Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00044 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.44 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19959999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00044
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 3, no. 15 (October 12, 1995).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c October 12, 1995
Inclusion in elementary schools : a survey and policy analysis / Susan Allan Galis [and] C. Kenneth Tanner.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 3issue 15series Year mods:caption 19951995Month October10Day 1212mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1995-10-12


1 of 24 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 3 Number 15October 12, 1995ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU College of Education Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1995, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.Inclusion in Elementary Schools: A Survey and Policy Analysis Susan Allan Galis Commerce and Jefferson City Schools Jefferson, GA 30549 C. Kenneth Tanner Department of Educational Leadership University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 ktanner@moe.coe.uga.eduAbstract: This study of reform policy focused on inclusive e ducation in the 1990s in the state of Georgia, United States of America. Program modifica tions including, individualizing instructional methods, adapting the instructional e nvironment, and lowering maximum class size emerged as significant issues. We found that polici es related to these areas were compounded by the less experienced educators not readily acceptin g change strategies for serving students. Apparently younger educators are engrossed in survi ving daily routine and have difficulty coping with the complex demands of change. Regular educati on teachers have difficulty with the idea of inclusion. Legal aspects dealing inclusion need cla rification, especially for regular education teachers.


2 of 24Introduction Recently, concern has emerged regarding whether sp ecial education is the master or victim of the never ending waves of school reform. Master or victim, special education is submerged in legal and program issues while the wav es of reform continue. One reform issue that is receiving considerable at tention in the schools and literature is inclusion. Inclusion focuses on providing services to students in the regular classroom, rather than pulling students out of regular classrooms to receive special services. A primary goal of inclusion is to educate children with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate support in their home school or neighborhood. Presently, there is discussion concerning inclusio n vs. full inclusion. Some believe that full inclusion is the appropriate service model, wh ich would mean that all students with disabilities would be served in regular classes. A more moderate view of inclusion is that placement committees should use inclusion as one de livery model for providing the least restrictive environment in continuance of service d elivery models. Baker, Wang, and Walberg (1995) traced the recent events surrounding inclusion to a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences ( Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). The panel of Heller et al. found the classification and placement of children in special education ineffective and discriminatory. The recommendations were that "children be given noninclusive or extra-class placement for special services only if (a) they can be accurately classified, and only if (b) noninclusion demonstrates superior results" (p. 33). Earlier concepts surrounding inclusion go back to 1975. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990 was initially enacted as The Edu cation of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1975. The 1975 law was more often called Public Law 94-142. It mandates processes for children with disabilities, and access to free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), with age-appropriate peers, to the maximum extent appropriate. LRE is the mandate that has brought the issue of in clusion to the forefront. Inclusive education has been the subject of legal cases (See for exampl e McCarthy, 1994), parents, advocates, policy makers, administrators, and educators. In most situ ations, each group expounding the positive nature of inclusion has been accused of being biase d by those who do not support inclusion or full inclusion. As with any educational reform, inclusion has draw n mixed reviews. A comparison of the effects of inclusive versus noninclusive educationa l practices for special education students was completed by Baker (1994), Carlberg and Kavale (198 0), and Wang and Baker (1985). A meta-analyses demonstrated a "small-tomoderate be neficial effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of special needs child ren" (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995, p. 34). The average effect sizes ranged from 0.08 to 0 .44 and all were positive. The average for inclusion effects was 0.195, which was designated a s being near the average effect for productive instructional practices. Based on these findings, B aker et al. asserted that the "concern is not whether to provide inclusive education, but how to implement inclusive education in ways that are both feasible and effective in ensuring school success for all children, especially those with special needs" (p. 34). The outcomes for nondisabled students in classes t hat include peers with disabilities has been identified as a barrier to inclusion. However, available data reveal no statistically significant effects on the academic outcomes of the nondisabled peers (Staub & Peck, 1995). Parents of the peers reported no harm to their children. Instructi onal time was not lost by nondisabled students when students with disabilities were included in th eir classrooms. Additionally, nondisabled peers did not pick up undesirable behaviors from th eir peers with disabilities. Opponents of inclusion emphasized the need to main tain a full continuum of services and argued that those expounding "full" inclusion had o verlooked this provision of the IDEA.


3 of 24Vergason and Anderegg (1992, 1993) argued that an i nclusive classroom was not in the least restrictive environment interests of most students with disabilities. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) identified The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) as the leader in the reform movement for inclusion. They warned that TAS H did not speak for all groups in their desire for full inclusion; but that ". . their co ntinued provocative rhetoric will polarize a field already agitated .... (p. 305) Several experts say that pullout delivery systems, such as the ones used in special education, are not effective in remediating or habi litating even mild types of disabilities. Further, they contend that teachers in regular classes provi de effective instruction that is appropriate for all children and can accommodate individual differe nces, including students with disabilities (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lilly, 1988; Lipsky & Gart ner, 1987; Pugach, 1988; Reschly, 1988a; Reschly, 1988b; Reynolds & Wang, 1983; Reynolds, Wa ng, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Stainback & Stainback, 1985; Stain back & Stainback, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Taylo r, 1988; Wang & Birch, 1984; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1986; Will, 1986). Other drawbacks of the resource pull-out program m odel have been underscored: special education resource rooms often served 12 to 15 dive rse students, students brought a variety of needs from several different grade levels, the spec ial education teacher gave very little active instruction, and instruction occurring was skill re lated and not tied to classroom themes (Yatvin, 1995). Special education teachers did not have the time to link to the regular classroom under the pull-out model and thus, "the phrase quality pull-o ut program' is a contradiction in terms" (p. 483). Special education teachers were trained less in the academic areas and did not have a holistic approach to teaching and learning. Their f ocus was on techniques for the unconventional students, behavior management, and diagnosing or re mediating deficiencies. Yatvin identified factors that led to the philosophy of inclusion: 1. All children learn best in regular classrooms wh en there are flexible organizational and instructional patterns in place and human and material supports for those with special needs.2. A child's belief that he or she is entitled to a place in a community of peers is a precondition for learning.3. Pull-out programs that impose the extra burdens of academic discontinuity, poor-quality instruction, social anxiety, and low s tatus on special-needs children deprive them of the opportunity for the education t hey are entitled to and thus violate their civil rights. (p. 484) Van Dyke, Stallings, and Colley (1995) identified three fundamental arguments to support the philosophy of inclusion. The first argument con cerned case law to date and the legal claims to an education in the "least restrictive environment. Inherent in this first argument was a civil rights issue. The second basis rested in the litera ture concerning "best practices" for the education of students with disabilities. The analyses of data on the progress of students served in special education did not show the student achievement grow th expected. The third argument centered on the "rightness" of inclusion. Segregating the st udents classified them, created bias, and made them different. They were apart from the classroom community. In October of l992, the National Association of St ate Boards of Education (NASBE), released a report calling for an inclusive system o f education for all students. The NASBE study group envisions a restructured, inclusive system lo oking very different from typical schools as they exist today. Students would not progress throu gh the traditional lock-step, age-grade


