You are on page 1of 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 are both 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 and patterns 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 and Miles 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 typically is 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-scale trial 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 change with 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 for students (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

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 if it 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 through the 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 its spillover 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 to intersect and become cooperative in nature (McLaughlin & Warren, 1992). (We use the term integration to emphasize both the social and curricular aspects of attendance in general 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 via collaboration 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 to the 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 all involved. 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 support from 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

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 severe disabilities, 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 selfcontained, center-based model of special education to one where children with special needs 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 for problem-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, teacher coaching, and direct modeling in the classroom (p. 169). Salisbury et al. (1993) studied the inclusion of 26 students with mild to severe disabilities in 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 roles and 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 changes shifted 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 their values 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 generally widespread 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 and administrators 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 the success 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 factors that had reduced their initial resistance to the change. It was assumed that the criteria by

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 recognized indicators 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 that had 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 nearly the 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 integration process, 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 school districts were to provide special education services for all students with moderate and severe 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 without disabilities. 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 school districts 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 schools comprised 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 individual students 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

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. In the 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 each of 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 some capacity 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 student with 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 in the 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. Written permission to tape record the interviews was secured from participants in advance. Following background questions about professional experience and involvement with the integration 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 or hindered? 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?

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 themes pertaining 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 hindered success ("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 any reports 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 per interview 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 themes of 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 educational change 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 effective change 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; district representatives 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

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 general education 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 of teachers 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 been successful. (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 for success, 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 time and energy against the rewards in terms of benefits for students. This implicit cost-benefit analysis 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 first anticipate 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 and interest 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 selfesteem, 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 our whole school. Our children are so much more aware of others, and I think it's made them

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 sufficient supports 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 their classroom, 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 this paper 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 school economics 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 relatively scant 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. We have 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 that encompassed integration as a way to achieve positive outcomes for students with disabilities. 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 district administrators: "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 by a 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 educational improvement--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 the importance 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

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 program for 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 could convince them that it was worth a try. Many general education teachers who reported feeling "hesitant" initially said they had later 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 found themselves 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 arisen despite 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 meeting had 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, the meeting 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 very clear, I was not telling them how the program would operate. But that was also frustrating, 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 but getting 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 positive attitude 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

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 as professionals. The assistant principal of the elementary school in District D summarized the need to treat teachers like professionals, especially when asking them to undertake the risks inherent in implementing change: I think...they know that they have support, and also they are given a lot of discretion...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 of teacher 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 the students, 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 encourage others" (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 another example of the positive outcomes for students being viewed as a powerful force for promoting 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 and when 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, the principal 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 critical to 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

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 they believed 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 hence changing attitudes and garnering support for the effort. Early on, general education teachers wanted to know what the purpose of attending general classes would be for students 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 from formal 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 and professional 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 administrators emphasized 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 successful integration, 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

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 [general education 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 implementation of 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. "It needed 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 her about 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 out certain 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 the integration 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 in more 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 the supports 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 descriptors of 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 integrated students' 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.

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 is needed, 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 special education 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 integrated classroom 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 fears about integration had focused on questions about how they would teach the students with disabilities, the dominant theme in the advice for their professional peers emphasized changing 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 physical education 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 if something 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 preconceptions about 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 really had 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 high school 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 school drama teacher in District D, said that the only "problem" with integration in their schools was "there's not enough of it."

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 D had 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 being used 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 communication between 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 part of 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 newsletters home, 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 positive relationships 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, the other 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 severe disabilities 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. Already wary 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 for students, 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, because it 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

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 three implications: (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 for Administrators One challenge to the change process lies in the tension between the leadership and support functions of administrators--especially district administrators--wishing to promote 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 the challenge of providing direction and assistance while at the same time ensuring participatory planning, site-based decision making, and teacher autonomy. The use of methods 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 choose does 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 become committed 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 measuring their 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 teachers interviewed 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 to know the integrated students, teachers became able to perceive the integrated students' progress. Thus, some resistance was broken down by the development of a studentteacher relationship. This process was facilitated by the self-selection of general

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 reported elsewhere (Giangreco et al., 1993) and was reinforced in these interviews. One implication of this process may be, as Giangreco and others have suggested, that initial professional 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 see trusted 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, they are 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 intensive needs, they were engaging in enough collaborative activity to have achieved a sense that they 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 as a 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 reach new 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 work valued--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 new shared reality as: "Go in with an open mind," "work together," and "talk things over." Limitations

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, and individuals 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 of integration, 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 separate classes 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 districts continue 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 technical assistance 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, because such 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 the influence 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 implementation of 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. It is 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

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 will implement a proposed change is exacerbated when the central role they must play in the change process is not acknowledged. School integration efforts must address practitioners' fears through initial collegial exchanges focused on personal reflection. These change efforts must also continue to support the refinement and expansion of integrated 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: A longitudinal 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 out what 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 system for 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 with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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 improvement works. New York: Plenum Press. Karp, H. B. (1984). Working with resistance. Training and Development Journal, 24, 6984. 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 schools and 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 change of 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.

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 severely handicapped 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 and Mary, 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 endorsement should 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): Document types: Publication title: Source type: ISSN: Janney, Rachel E, Snell, Martha E, Beers, Mary K, Raynes, Maria Feature Exceptional Children. Reston: Mar 1995. Vol. 61, Iss. 5; pg. 425, 15 pgs Periodical 00144029

ProQuest document ID: Text Word Count Document URL:

1638964 9068 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=1638964&sid=12&Fmt=3&clientId=65085&RQT=309&VName= PQD

You might also like