Psychology in rhe Schools Volume 28. January 1991

ANCILLARY STAFF MEMBERS’ MAINSTREAMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD EXCEPTIONALITIES

RICHARD L. SIMPSON A N D BRENDA SMITH MYLES

University of Kansas

Mainstreaming decisions, including identification of handicapped students for regular class placement and support service recommendations (e.g., reduced class size, inservice training, consultation services), are frequently made by nonclassroom personnel such as school psychologists, occupational/physicaI therapists, and speech/language pathologists. Factors considered by these professionals in making mainstreaming decisions are poorly understood, however. This study sought to identify mainstreaming modifications judged to be important by ancillary professionals in recommending mainstreaming of students with mild exceptionalities. Data revealed that no significant differences were noted in number of selected modifications as a function of diagnostic category. Ancillary staff members indicated, however, that substantial modifications were needed to facilitate successful mainstreaming. Results are discussed relative to current educational trends.

The mainstreaming literature is replete with evidence that regular education teachers are generally opposed to having handicapped children in their classrooms (Biklen, 1985; Jamieson, 1984). Knoff (1985) reported that when regular education teachers were asked whether they would be willing to accept handicapped students if special education programs were discontinued, 79% declined. Similar results were reported by others (Hollinger, 1987). Thus, it is generally accepted that many regular class teachers perceive special class placement for exceptional students as preferable to regular class placement. Even regular education teachers who are supportive of mainstreaming agree that such placement may negatively influence their teaching effectiveness (Hudson, Graham, & Warner, 1979).

Teachers’ willingness to mainstream exceptional students has also been discussed relative to labeling effects, specifically whether educators have lowered expectations for students whose disabilities are described and whether diagnostic labels influence students’ performance (Gillung & Rucker, 1977; Moore & Fine, 1978). Williams and Algozzine (1979) reported that regular classroom teachers’ mainstreaming rejection rates were highest for mildly retarded (EMH) and behaviorally disordered (BD) students and lowest for children with learning disabilities (LD), findings confirmed by others (Vandivier & Vandivier, 1981).

Regular education teacher mainstreaming biases notwithstanding, children with exceptionalities are routinely mainstreamed; 46% of students with BD and 77% of students with LD receive all or part of their education in regular class settings (U.S. Department of Education, 1987), and there is every indication this trend will continue (McNutt, 1986; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Will, 1986). However, in spite of regular class teachers’ obvious responsibility for educating students with exceptionalities, decisions related to mainstreaming, including identification of classroom modifications required for mainstreaming, are frequently made by school ancillary personnel, including school psychologists, speech/language pathologists, occupational/physical therapists, and social workers (Poland, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Mirkin, 1982; Ysseldyke, Algozzine,

Correspondence concerning this article, including requests for copies of the questionnaire, should be addressed to Richard L. Simpson, Dept. of Special Education, University of Kansas Medical Center, 39th and Rainbow, Kansas City, KS 66103.

28

Mainstreaming Recommendations 29

& Mitchell, 1982). Mainstreaming perceptions held by individuals representing these ancillary disciplines are poorly understood, however. Thus, mainstreaming, the most controversial issue in special education, is heavily influenced by personnel about whose mainstreaming preferences little is known.

Based on this paucity of information, the present study investigated modifications that school ancillary personnel considered necessary to justify a mainstreaming recom- mendation for a student with BD, EMH, and LD. Specifically, the following questions were used to structure the investigation:

1. Is there a significant difference between the number of modifications selected by ancillary personnel for labeled (i.e., officially diagnosed) and unlabeled (officially undiagnosed, but manifesting characteristics of diagnosed children) students with BD, EMH, and LD?

2. Do ancillary staff members recommend different numbers and types of mainstreaming modifications for students with mild exceptionalities?