4 of 24progression, but would be grouped heterogeneously, based on the particular lesson to be taught. This view of inclusion is significant because it co mes from regular education, rather than from the special education arena. The argument may be far from over, yet there is a need to involve inclusion in the debate, the development, and implementation of policies rel ated to school reform. Often issues such as inclusion and special education are not considered when reform is discussed or implemented. The issue of inclusive education formed the basis for this study. The focus was on three major areas of concern in the literature: 1. effect ive strategies for meeting the needs of students, 2. educational change issues regarding inclusion, s taff development, collaboration, and communications, and 3. the impacts of implementing inclusive education strategies. Major Areas of Concern Educational change and strategies for achieving th is goal have recently been approached through school-based management. Actions based on d ecentralization plans have launched school-based management into the forefront of educa tional change in the 1990s. Presently, well over 3,000 articles, books, and documents have been published on the subjects of school reform, school-based or site-based management, restructurin g, and local management of schools. The trend is obvious. A noteworthy amount of the litera ture deals with school-based management as a vehicle of reform. Representative examples dealing with the reform movement are found in publications by Glickman (1993), Hess (1994), Lane & Epps (1992), Odden & Wohlstetter (1995), Wohlstetter & Odden (1992). Lynn (1994) has reviewed publications on restructu ring schools (school reform) and categorized works on curricular and instructional r eform, the change process as it relates to reform, methods of grouping students, school govern ance, and collaboration between schools and the community. Another aspect of the literature dea ls with the influence of site-based management on instruction. Examples of this may be found in descriptions by English (1988), Walberg & Niemiec (1994), and Wohlstetter & Briggs (1994). The term "inclusion" is not mentioned in the feder al law (McCarthy, 1994). However, it has become a key component of current school reform issues for a number of reasons, such as legal mandates, court orders, philosophical beliefs of educators and parents, and decisions made for students with disabilities by committees. At ti mes decisions made regarding inclusion for students with disabilities may appear to conflict w ith other issues such as raising academic standards for all students or teachers being held a ccountable for the standardized test scores of the students in their classrooms. These conflicts a re all part of the many policy arguments 1,2 surrounding restructuring. There are some commonalities in restructuring prac tice which appear consistently in the literature. These include: 1. school-based management with an active teacher r ole, 2. shared decision making at the district level,3. cooperative relationships between administrators and local teacher associations, and4. innovative staff development practices (Center f or Policy Research in Education, 1989) While these commonalities of restructuring are not exhaustive, they do provide a


5 of 24consistent foundation upon which to focus. Educational research continues to stress the impor tance of teachers being more involved in identifying needs and developing the strategies for implementing effective change in our schools (Duttweiler, 1989; Glasser, 1990; Gross, 19 85; Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995; Trendall, 1989; Tye & Novotney, 1975). Entrusting t eachers with greater power and accountability for school-based changes can have ma ny positive outcomes (Ehrenberg, 1992). First, it can increase the level of participation a nd support in the development and implementation of innovative reforms (Lieberman, 19 90; Nelson, 1989). Second, it has the potential of increasing the sense of efficacy among regular and special education teachers (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Finn, 1986; McDaniel & Dibell a-McCarthy, 1989; Shanker, 1986). The new theory, according to Darling-Hammond (1992 ), "assumes students are not standardized and teaching is not routine . effe ctive teaching techniques will vary for students with different learning styles, different developed intelligences, at different stages of cognitive and psychological development, for different subjec t areas, and for different instructional goals" (p.24). In order for educators to effectively meet the challenge of educating students according to new expectations, it will be necessary for educator s to continually learn and adapt to new situations. The approach in the past has been to provide one-s hot staff development training sessions on topics determined by school administrators. This has been shown to be ineffective and inefficient. According to Ayres and Meyer (1992), t eachers must be empowered and recognized as knowing their students and circumstances better than anyone else. Teachers must have ownership in any innovative programs or model imple mentation in order for change to occur and be successful. Innovative and effective staff development activit ies can be implemented to initiate successful school reform. These staff development a ctivities can target teacher attitudes, classroom practices and child outcomes. According t o Guskey (1986) there is a temporal sequence to these activities. Staff development act ivities can provide specific tools for the teachers' use. Staff development activities are mos t beneficial when teachers ask for the opportunity to be exposed to specific ideas, or tea chers can see that training has relevance for them. These new tools can change teachers' classroo m practices, which can lead to changes in child outcomes. Improved child outcomes can lead to changes in teachers' beliefs and attitudes. According to the National Center on Educational Re structuring and Inclusion (1994), systematic staff development and flexible planning time for special education and general education teachers to meet and work together contri bute to successful inclusive educational programs. Empowering teachers and collaboration bet ween programs improves both the professional teaching environment and the continuit y of educational goals and objectives (Gross, 1985; Oakes, 1989; Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989). If e ducational systems accept the paradigm of inclusive schools for all children, collaboration c an successfully occur. There are several factors, however, which must be overcome in order for this s uccessful collaboration to occur. One factor reported by teachers is that they feel isolated and separated from other professionals in their educational setting. The feelings of separation and /or isolation are magnified by the specialization and stratification of teachers and a dministrators assigned to distinctly separated programs and functions (Duttweiler, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1992; Will, 1986). A second factor that negatively influences success ful collaboration among teachers is the lack of efficacy felt by both general and special e ducation teachers (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Meek, 1988). If teachers do not feel competent in t heir abilities, it is unlikely that they will expend the effort necessary for successful collabor ation. In order to support collaborative relationships, i t is imperative that teachers' feelings of isolation be addressed. In addition, boundaries bet ween programs and separations between responsibilities must be minimized. Also, administr ators must redistribute power and provide


