PARENT-PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION

Thomas H. Powell and Patricia L. Graham
Winthrop University

Abstract

1. Parent-Professional Partnerships are a vital component of IDEA. IDEA requires parental participation in assessment, the development of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and the monitoring of the student's right to appropriate educational programs and services.
   
   
2. IDEA provisions for parent-professional partnerships have not been realized for many families. Barriers such as lack of understanding, mistrust, a decrease in services as the child ages, and limited coordination of services create frustrations for families and professionals.
   
   
3. Promising approaches for achieving successful parent-professional partnerships include (a) clarifying the mission of Parent Training and Information Centers (PTICs), (b) ensuring greater flexibility for parents when scheduling IEP meetings, and (c) improving professional development for practicing professionals, those in training, and parents of children with disabilities.
   
   
4. Barriers include (a) scheduling IEP meetings at times and places inconvenient for families, (b) inadequate preparation of professionals to work with families, (c) failure to use mediation effectively, and (d) lack of policy to require continuation of the Individualized Family Services Plan (IFSP) into early childhood and later years of the child's education.
   
   
5. Recommendations to Congress for strengthening the IDEA include (a) conduct oversight hearings on the parent-professional partnership aspects of the Act, (b) extend IEP requirements to incorporate specific elements of IFSP as provided for infants and toddlers, and (c) extend the role of Parent Training and Information Centers.
   
   
6. OSERS should (a) establish a clear imperative in professional education on parent/family issues, (b) fund specific research activities on strengthening parent-professional partnerships, and (c) fund demonstrations on strategies to creatively and proactively solve parent-professional disagreements prior to using the due process hearing mechanism.
   
   
7. State educational agencies should improve implementation of IDEA around parent-professional partnerships by (a) providing education to professionals and parents, (b) allowing for greater experimentation in regulations concerning IEP meetings, and (c) allocating funds to the PTICs.

1. What outcomes signify implementation of the topical issue?

IDEA provides for and encourages parental participation in the education of children with disabilities. This federal guarantee is one of the fundamental provisions that has helped to reshape and improve special education services (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). Part B specifically requires parent participation in assessment, the development of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and the monitoring of the student's rights to appropriate educational programs and services. Part H extends the parent-professional partnership for infants and toddlers with disabilities via the development of Individualized Family Services Plans (IFSP) to coordinate the array of services, plan for transition, support the family, and build a foundation for cooperative efforts between parents and professionals.

One of the pillars on which IDEA is founded is the value of parental participation in the special education program. Since its inception, IDEA has created a comprehensive scheme for parent-professional partnership throughout the educational decision-making process, culminating in the due process complaint and hearing process when school personnel and parents fail to agree. However well intended, IDEA established a paradox for parent-professional partnership. On the one hand, IDEA asks parents to serve as collaborative team members with professionals through informal and formal mechanisms. On the other hand, it clearly establishes the parents as the watch dogs for the child's educational rights. Although parents are not the sole overseers of IDEA's implementation, they are on the frontline of daily practice. Therefore, if problems arise, they, and they alone, are likely to identify these problems and take action to seek remedy. Although IDEA's provisions on parental participation have ultimately strengthened the student's rights, it is this paradox of collaborator versus watchdog that results in problems with implementation. This dilemma is a pivotal point for this topic area and should be addressed in the next reauthorization of IDEA.

Outcomes to Signify Successful Implementation

In spirit and by its explicit terms, IDEA facilitates a strong and productive parent-professional partnership. Explicit in the Act is the concept that parents should be and have the right to be active participants in all aspects of their child's education and that their participation will better ensure the outcomes inherent in IDEA.

The outcomes that signify successful implementation of IDEA include:

• School personnel who welcome and encourage parents and family members to be active participants in their child's education;
  
  
• Parents who are active and participatory as well as knowledgeable about their child's disability and the provisions of IDEA;
  
  
• Special education personnel who are sensitive to the cultural and ethnic differences among parents and who seek to accommodate these differences in building partnerships;
  
  
• A national force of special education professionals who have an appreciation for the demands placed upon parents and the value of their unique contributions to education and have specific skills to work with parents as partners;
  
  
• A system to fairly and quickly resolve problems between parents and professionals that is based upon mutual understanding, trust and respect; and
  
  
• Respect for the parents' role in safeguarding the child's rights to an appropriate education.