METHOD

Subjects Ninety CertifiedAicensed practicing school ancillary professionals participated in

the study. Respondents included 14 occupational/physical therapists, 21 school psychologists, 27 speech/language pathologists, 18 social workers, and 9 miscellaneous ancillary professionals (e.g., nurses, behavioral therapists). As revealed in Table 1, participants varied across gender, formal education, and years of professional experience.

Table 1 Summary of Respondent Demographic Data (N = 90)

Survey item n (070)

Sex Female 84 (94) Male 5 ( 5 ) No response 1 (1)

Position Occupational/physical therapist Psychologist Social worker SpeechAanguage pathologist Other No response

Formal Education Bachelor Master Education specialist Doctor of philosophy No response

Years of Experience 1 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 More than 15 No response

14 (15) 21 (24) 18 (20) 27 (30) 9 (10) 1 (1)

24 (27) 30 (34) 25 (27) 9 (10) 2 (2)

~

Nofe. Raw data are presented. Percentages are in parentheses.

30 Simpson and Myles

Respondents were employees of one large midwestern special education cooperative. The cooperative served three school districts (totaling approximately 13,250 elementary- age students): one large city district and two small-town districts. The socioeconomic compositon ranged from middle class to lower-middle class; the racial composition included Caucasian (approximately 55 Yo), Black (approximately 40%), and other minority (approximately 5 YO). Participation in investigation was voluntary, and respondents understood that their responses would be anonymous.

Survey Instrument A survey measure was developed to solicit information on types of modifications

that facilitate ancillary staff members’ willingness to mainstream elementary-age children with exceptionalities. Participants were provided (a) a cover letter outlining the pur- poses of the study, (b) directions for completing the research instrument, (c) a vignette describing a child with a disability (i.e., BD, EMH, LD), (d) eight questions related to mainstreaming options, and (e) five questions seeking demographic information about the respondent.

Vignettes of elementary-age students with behavioral, cognitive, or learning disabilities were presented in the questionnaire format. Half of the children described in the vignettes were identical to those of the diagnosed (i.e., labeled) children except that no diagnostic labels were used. Thus, six descriptions of mildy handicapped students served as stimuli: a labeled and unlabeled BD pupil; a labeled and unlabeled EMH pupil; and a labeled and unlabeled LD pupil. These vignettes, used in similar studies (Myles & Simpson, 1989), were adaptations of those developed by Coleman (1986) and Meyen (1982).

The vignettes were field-tested by special education doctoral students and faculty from a midwestern university. The purposes of the evaluation were twofold: (a) to ascer- tain that vignettes were accurate, explicit, and lucid; and (b) to determine whether the questionnaire contained any problems of clarity, directions, items, and item-response format. Vignettes were determined to be clearly worded and to be accurate representations of children with BD, EMH, and LD. Survey directions and items were deemed clear and concise. Additionally, extensive field testing was conducted with regular educators and ancillary staff members. Criterion established by Berdie, Anderson, and Niebuhr (1986) were used to determine reliability and validity of the survey.

Questionnaire return rate was approximately 60%. There were no systematic differences among return rates for occupationaVphysid therapists, school psychologists, social workers, speech/language pathologists, and other ancillary professionals.

Procedures Participants were assigned to react to one randomly assigned vignette of an

exceptional student (Le., labeled and unlabeled BD, EMH, or LD). They were told to imagine that the pupil was being considered for full-time placement in a regular education class and to select the minimal classroom modifications that would be needed for mainstreaming. Specific classroom modifications were based on a survey conducted by the National Education Association (“Teacher Opinion Poll,” 1975) and on current educa- tional mainstreaming options (e.g., consultation [Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 19861). These included (a) decreased class size, (b) additional planning time, (c) para- professional assistance, (d) support services, (e) consultation, and (f) inservice training.

Subsequent to selecting modifications, respondents were asked to indicate the amount of assistance relative to each modification selected. For example, respondents

Mainstreaming Recommendations 31

were instructed: “If you checked decreased class size as a modification, how many children should be in the regular education classroom?”