6 of 24opportunities for teachers to provide meaningful in formation into the operations of the educational setting. As waves of school reform continue, it is increasi ngly important that "regular educators"and special educators become aware of pol icy arguments concerning inclusive education, support for educational change, and effe ctive strategies for meeting the needs of students. Furthermore, educators should actively sp ecify their beliefs and attitudes in these significant debates. The things that practitioners know, think, and believe about the policy issues surrounding inclusive education and reform ideas ar e important because they are the people who deliver the educational programs to the children. Purpose of the Study Because the outcomes of reform are largely depende nt upon those that carry out the policy, it seemed logical for us to focus on respon ses from the people who do the work. Our purpose was to determine the perceptions and belief s of regular and special education administrators and teachers regarding the provision of services to students, including at-risk students and students with disabilities. The study targeted the three areas discussed above : 1. Effective strategies for meeting the needs of al l students, 2. The support in their district for educational ch ange, and 3. Inclusive education. We compared responses of the implementers to deter mine if differences existed regarding these three policy areas. Other factors used for co mparison included the total number of years in education and the educational position of the respo nder. We refer to these factors as independent variables. However, since they could not be manipul ated, they are also defined as moderator variables. These two variables were of interest to us because our professional roles involve training and administration. It was our assumption that if d ifferences were evident, emphasis could be placed on solutions through the literature and our actions as educational leaders. We wanted to know how our clients viewed inclusive education. We assumed that the dependent variables would be influenced by the moderator variables. In particular, we suspected that time in service and the position that the responder held in the sch ool organization would be key influences in their acceptance or rejection of educational reform issues involving inclusion. Dependent variables are shown in Table 3. MethodInstrumentation A questionnaire was developed with emphasis on the three areas reviewed above. In addition to requesting demographic information, 24 statements representing dependent variables were to be rated according to a six-point Likert sc ale (The scale ranged from 1 "strongly disagree" to 6 "strongly agree."). Validity. Initially, the questionnaire was reviewed by a pan el of eight experts to establish face and content validity. The panel of experts rep resented educators at the state, university, and


7 of 24local levels who had particular types of expertise that related to this study (Nationally known experts in school reform and special education serv ed on the panel). Recommendations from the panel were consistent in suggesting the changing of wording on specific items, the rationale for specific items and concern about the length of the instrument. Recommendations were incorporated into the survey instrument and the fin al draft of the instrument was prepared for distribution. Reliability. Reliability was determined in two phases. In phase I reliability of the instrument was estimated before disseminating it to the random sample of 126 school systems. A pilot study was conducted with 20 educators who wer e similar to the sample group. They were asked to respond to the instrument. Three weeks lat er the same 20 educators were asked to respond again. Each item was examined by using the repeated measu re design. The t-test for correlated sample means was used to test for significant diffe rences between the first and second response. Items that exceeded the critical t value of 2.093 w ere removed from the instrument (Alpha = .05, df = 19). Two items were removed as a result of thi s analysis. Phase II of the reliability check involved applyin g Chronbach's Alpha to data from each section in the final study. According to de Vaus (1 986), this test for unidimensionality is used to determine the correlation coefficient between a res ponse and the responses to the other items in the subset. Any response with the item-to-scale coe fficient less than .30 was dropped from the data. An alpha coefficient on each subset of .70 wa s desirable according to de Vaus. Furthermore, any item whose omission would increase the subset alpha to .70 or higher was dropped. The reliability coefficients for the three sections were as follows: Inclusive education (.81), effective strategies (.76), and support for change (.74). Research Design A random sample with an error range of 5% was dete rmined according to the sampling formula for surveys suggested by Nunnery and Kimbro ugh (1971). A total of 126 school districts was selected out of a population of 187 school syst ems in the state of Georgia. A table of random numbers was used to determine which of the 187 scho ol systems would be selected. After randomly choosing the 126 systems, the following se ts of surveys were sent to the selected school systems: Special Education directors126 surveysElementary School Principals126 surveysRegular education teachers252 surveysSpecial education teachers252 surveys The first elementary school listed in each of the 126 systems' roster was chosen (Elementary schools that served seventh grade stude nts or higher were not included). Names and addresses were obtained from the Georgia Department of Education (1994). The special education directors were sent questionnaire packets Additionally, five survey packets were mailed to the selected elementary principals in the 126 school systems. The principals were given directions for completing one questionnaire and dis tributing the other four to the first two regular education teachers on their roster and the first tw o special education teachers on their roster. Data Collection