If these outcomes become reality, there should be a decrease in the due process hearings and litigation between families and school districts. For the spirit of IDEA to come alive in local schools, professionals need to understand that parents have the larger stake in special education programs. Their investment is large and they have unique and powerful contributions to enable the provision of appropriate education. Likewise, parents will need to know the law, understand and respect professionals, and how to advocate in a proactive, strong, and effective manner.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

IDEA's provisions for parent-professional partnership are far from a reality for many families. True parent-professional partnerships seem to be atypical. In too many cases schools remain impregnable, mysterious places into which parents are allowed to venture for prescribed activities and sometimes only because of existing federal and state mandates. In many schools parents are still viewed as uninvited guests whose participation is required, not welcomed. Some professionals still see parents as the focus for blame, rather than as vital contributors to their child's education. Parents still report frustration when dealing with schools and the array of professionals (Giangreco, Cloninger, Mueller, Yuan, & Ashworth, 1991). Some parents view professionals as a barrier to an appropriate education who must be forced to comply with the provisions of IDEA. Due process hearings and litigation, while needed in some cases, erode the parent-professional partnership by contributing to an adversarial spirit rather than one of cooperation and collaboration.

The focal point for parent-professional partnership is the IEP meeting. Unfortunately, several studies note that less than 50 percent of parents attend IEP meetings (Lytle, 1992; Singer & Butler, 1992; Sontag & Schacht, 1994). Often meetings are scheduled at times and places inconvenient to parents, interfering with parent participation and placing further burden and stress on many families. One mother recently expressed concern that the IEP meetings are always scheduled at 2 P.M. when she is at work. She leaves work, losing her hourly wage, and comes to a meeting where all the professionals are being paid at rates much higher than what she is losing. She is typically asked to listen to well-meaning professionals who have no idea of the stress and frustration she feels. She notes that the IEP meetings do not help her, but she suffers severe criticism if she does not attend (V. Johnson, personal communication, November 17, 1994). Unfortunately, the experience expressed by this mother seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

As the American family changes, there has not been a concentrated effort to understand the cultural factors involved in supporting parents from minority cultures and those of low socioeconomic status to become fully involved in the special education process (see Harry, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). While these parents have much to offer, culturally insensitive approaches to parent-professional partnerships leave them frustrated, confused, and vulnerable rather than empowered. Many of these families simply do not get involved in special education programs (Harry, 1992b; Lytle, 1992; Sontag & Schacht, 1994).

In some schools parental involvement is misunderstood and is seen as just another hoop to jump through to meet the requirements of the law. Smith (1990) noted that some professionals see parents merely as recipients of information and that parents are perceived by professionals as passive participants as opposed to collaborative team members. In some cases special educators tolerate parents but do not see the value of parental involvement (Gerber, Banbury, Miller, & Griffin, 1986).

In IDEA's last reauthorization, Congress recognized that parents of infants and toddlers need a coordinated system of services to enhance the child's education and strengthen the parent-professional partnership. Unfortunately, many families still find that community services are fragmented or simply do not exist (Bailey & McWilliam, 1993). Experience tells us that as children age, the need for coordinated community services becomes more intense. Yet with the current arrangement, the comprehensive service coordination provision disappears as the child matures.

It is safe to say that there is a great need for more of a coordinated and strong effort to see true parent-professional partnerships become a reality in special education programs.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Several practices in special education hold the promise of achieving outcomes related to true parent-professional partnerships.

Parent Training and Information Centers

Each state and many territories have one or more federally funded Parent Training and Information Centers (PTICs) aimed at providing education on IDEA to parents and family members (Ziegler, 1992). These PTICs enjoy a strong national reputation for providing meaningful education for parents as well as effective advocacy and problem-solving. These Centers, all private entities, are headed by parents and controlled by boards who are predominantly parents of children with disabilities. In some cases PTICs have made a substantial effort to work closely with higher education in the preparation of education professionals (e.g., Parents Let's Unite for Kids in Montana has secured special resources to work with university faculty on preservice initiatives and provide courses on family issues).