RESULTS The current study was designed to (a) compare the number of modifications needed

to persuade ancillary staff members to have a student with mild exceptionalities mainstreamed on a full-time basis and (b) analyze the types of mainstreaming modifica- tions selected by support personnel.

Mean numbers of ancillary staff-selected modifications were 4.00 and 3.31 for labeled and unlabeled students with BD, 3.23 and 3.71 for labeled and unlabeled students with EMH, and 3.83 and 3.60 for labeled and unlabeled students with LD, respectively. An analysis of variance procedure revealed that no significant differences existed in the number of modifications as a function of label (labeled/unlabeled), F(1, 84) = -28, p > .05, category (BD, EMH, LD), F(2, 84) = .28, p > .05, or the IabeVcategory interaction, F(2, 84) = 1.62, p > .05.

Frequency and types of mainstreaming modifications appear in Tables 2 and 3. Con- sultation services (93 %) and support services (89%) were most often requested by ancillary staff members. Decreased class size was selected by more than two-thirds of the respondents (68%). Respondents considered paraprofessionals (37Vo), inservice programs (380ro), and planning time (42%) less important.

Over one-half of ancillary staff members recommended that two to three consultants be available to provide support to the regular educator. Special educators were the personnel most selected as consultants, followed by social workers for students with BD and EMH and the occupationaVphysica1 therapists for students with LD. Similar recommendations were made for support service personnel.

School psychologists were viewed as both direct and indirect service providers. Over two-thirds of the respondents indicated that psychologists should assume support service and consultant roles with labeled and unlabeled students with BD and EMH. School psychologists were selected less often to assist labeled and unlabeled students with LD. That is, psychologists were selected as support service personnel and consultants by 50% of the respondents for unlabeled students with LD. Although 50% of participants selected psychologists as consultants for labeled LD students, only 13% indicated that they would select psychologists to provide direct service for this type of student.

Of the 61 resondents who selected class size as a mainstreaming modification, over one-half suggested that a class size of 15 to 19 students was appropriate. Thirty percent believed that a smaller class size (10 to 14 students) was desirable.

Planning time of one-half hour (47 070) and paraprofessional availability for one- half day (49%) were considered minimally necessary to facilitate mainstreaming by support service staff selecting those modifications. Two types of inservices, instructional techniques and behavior management, were selected across labeled and unlabeled students with BD and EMH (range from 78% to 100%). Ancillary staff members responding to the labeled and unlabeled LD scenario preferred instructional techniques over behavior management inservices.

DISCUSSION Limitations

The results of the present study must be interpreted with regard to two limitations. First, ancillary staff members were presented with a hypothetical situation to which to react. Although vignettes were validated, one cannot predict that staff members would

32 Simpson and Myles

Table 2 Mainstreaming ModiJicntions

Modification

Labeled Unlabeled

BD EMH LD BD EMH LD Total

Paraprofessional (n = 33) Less than YZ day 0 (0) % day 4 (40) Entire day 6 (60)

1 2 (22) 2 6 (67) 3 1 (11)

30 minutes or less 5 (46)

1 % hours 2 (18) 2 or more hours 1 (9)

Less than 10 1 (8)

Number of Inservices (n = 34)

Daily Planning Time (n = 38)

1 hour 3 (27)

Class Size (n = 61)

10 - 14 5 (42) 15 - 19 5 (42) 20 - 24 1 (8)

1 1 ( 5 ) 2 9 (47) 3 4 (21) 4 2 (11) 5 3 (16)

1 0 (0) 2 6 (33) 3 8 (44) 4 1 (6)

No response 1 (1)

Number of Support Services ( n = 80)

Number of Consultants (n = 84)

5 3 (17)

Number of Consultation Services (n = 84) 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 12(63) 7 (64) 3 7 (37) 3 (27) 4 0 (0) 1 (9)