8 of 24 Each packet included a cover letter explaining the need for the study and its purpose, a questionnaire (postage stamp and return address pro vided), and a postal card to return indicating participation. The postal card was also used as a w ay of offering a copy of the summary of the results to the responders. To preserve anonymity, e ach responder had the opportunity to return an inscribed postal card separately. No phone calls we re made to nonresponders, nor were additional reminders distributed.Dependent Variables and Issues Three dependent variables emerged from the issues in the literature (See Table 1). Each dependent variable contained a cluster of statement s in the questionnaire. Questions deleted through the reliability analysis are indicated in T able 1.Table 1 Cluster of Questions per Area (Dependent Variable) (Part II of Questionnaire)AreaCluster of Questions 1. Effective Strategies for Meeting Students' Needs 1,2,*6,*7,*8,*13,15,18,*20,24 2. Support for Educational Change 3,5,10,12,17,21 3. Inclusive Education4,9,*11,*14,*16,19,22,23* These questions were deleted in phase II of the r eliability check and not used in the analysis of data. Table 3 includes the questionnaire items.Research Questions Each set of issues provided a basis for designing a corresponding research question. The research questions below focused on the statistical ly significant differences among the independent variables (alpha = .05). Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding: 1. effective strategies for meeting students' needs 2. support for educational change, and3. inclusive education? Findings Descriptive Data A total of 756 surveys were maile d, and 460 usable surveys were returned for a 64% rate of return. Table 2 shows th e return by job title of the responder. The return rates ranged from a high of 82% to a low of 51%. Most of the responders were female (83.7%), while 14.6% were male and the remaining 1. 7% did not respond to this item. The mean for total educational experience was 15.8 years.Table 2 Surveys Mailed and Usable Responses


9 of 24 The means for the three subsets of items in Table 1 ranged from 4.3 to 5.0. The highest subset mean was 5.0 for effective strategies for me eting students' needs (n = 448, S. D. = 0.79). Support for educational change received a mean of 4 .4 (n =447, S. D. = 0.91), while the lowest subset mean was 4.3 for inclusive education (n = 44 9, S. D. = 0.97). The strongest disagreement was with item number 7, "It is important for academ ic expectations to be the same for all students in a class." This item, however, was elimi nated by the reliability analysis and was not used in the study. Table 3 includes 24 statements (representing the d ependent variables) from the questionnaire. They were divided according to the c ategories shown in Table 1. Statement number one, from the effective strategies category, had the highest mean (5.6).Table 3 Dependent Variables and Descriptive DataStatement NMeanS.D. 1*. It is important to make modifications for stude nts who need adaptations to benefit from a particular instructional environment. 4595.6.86 2*. Students' progress shouldbe graded according to ability rather than only withstandardized measures. 4525.21.10 3**. Our school/school districthas a broad continuum of services for meeting the needsof all students. 4604.51.10 4***.Inclusion of students withmild disabilities into regular classes is generally aneffective strategy. 4494.51.10 5**. I have input into theprogram of students with disabilities who are placedin the regular classroom. 4484.61.41 6*. Programs likeChapter 1 are effective. 4484.4 1.27 7*. Keeping academicexpectations consistent forall students is important. 4462.31.60 8*. Maximum class size shouldbe lowered when including students with disabilities. 4515.21.18


10 of 249***.The inclusion of studentswith disabilities into the regular classroom can bebeneficial to the otherstudents in the class. 4514.41.32 10**. I have support from mysupervisor(s) to try new ideas and implement creativestrategies. 4485.11.23 11***. Students should beserved in regular classes regardless of disability. 4512.71.43 12**. I have opportunities totalk and plan with my colleagues on a regular basis. 4474.01.62 13*. It is important to keepto keep behavioral expectations the same for all students. 4513.71.76 14***. My school/district isa strong supporter of inclusive education. 4433.81.34 15*. Special educationprovides a valuable servicefor students with disabilities. 4545.41.02 16***. Regular teachersmust spend a great deal of time with students withdisabilities. 4503.41.49 17**. Efforts are made toprovide opportunities for mutual planning andcollaboration among personnelin my school/district. 4533.71.47 18*. Students should begrouped in ways which allow a wide variety of abilitiesin each class. 4484.41.42 19***. All students should beincluded in regular environments to the greatestextent possible. 4544.91.33 20*. Slow learnersshould receive special help 4443.91.62


11 of 24 outside the regular classroom.21**. Opportunities for staffdevelopment are provided by my school district which meetmy needs for professional growth. 4534.71.36 22***. Inclusion in the regularclassroom will hurt the educational progress of thestudent with a disability. 4492.71.40 23***. Placement of a studentwith a disability into a regular classroom is disruptive tostudents without disabilities. 4493.11.48 24*. In most cases, studentsshould be grouped by ability. 4512.81.58 Items used for effective strategies variable ** Items used for support for change variable.*** Items used for inclusive education variable.NOTE: The number of responders varies because of mi ssing cases (Not all people responded to every item) A one-way analysis of variance was used to test fo r differences among means for each of the three clusters. The Scheffe' test was applied f or post hoc analysis (alpha = .05). Research Question One. Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding attitudes and belie fs of effective strategies for meeting students' needs? Questionnaire items included in this subset are numbers 1, 2, 15, 18, and 24 ( Items remaining after elimination the reliability check). Significant differences were found for the variable "total years in education" with respect to effective strategies for students (F=2.98,P < .03). These differences are noted in Table 4. Table 4 Effective Strategies by Total Years in EducationSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups35.51.832.98.03Within Groups432265.88.62TOTAL435266.76GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. Error


