level or
of students with disabilities par- educators who participated in higher. The results indicate
ticipating in secondary CTE pro- the study from the selected CTE that demographic variables are
The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education 13
a factor in Indiana CTE instruc- with disabilities concerning so- coursework in the area of spe-
tors’ perceptions of students cial fit, academic attainment, cial needs was found to have sig-
with disabilities concerning gaining occupational skill com- nificant effects concerning so-
CTE program expectations and petencies, and post-school em- cial fit, academic attainment,
outcomes. These findings sup- ployability. This finding is simi- gaining occupational skills, and
port those reported by Harvey lar to results reported by Harvey postsecondary employment. In-
and Pellock (2004) concerning and Pellock (2004) but are not diana CTE instructors who had
Pennsylvania CTE instructors, supported by Kraska (1997), not taken any university
but differ from previous re- Okolo and Sitlington (1988), or coursework in the area of spe-
search in this area. Demo- Trott and Holton (1996) who cial needs rated students with
graphic variables need to be found no significant differences disabilities lower concerning
considered in teacher training concerning education level. academic attainment and gain-
efforts in secondary CTE and The number of years Indiana ing occupational skill competen-
also in future research studies. CTE instructors had been in their cies. Respondents’ in-service
Gender was reported as hav- current positions and the num- training in the area of special
ing significant effects concern- ber of years respondents had been needs was found to have signifi-
ing CTE social fit, academic at- in education were found to have cant effects concerning social
tainment, gaining occupational significant effects concerning fit, gaining occupational skills,
skill competencies, and post- social fit, academic attainment, and postsecondary employment.
school employability. Trott and gaining occupational skills, and Respondents who had no in-ser-
Holton (1996) reported females postsecondary employment. A vice training, had in-service
as having more positive atti- majority of respondents who training within the last two
tudes toward students with dis- were in their current position years, and had in-service train-
abilities. Indiana CTE respon- between 16 to 20 years felt that ing more than two years ago
dents indicated that females students with disabilities would indicated that students with dis-
were more concerned about stu- not have similar academic at- abilities would less likely gain
dents with disabilities with so- tainment or gain occupational occupational skill competencies
cial fit and gaining occupational skill competencies at the same at the same level as others in
skill competencies compared to rate as others. Those who had their CTE program. These find-
their male counterparts. Age been in their position for 20 ings differ from those reported by
was found to have significant years or more disagreed that Okolo and Sitlington (1988) who
effects across all categories. students with disabilities would reported no significant effects
Unlike those reported in the lit- gain occupational skill competen- concerning training experiences
erature (Kraska, 1997; cies at the same rate as others and teachers’ attitudes toward
Rowjewski et al., 1990; Trott & or had the potential to be em- students with disabilities.
Holton, 1996), this study found ployed in the full range of posi- Many of the findings in this
that respondents who were older tions in the occupational area. study confirm those reported
(41 years old or older) generally These findings are similar to earlier by Harvey and Pellock
rated students with disabilities those reported by Harvey and (2004) regarding CTE instruc-
lower than other age groups. Pellock (2004) regarding Pennsyl- tors’ demographic variables and
Younger CTE respondents, ages vania CTE instructors. Respon- their influence on perceptions
20 to 30 years old, also rated stu- dents who had been in education of students with disabilities. Re-
dents with disabilities lower between 6 to 10 years and those spondents gender, age, level of
concerning social fit and aca- with 16 and 20 years in educa- educational attainment, years
demic attainment. The results tion rated students with disabili- in current position, years in
suggest that age is a training ties lower concerning academic education, university course-
issue given that both younger attainment and gaining occupa- work in special needs educa-
and older CTE instructors in this tional skill competencies com- tion, and in-service training ad-
investigation had lower ratings pared to others. These findings are dressing special needs students
concerning students with dis- important given findings reported were found to have significant
abilities. Respondents’ level of by Kraska (1997), Okolo and effects. Indiana CTE instruc-
education was found to have sig- Sitlington (1988), and Rowewski et tors, similar to Pennsylvania
nificant effects across all vari- al. (1990) who found no significant CTE instructors, generally rated
ables studied. Interestingly, In- effects concerning teaching expe- students with disabilities lower
diana CTE respondents who had rience and CTE instructor’s atti- compared to the student with-
a high school diploma generally tudes/expectations. out a disability. These findings
had lower ratings for students Respondents’ university are important given that much