0 (0) l(15) l (50) 2 (67) 3 (42) 0 (0) 1 (33) 3 (42) 1 (50)

0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33) 2 (40) 5 (71) 1 (33) 3 (60) 2 (29) 1 (33)

l(11) 1 (6) l(10) 2 (18) 2 (13) 4 (40) 3 (27) 7 (44) l (10) 2 (18) 5 (31) 3 (30) 3 (27) 1 (6) 0 (0)

l(11) 1 (6) l (10) 3 (26) 3 (19) 4 (40) 3 (26) 6 (38) 2 (20) 1 (11) 4 (25) 2 (20) 3 (26) 2 (12) 1 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

4 (12) 16 (49) 13 (39)

8 (23) 19 ( 5 5 ) 7 (21)

18 (47) 13 (34) 6 (16) 1 (3)

4 (7) 18 (30) 32 (52)

7 (11)

7 (8) 28 (35) 21 (26) 14 (16) 7 (9)

7 (8) 26 (31) 26 (31) 13 (16) 11 (13)

1 (1)

12 (14)

15 (18) 54 (64)

3 (4)

Note. Raw data are presented. Percentages are in parentheses.

react in a similar manner if exposed to a mainstreaming situation. Second, the study was conducted in a limited geographical area. Generalizations must be made with regard to these factors.

Diagnostic Categories One of the most significant findings of this investigation was that ancillary staff

members did not appear to base their mainstreaming suggestions on student label. That is, they seemed to place emphasis on behavioral and academic characteristics of students

Mainstreaming Recommendations 33

Table 3 Types of Mainstreaming Modifications

Labeled Unlabeled

Modification BD EMH LD BD EMH LD

Inservices Instructional techniques 7 (78) 2(100) 8 (100) 5 (100) 7 (100) 3 (100) Behavior management 9 (100) 2 (100) 3 (38) 5 (100) 7 (100) 2 (67) Other 1 (11) 0 (0) 1 (13) 3 (60) 2 (29) 1 (33)

Support Service Personnel OccupationaVphysicaI therapist 5 (26) 3 (30) 14 (93) 5 (45) 6 (38) 8 (80) Psychologist 16 (84) 8 (80) 2 (13) 10 (91) 11 (69) 5 (50) Social worker 19 (100) 9 (90) 2 (13) 11 (100) 14 (93) 5 (50) SpeechAanguage pathologist 6 (32) 4 (40) 2 (13) 4 (36) 13 (81) 2 (20) Other 8 (42) 3 (30) 8 (53) 6 (55) 6 (38) 5 (50)

Consultation Personnel Occupational/physicaI therapist 4 (22) 3 (27) 11 (65) 4 (36) 5 (31) 6 (60) Psychologist 16 (89) 9 (82) 8 (47) 9 (82) 12 (75) 5 (50) Social worker 18 (100) 8 (73) 3 (18) 8 (73) 15 (94) 5 (50) SpeechAanguage pathologist 4 (22) 5 (45) 4 (24) 5 (45) 10 (63) 2 (20) Special educator 14 (78) 9 (82) 15 (88) 9 (82) 8 (50) 10 (100)

Consultation Services Instructional techniques 19 (100) 10 (91) 17 (100) 10 (91) 16(100) lO(100) Behavior management 19 (100) 11 (100) 3 (18) 11 (100) 16(100) 6 (60) Team teaching 6 (33) 4 (36) 4 (24) 2 (10) 2 (13) 1 (10) Other 1 (6) 2 (18) 1 (6) 3 (27) 1 (6) 3 (30)

Note. Raw data are presented. Percentages are in parentheses.

rather than on diagnostic categories. Similar results were found for mainstreaming modifications selected by regular educators (Myles & Simpson, 1989) and parents of exceptional children (Simpson & Myles, 1989).