12 of 24 Grp 1 (1 9 years) 1014.80.752.075 Grp 2 (10 16 years) 1174.95.814.075 Grp 3 (17 21 years) 1035.12.826.072 Grp 4 (22 38 years) 1154.95.790.077 The post hoc analysis revealed a significant diffe rence between groups 1 and 3. The mean for responders who had been in education for 1 thro ugh 9 years was 4.80, while the mean for those who had been in education for 17 through 21 y ears was 5.12. Group 3 showed the strongest agreement with the effective strategy statements. W hile group 1 agreed with the effective strategies, their agreement was not as strong as in the other three groups. As noted in Table 5, there was also a significant difference by current position with regard to effective strategies for meeting the needs of st udents (F=9.67, P < .01). The Scheffe' test revealed that regular education teachers' perceptio ns were significantly different from special education teachers', principals', and special educa tion directors' perceptions. Regular education teachers tended to view the effective strategy stat ements less positively than did the other three groups. The means ranged from 4.65 for regular educ ation teachers to 5.14 for special education directors.Table 5 Effective Strategies by Current RoleSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups317.085.699.67.01Within Groups432254.30.589TOTAL435271.38GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. ErrorSE Teach1355.05.777.067RE Teach1254.65.820.073Principal795.07.682.077SE Direct975.14.749.076 Research Question Two. Is there a statistically significant difference amo ng the independent variables regarding attitudes and belie fs of the responders and the support they have for educational change? Items for this subset inclu ded questions 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 21 (see


13 of 24 Table 1). Total years in education was significant in terms of attitudes and beliefs regarding support for educational change (F= 7.26, P < .01). These di fferences are noted in Table 6.Table 6 Support for Change by Total Years in EducationSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups317.155.7177.26.01Within Groups431339.42.788TOTAL434356.57GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. ErrorGrp 1 (1 9 years) 984.24.900.090 Grp 2 (10 16 years) 1124.18.950.090 Grp 3 (17 21 years) 1084.54.794.076 Grp 4 (22 38 years) 1174.65.900.083 The post hoc analysis for data shown in Table 6 re vealed a significant difference between group 1 and group 4. Group 2 differed significantly with groups 3 and 4. Group 4, which had been in education 22 through 38 years, most strongl y agreed that they had support for educational change with a mean of 4.65. Teachers who had been i n education 10 through 16 years (Group 2) Perceived that they had the least amount of support for change of the four groups with a mean of 4.18. Those who had been in education the least amo unt of time (1 through 9 years) differed significantly with those who had spent the greatest number of years in education (means of 4.24 and 4.65 respectively). There was also a significant difference by current position with regard to attitudes and beliefs about support for educational change (F=8.0 8, P < .01)(see Table 7). The post hoc test revealed that special education teachers differed s ignificantly with principals and special education directors, while regular education teache rs differed significantly with special education directors. The means ranged from 4.17 for special e ducation teachers to 4.68 for special education directors.Table 7 Support for Change by Current RoleSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.


14 of 24 Between Groups318.996.3308.08.01Within Groups431337.58.783TOTAL434356.57GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. ErrorSE Teach1364.17.820.070RE Teach1214.331.040.095Principal794.61.766.086SE Direct994.68.854.086 Research Question Three. Is there a statistically significant difference amo ng the independent variables regarding attitudes and belie fs toward inclusive education? Questions 4, 9, 19, 22, and 23 are included in this subset (See Tab le 1). In Table 8 the analysis of responses for inclusive education reveals a significant difference among responder groups (F = 3.94, p < .01). The Sch effe' test indicated a significant difference between groups 1 and 3. Responders who had been in education 1 to 9 years had the lowest mean (4.11) with regard to inclusive education. Educator s who had been in the field 17 to 21 years had the highest mean.Table 8 Inclusive Education by Total Years in EducationSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups310.823.6103.94.01Within Groups435398.20.915TOTAL438409.02GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. ErrorGrp 1 (1 9 years) 974.111.030.104 Grp 2 (10 16 years) 1134.161.010.095 Grp 3 (17 21 years) 1114.52.842.080 Grp 4 (22 38 years) 1184.30.941.087


15 of 24 As shown in Table 9, a significant difference was found among positions for the variable set dealing with inclusive education (F=28.54, P < .01).Table 9 Inclusive Education by Current RoleSourceD.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups367.2622.42028.54.01Within Groups435341.76.786TOTAL438409.02GroupCount MeanStd. Dev.Std. ErrorGrp 1 (1 9 years) 1394.48.925.078 Grp 2 (10 16 years) 1223.71.983.089 Grp 3 (17 21 years) 804.21.824.092 Grp 4 (22 38 years) 984.75.966.075 The post hoc analysis revealed a significant diffe rence between regular education teachers and principals; regular education teachers and spec ial education teachers; and regular education teachers and special education directors. A differe nce was also found between principals and special education directors. Regular education teac hers were least positive toward inclusive education (mean = 3.71). Principals were next with a mean of 4.21. Special education teachers were second highest with a mean of 4.48 and the spe cial education directors were most positive toward inclusive education with a mean of 4.75.Conclusions and Discussion Responders who had been in education from 17 throu gh 38 years more strongly agreed with each of the three subsets of items than did re sponders who have been in education for 16 years or less. This is counter to our expectations. We reasoned that recent graduates would have been exposed to more ideas on educational reform. W e also assumed that the most recent graduates would be more open to ideas, such as incl usive education. This, however, was not true. It appears that educators who have been in the fiel d for many years feel more strongly that they have support for educational changes and view inclu sive education more positively than their less experienced peers. Perhaps educators develop self-c onfidence with experience. As they master the complex issues of classroom management and the maze of school expectations, there is a