These Centers have been initially effective. However, the enormity of the PTICs' task requires more substantial federal effort and resources. Some school professionals report that the mission of these PTICs is unclear. Sometimes the PTIC is viewed as adversarial to school personnel rather than a support to help them with their obligations to provide information and education to parents. In remote areas of our country, parents have problems accessing the services of PTICs.

Restructuring Team Meetings

Over the last five years, there have been a number of specific efforts to restructure how parents and professionals interact to enable more effective parental involvement in the special education process. These efforts have focused on a redesign of how team meetings are conducted to emphasize mutual respect and understanding (Giangreco, 1990; Strickland & Turnbull, 1990; Turnbull, Turbiville, Jones, & Lee, 1992). In related work, team meetings have focused on proactive methods to involve parents with strategies to build social relationships and positive personal futures for their children with disabilities (Mount, 1994; Vandercook, York, & Forest, 1989). Additionally, there is now a greater recognition for the need to encourage partnerships with parents who come from ethnic and socioeconomic groups outside of the mainstream (Harry, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). These family-friendly meetings, scheduled during evening and weekend hours and at places convenient to families, hold great promise for fostering the type of parent-professional collaboration called for by IDEA.

Professional Development

There is a growing recognition that professional preparation in the area of parent-professional collaboration is needed to accomplish the outcomes of IDEA (Bailey, 1989; Fox & Williams, 1992; Hilton & Henderson, 1993). The past decade has witnessed more professional preparation to enhance parent-professional collaboration, although much of the new course work for preservice professionals is still optional (Brusca & Montemurro, 1994). In some quarters the education of professionals is including more work with families to provide a pragmatic understanding and skills in fostering a true partnership with parents (Bailey, Simeonsson, Yoder, & Huntington, 1990; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988). Williams, Christie, Bakeman, Dennis, and Edelman (1994) describe a family-centered approach to preparing professionals that directly involves parents and individuals with disabilities in the course design and delivery. These efforts at the front-end of service delivery should help ensure that new professionals are adequately prepared to encourage and support parents in special education programs.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

First, while IDEA is specific in its requirements that IEP meetings be established at times and places that are convenient for parents, this is far from the rule. The original intent has not kept pace with the changing demographics of families. The two-parent family, where the mother is available during the day to meet with professionals, is not a reality today. An increasing number of families struggle, regardless of the family structure. When team meetings to develop the IEP are scheduled during the traditional work day of schools, parents who wish to participate are faced with untenable choices. They can choose to participate and lose needed financial support or remain at work and be seen as uncooperative and uninvolved. To remedy this problem there needs to be greater enforcement of the provision calling for meetings scheduled at times and places convenient to parents.

Second, many professional programs require little or no preparation in the area of working with families (Fox & Williams, 1992; Hilton & Henderson, 1993). It is doubtful that there will be an improvement in parent-professional partnerships without a substantial effort to prepare new professionals to work effectively with parents and provide continuing education to professionals on the importance of parent-professional partnerships. While good practice indicates that professionals need education to help them work with families, without a clear mandate it is not likely that professional preparation programs will provide this needed training.

Third, use of mediations, allowed under IDEA to resolve disagreements between parents and professionals, has not been implemented to any significant degree. While the value of the mediation process has been described (Cutler, 1993; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990), some may see this as a tactic to delay resolution of problems or as a way of weakening parental rights to due process. It seems that the mediation process may hold promise to help parents and professionals find solutions to problems without eroding trust and respect for each other. Without some clear preference for mediation and supporting models, parents and professionals will continue to use due process hearings to resolve problems, often resulting in mistrust and hard feelings that last for years.

Fourth, the value and promise of IFSPs in early childhood programs comes to a halt in elementary years. Many families experience the same or increased needs as the child ages, but IDEA does not call for the development of IFSPs for elementary school- aged children and their families. IDEA teaches families early on to rely on a certain level of service coordination and family support; yet just when they may need it the most, IDEA allows the service to be removed. This abrupt halt to services in the IFSP may unwittingly set up parents to mistrust professionals in the elementary school and see them as less caring and concerned than the early childhood professionals.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress should and must take action to strengthen the parent-professional partnership requirements of IDEA by (a) conducting oversight hearings on the parent-professional partnership aspects of IDEA and how these relate to other legislation and family needs, (b) extending the IEP requirements to incorporate specific elements of the IFSP, and (c) extending the Parent Training and Information Centers. These three recommendations are a cost-responsive approach to addressing the problems noted above and have the likelihood of promoting a coordinated approach to strengthening parent-professional partnerships, while focusing resources on prevention of problems between parents and professionals in the implementation of IDEA.