Preferred Modification Preferences Support staff members focused modification preferences on two areas: support ser-

vices and consultation. That is, they generally emphasized those modifications on which they could provide assistance. It should be noted, however, that modification selections were not entirely based on the idea that they, as support service personnel, were most qualified to assist exceptional students. Ancillary staff members selected the special educator as most preferred consultant.

Results of this study differed from others conducted with regular educators (Myles & Simpson, 1989). That is, teachers placed less emphasis on consultation and support services than did ancillary staff members. This leads to important considerations: What specific student characteristics did ancillary staff members identify that were considered appropriate for consultation or support services assistance? Did teachers identify these same factors? If so, why did differences in selection rates exist? If not, what implica- tions does this have for preservice and inservice training?

Because ancillary staff often make mainstreaming decisions and have skills that may facilitate mainstreaming of students with mild handicaps, further research in this area is needed. Specifically, types of assistance that support staff can provide in a mainstreamed setting need to be identified. Additionally, differences in mainstreaming suggestions made

34 Simpson and Myles

by regular educators and ancillary staff members require investigation. Answers to these issues may assist in providing mainstreamed students with a more appropriate education.

REFERENCES BERDIE, D. R., ANDERSON, J. F., & NIEBUHR, M. A. (1986). Questionnaire: Design and use. Metuchen,

BIKLEN, D. P. (1985). Mainstreaming: From compliance to quality. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 18, 5861. COLEMAN, M. C. (1986). Behavior disorders: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. GILLUNO, T. B., & RUCKER, C. N. (1977). Labels and teacher expectations. ExceptionulChildren, 43, 464-465. HOLLINOER, J. (1987). Social skills for behaviorally disordered children as preparation for mainstreaming:

HUDSON, F., GRAHAM, S., &WARNER, M. (1979). Mainstreaming: An examination of the attitudes and needs

IDOL, L., PAOLUCCI-WHITCOMB, P., & NEVIN, A. (1986). Collaborative consultation. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. JAMIESON, J . D. (1984). Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Attitudes

KNOFF, H. M. (1985). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: A status report and comparison of regular and special

MCNUTT, G . (1986). The status of learning disabilities in the states: Consensus or controversy? Journal

MEYEN, E. L. (1982). Exceptional children and youth: An introduction. Denver: Love. MOORE, J., & F1N6, M. J. (1978). Regular and special class teachers’perceptions of normal and exceptional

children and their attitudes toward mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 253-259. MYLES, B. S., SIMPSON, R. L. (1989). Regular educators’ modification preferences for mainstreaming mildly

handicapped children. Journal of Special Education, 22, 479-482. POLAND, S. F., THURLOW, M. L., YSSELDYKE, J. E., & MIRKIN, P. K. (1982). Current psychoeducational

assessment and decision-making practices as reported by directors of special education. Journal of School

REYNOLDS, M. C., WANO, M. C., & WALBERO, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.

SIMPSON, R. L., B MYLes, B. S. (1989). Parents’ mainstreaming modification preferences for children with mild mental retardation, behavior disorders, and learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 26,

NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Theory, practice and new directions. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 17-27.

of regular classroom teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 558-562.

and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice (pp. 206-222). Reston, VA: CEC.

educators in New York and Massachusetts. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 410-418.

of Learning Disabilities, 1. 12-16.

Psychology, 20, 171-179.

292-301. Teacher opinion poll: Professional satisfaction. (1975). U. S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (1987). Ninth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the

VANDNIER, P. L., & VANDIVIER, S. C. (1981). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming exceptional students.

WILL, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children,

WILLIAMS, R. J., & ALWZZINE, B. (1979). Teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming. The Elementary School Journal, 80(2), 63-67.

YSSELDYKE, J. E., ALOOZZINE, B., MITCHELL, J. (1982). Regular education teacher participation in special education team decision making. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60(5), 308-3 13,

Today’s Education, 64, 14.

Education of the Handicapped Act. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Journal for Special Educators, 7, 381-388.

52, 411-415.