16 of 24greater capacity for accepting the challenges of ed ucational change such as inclusive education. We were surprised that younger professionals did no t accept the paradigm shift. The cause of this is not clear and needs to be investigated. Current role (job position) seems to be an indepen dent variable of great significance. Discrepancies among groups of responders were noted when looking at current roles. Regular education teachers are least positive abou t the effective strategy statements. Perhaps they continue to be frustrated with trying to meet the needs of all of their students, even with support from programs such as Chapter I or spe cial education. Policies dealing with effective strategies may need clarification for reg ular education teachers. Principals reported the highest mean for items rel ated to support for educational change. This is positive in light of school-based managemen t reform issues. If principals feel that they are empowered to make changes and implement creative st rategies, perhaps school reform policies can be integrated at the school level. It is also i mportant to consider ways to empower regular and special education teachers, if inclusive education policies are to be successful at the school level. Special education teachers' means for support for change items is the lowest of the four groups. If special education teachers are trying to carry out inclusive strategies for their students with disabilities, they may be getting resistance f rom regular education teachers, based on regular education teachers' responses to the inclusive educ ation items. Special education teachers may also feel isolated and not supported by regular and special education administrators. There may also be a link to what Yatvin (1995) found concerni ng special education teachers spending time in skill related activities as opposed to instructi on tied to themes. Regular education teachers' mean responses for inc lusive education (3.71) are the lowest for any responder group. These results appear to co ntradict results of a study by Diebold and Trentham (1987), which investigated teacher attitud es toward inclusion in Alabama. The regular educators in this study were positive regarding wil lingness to teach students with disabilities, feelings of confidence about skills in carrying out the mainstreaming program in the regular classroom, sufficiency of time for carrying out the mainstreaming program, and effects of teacher input into the educational program. If regular educ ators are ambivalent about supporting inclusive education concepts, it may be very diffic ult to effectively carry out inclusive strategies. Special education directors most strongly agree wi th inclusive education concepts (4.75). We expected this because they are closest to policy formulation and advocacy. They are more attuned to the legal and policy ramifications of in clusive education. Most directors support the theoretical concepts of inclusive education. Specia l education teachers report the second highest means (4.48). Principals' means are between special education teachers and regular education teachers (4.21). An Indiana superintendent's response to a national survey regarding inclusion stated that two things were necessary for successful inclusion: "leadership and money" (Regional Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1994). The leadership of the principal will be essential in setting up successful inclusion practices. Three elements of leadership were identified by the Center's national inclusion survey: a positive view about the value of education to students with disabilities, a positive view of the capabilities o f teachers and schools to accommodate the needs of all students, and a belief that everyone benefit s from inclusion. Rose and Smith (1993) confirm that attitudes regar ding inclusion are also a concern with preschool programs. Their national survey resulted in 60% of the respondents citing attitudes as a concern impacting the effective inclusion of presch ool children with disabilities into community settings. Their parallel concerns include: teacher preparedness, awareness, communication, and collaboration. Reviewing the degree of agreement for individual q uestionnaire items, responders most strongly agree with the statement, "It is important to make modifications for students who need adaptations to benefit from a particular instructio nal environment" (mean = 5.6). The responses


17 of 24from this study are very different from the survey completed by Schumm and Vaughn (1991). Their results indicate, "teachers identify adaptati ons in materials and instruction as neither desirable nor feasible when teaching special learne rs" (p.22). The following four statements are the items with t he strongest agreement with means > 5.2.1. It is important to make modifications for studen ts who need adaptations to benefit from a particular instructional environment (mean = 5.6).2. Special education provides a valuable service fo r students with disabilities (mean = 5.4). 3. Students' progress should be graded according to ability rather than only with standardized measures (mean = 5.2).4. Maximum class size should be reduced when studen ts with disabilities are placed in regular classrooms (mean = 5.2).Implications for Policy Educational policy makers must understand that "it is important to make modifications for students who need adaptations to benefit from a par ticular instructional environment." Not only is it important to make modifications for students, it is legally mandated. Another response that weighs heavily on policy implementation is "individ ualizing instruction." Teachers are willing to individualize instruction, but they usually need as sistance in developing these strategies. This assistance translates into additional time and prog ram cost. Policy proposals must include detailed means to reach policy goals. This aspect o f the policy process involves legitimating (selecting a proposal, building support, and enacti ng it as law) and implementing policy (organizing bureaucracies, providing payments and s ervices, and levying taxes) (Dye, 1995, p. 21). The statement, "Special education provides a valua ble service for students with disabilities" received the second highest mean resp onse by those responding to this survey. We see this as an indication that educators in Georgia view special education as effective. Continuing efforts to provide information regarding concepts, such as least restrictive environment and continuum of services is also timely. This effort n eeds to be recognized in program policy at the pre-service level in such courses an "introduction to exceptional children." It will also need to be emphasized at the school and district level and can be supported at the regional level as needed. The third highest response to the survey indicates that students' progress should be graded according to ability, rather than only with standar dized measures. This issue becomes complicated, as raising academic standards is a pri ority from the state and national level. Schools, school districts, and states are often rat ed according to students' scores on standardized tests. Assuring that all students are challenged ac ademically, while allowing students to work at their own ability level, is an issue that is at the heart of school policy reform for the 1990s. Non-graded schools, heterogeneous grouping, inclusi ve education, collaborative teaching, etc. are components that influence this complex goal of providing appropriate learning opportunities for all students. "Maximum class size should be reduced when student s with disabilities are placed in regular classrooms." This statement was agreed upon by the majority of responders (mean = 5.2). This is an issue that touches on funding policy fro m the state level. A committee appointed by the Georgia State Board of Education is currently w orking on funding weights for special education. They are addressing the expense involved in educating students with disabilities. They are also researching funding for different teaching models such as inclusion. We hope that this


18 of 24will result in policies to reduce maximum class siz e and generate funds for additional personnel when models such as inclusion, collaboration or tea m-teaching are used. Another issue that needs to be addressed is maximu m class size for regular education classes. Regular education teachers are expected to educate students with an ever increasing variety of needs. For example, a third grade teache r may have students who are capable of working at a fifth grade level, as well as those wh o are working at a preschool level. In addition, there may be students with extreme behavior problem s, students with learning disabilities, and students who have cerebral palsy, spina bifida, hea ring impairments, vision impairments, etc. in this classroom. It is unfair to expect teachers to appropriately educate a classroom of 30 students under these conditions. Therefore, a policy advocat ing smaller class sizes in Georgia is appropriate.Implications for Future Research Based upon the findings of this study, the followi ng recommendations are offered for consideration for future research. 1. This study is limited to the state of Georgia. It may be helpful to determine if the attitudes and beliefs of the responders to this stu dy are similar to those responding to the same issues in other states. 2. The principals, regular education teachers, and special education teachers responding to this study were all working at the elementary schoo l level. It may be beneficial to determine if personnel working at the middle school and high sch ool levels have similar attitudes and beliefs. 3. This study indicates that educators who have be en in the field for a longer period of time (17 to 38 years in this study) feel that they have support for educational changes and view challenges such as inclusive education more positiv ely. It may be beneficial to test this hypothesis further. If it is true that experienced educators have a greater capacity for change and difficult challenges, we need to foster this capaci ty in experienced teachers and provide growth opportunities for less experienced teachers. 4. There is very little research addressing the ef fectiveness of inclusion. It is crucial to determine if educating students with disabilities i n regular classrooms has quantifiable benefits for students with and without disabilities. Studies may include measuring progress on IEP goals in regular classrooms and in pullout situations, in terviewing regular education students regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in thei r classes, measuring aggressive or inappropriate behaviors of students with disabilities over time i n regular and pullout situations, or measuring students' with disabilities interactions with other students over time. These studies would be complex and may be situational, but they would prov ide a foundation for addressing inclusion as a viable mode for providing services to students wi th disabilities as opposed to the emotional appeal of inclusion that is reflected in the majori ty of current literature. Educating all students in the least restrictive en vironment is a philosophical and mandated policy goal for Georgia. The responders to this sur vey recognize the importance of making modifications for students and adapting teaching st rategies to meet the needs of a diverse population. Policy must be directed toward improvin g teaching for learning for all students. Achieving a challenging, appropriate learning exper ience for every student is a major issue of the 1990s.End Notes 1. Our thinking regarding policy is strongly influe nced by Anderson (1979), Dye (1995), and


19 of 24Jones (1984).2. We accept Dye's (1995) definition: ". . public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do." (p. 4)ReferencesAnderson, J. A. (1979). Public Policy-Making. New Y ork: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Ashton, P. A., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a diffe rence: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.Ayres, B. & Meyer, L. (1992, February). Helping tea chers manage the inclusive classroom. The School Administrator, 30-37.Baker, E. T. (1994). Meta-analytic evidence for non inclusive educational practices: Does educational research support current practice for s pecial-needs students? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia: Temple University.Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership,42(4), 33-35.Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of s pecial versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A metaanalysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309. Darling-Hammond, L. (1992, November). Reframing the school reform agenda. The School Administrator, (22-27).de Vaus, D. A. (1986). Surveys in social research ( Contemporary social research series; II). London: George Allen & Unwin Publishers Ltd.Diebold, M. H., & Trentham, L. L. (1987). Special e ducator predictions of regular class teacher attitudes concerning mainstreaming. Teacher Educati on and Special Education, 10(1), 1925. Duttweiler, P. C. (1989). Changing the old ways. Jo urnal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 64-66.Dye, T. R. (1995). Understanding Public Policy (Eig hth Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.English, F. (1988). School-Based Management: A Stra tegy for Better Learning. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.Ehrenberg, C. G. (1992). Beliefs of Regular and Spe cial Education Teachers Regarding Students At-risk: A Qualitative Case Study of Issues and Pro fessional Roles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.Finn, C. E. J. (1986). We can shape our destiny. Ed ucational Leadership, 44(1), 4-6. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive school mov ement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294309. Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all


20 of 24students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-385.Georgia Department of Education (1994). 1994 Georgi a Public Education Directory. Atlanta, Georgia.Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. Phi delta K appan, 71, 425-435. Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gross, S. J. (1985). Personal power and empowerment Contemporary Education, 56(3), 137-143.Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the pro cess of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Pla cing children in special education: a strategy for equity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of S cience Press. Hess, G. A. (Jr.) (1994). School-based management a s a vehicle for school reform. Education and Urban Society, 26 (3), 203-219.Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing childre n in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press Jones, C. O. (1984). An Introduction to the Study o f Public Policy. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lane, J. J., & Epps, E. G. (Eds.) (1992). Restructu ring the schools: Problems and prospects. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Lieberman, A. (1990). Navigating the four C's: Buil ding a bridge over troubled waters. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(7), 531-533.Lilly, M. S. (1988). The regular education initiati ve: A force for change in general and special education. Education and Training in Mental Retarda tion, 23, 253-260. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1987). Capable of achiev ement and worthy of respect: Education for handicapped students as if they were full-fledged h uman beings. Exceptional Children, 54, 69-74.Lynn, L. (1994). Bibliography on School Restructuri ng. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin-Madis on. McDaniel, E., & Dibella-McCarthy, H. (1989). Enhanc ing teacher efficacy in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(4), 34-38.McCarthy, M. M. (1994). Inclusion and the law: Rece nt judicial developments. Research Bulletin, 13, 1-4.Meek, A. (1988). On teaching as a profession: A con versation with Linda Darling-Hammond. Educational Leadership, 46, 11-17.National Association of State Boards of Education ( 1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive


21 of 24schools. Alexandria, Virginia.National Center on Educational Restructuring and In clusion (1994). National Survey on Inclusive Education (Number 1). Graduate School and Universit y Center, The City University of New York.Nelson, R. C. (19 Robins' eggs, teachers and educat ion reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 632-638. Nunnery, M. Y., & Kimbrough, R. B. (1971). Power, P olls, and School Elections. Berkeley: McCutchan.Oakes, J. (1989). What educational indicators? The case for assessing the school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 181-199. Odden, E. R., & Wohlsetter, P. (1995). Making schoo l-based management work. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 32-36.Pugach, M. (1988). Special education as a constrain t on teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 52-59.Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. ( 1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi i nvestigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553-576.Reschly, D. J. (1988a). Special education reform: S chool psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459-475.Reschly, D. J. (1988b). Obstacles, starting points, and doldrums not withstanding: Reform/revolution from outcomes criteria. School Ps ychology Review, 17, 495-501. Reynolds, M., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1987). The n ecessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-39 8. Reynolds, M., & Wang, M. C. (1983). Restructuring special"school programs: A position paper. Policy Studies Review, 2, 189-212.Rose, D. F., & Smith, B. J. (1993). Preschool mains treaming: Attitude barriers and strategies for addressing them. Young Children, 48(4), 59-62.Sergiovanni, T., & Moore, J. (1989). Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: general classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Spec ial Education, 12(4), 18 27. Shanker, A. (1986). Teachers must take charge. Educ ational Leadership, 44(1). Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1985). The merger o f special and regular education: can it be done? A response to Lieberman and Mesinger. Excepti onal Children, 51, 517-521. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1987). Integration versus cooperation: A commentary on "Educating children with learning problems: A share d responsibility." Exceptional Children, 54, 6668.


22 of 24Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1989). No more teac hers of students with severe handicaps. TASH Newsletter, 15, 9.Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 50, 102-111.Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support Netw orks for Inclusive Schooling: Interdependent Integrated Education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum c onsiderations in inclusive classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outco mes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-41.Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A cr itical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with severe Handicaps, 13, 41-53. Trendall, C. (1989). Stress in teaching and teacher effectiveness: A study of teachers across mainstream and special education. Educational Resea rch, 31(1), 52-58. U. S. Congress (1990). Individuals with Disabilitie s Education Act of 1990. Washington, D.C.: Author.Van Dyke, R., Stallings, M. A., & Colley, K. (1995) How to build an inclusive school community: A success story. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(6) 475-479. Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1992). Preservi ng the least restrictive environment. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issu es confronting special education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1993). Beyond t he regular education initiative/inclusion and the resource room controversy. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Educating students with mild disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing. Walberg, H. J., & Niemiec, R. P. (1994). Is Chicago school reform working? Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 713-715.Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning p roblems a shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 411-415.Wang, M. C., & Baker, E. T. (1985-86). Mainstreamin g programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 503-521.Wang, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1984). Effective speci al education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 50, 391-397.Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (198 6). Rethinking special education. Educational Leadership, 44, 26-31.Wohlstetter, P., & Briggs, K. L. (1994). The princi pal's role in school-based management. Principal, 74 (2) 14, 16-17.


23 of 24 Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking sch ool-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (4), 529-5 49. Yatvin, J. (1995). Flawed assumptions. Phi Delta Ka ppan, 76(6), 482-484.About the AuthorsSusan Allan Galis Susan Allan Galis received her Ed. D. From the Univ ersity of Georgia in Special Education. Currently she serves as Special Educatio n Director for Commerce City Jefferson City, GA Public Schools. In addition she is a part-time A ssistant Pro the Department of Special Education at the University of Georgia. Dr. Galis r ec BM degree in music therapy from Florida State University and is a registered mus therapist. She is particularly interested in special education issues. She may (706) 335-5500 or (706) 3 67-2883 Kenneth Tanner Kenneth Tanner is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. He earned an Ed. D. from the Florida State University in educational administration and business management and holds membership in AERA, ISEP, and CEFPI. He has been recognized as a Danforth-Joh ns Scholar by Stanford University and has published 4 books and 60 articles. His a research a nd teaching are educational policy analysis, school environmental desi planning. He may be reach ed at any of the following:; o Department of Educationa l Leadership, UGA, Athens, GA 30602; or FAX (706) 5425873, Phone (706) 542-4067.Copyright 1995 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the LISTSERV known as EPAA at (To sub scribe, send an email letter to whose sole contents are SUB EPAA y our-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in three forms. Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@a and making the single line in the letter rea d GET KEMMIS V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entire ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, tha t is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDEX EPAA F=MAIL.The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is Policy Analysis Archives are "gophered" at To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to and include the single l ine GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.ed u or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)


24 of 24Editorial Board John Andrew Coulson Alan Davis Mark E. Thomas F. Alison I. Arlen Gullickson Ernest R. Aimee Craig B. Howley u56e3@wvnvm.bitnet William Richard M. Jaeger Benjamin Thomas Dewayne Mary P. Les Susan Bobbitt Anne L. Hugh G. Richard C. Anthony G. Rud Dennis Jay Robert Robert T.


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.