Holding Oversight Hearings

Congress should hold oversight hearings on how families of children with disabilities are involved in the special education process. The oversight hearings should focus on the many laws and regulations beyond IDEA that have an impact on the family and parental involvement with special education programs. Oversight hearings will provide the needed attention and sense of urgency to encourage schools and other agencies to focus on the spirit of IDEA's requirement for parental participation. These hearings will also allow Congress to study special education practices and regulations that are "family friendly" as well as those that interfere with parent-professional collaboration.

Extending the IEP Requirements to Incorporate Elements of the IFSP

Over the past five years, the value of the IFSP has been well documented as a source of providing family support, coordinating an array of services, planning for transitions, and enhancing parent-professional partnerships. The IFSP process has helped develop a family-centered approach (Bailey & McWilliam, 1993; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988) to special education, which needs to continue throughout the child's education. Unfortunately, as the child and family make a transition to the elementary school, the IFSP becomes an idea of the past, when, in fact, the needs of children with severe disabilities and their families typically intensify. It is time to recognize that families of children with severe disabilities need a coordinated service delivery approach as the child ages. If the child and family initially served by the IFSP wish to keep this approach, it should be made available. Congress should amend IDEA to revise the IEP process to include those IFSP components that will be useful for all children with severe disabilities and their families. These additional components to the IEP should include:

a. a statement of the family's priorities and concerns;

b. an explicit listing of the related services that will be provided by the school and other agencies that the family may need to allow the child with severe disabilities to benefit from education (IDEA's related services already permit services to families, but the family-service focus often is overlooked);

c. a description of the case management services that will be provided to ensure coordination of all community services needed by the child and family and the identification of a case manager;

d. an evolving transition plan to help the child progress from primary, middle, and high school; and

e. a listing of the educational and support needs of the parents and how they will be met by the school.

Additionally, regulations would provide a timeframe between the meeting to develop the IEP and the signing of the actual document. All too often parents and professionals are requested to sign the IEP document immediately after it is developed. A provision that the document be signed by all parties after 72 hours would allow all participants time to process and understand the information presented. While this will place an added requirement on schools, it will help achieve the spirit of informed consent with these important documents.

Should this extension of the IEP become reality, Congress would streamline the provisions of IDEA by establishing one type of comprehensive educational plan for youngsters with severe disabilities; the IEP and IFSP would essentially become one document for the child's educational career. The current differences that exist between the IEP and IFSP for children with severe disabilities would essentially cease.

Expanding the Parent Training and Information Centers

The funding provided to the PTICs needs to be substantially expanded to better ensure that all families have access to these resources. Mandating that states provide a partial match to accompany new funds will strengthen the states' commitment to parent information, education, and advocacy support. Naturally Congress will need to ensure the functional independence of the PTICs while states meet funding responsibilities.

Sending a Clear Message

The intent of these three recommendations is for Congress to send a clear message to the Department of Education and the states that parent involvement is a fundamental component of IDEA and that Congress expects a recognition of this in regulatory, oversight, and implementation policies. Congress must provide the leadership on the parent-professional partnership agenda by making it clear that it expects parents of children with disabilities to be actively supported in their participation with special education programs.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS should markedly improve parent-professional partnerships through (a) establishing a clear imperative in professional preparation on parent/family issues, (b) funding specific research activities on strengthening parent-professional partnerships, and (c) funding specific demonstrations on strategies to creatively and proactively solve parent-professional disagreements prior to using the due process hearing mechanism.

Stimulating Better Personnel Preparation

As written, IDEA makes provision for professional development, including the mandatory comprehensive personnel development system, and requires states and school systems to keep abreast of new techniques and practices in special education. As noted earlier, there is a dearth of personnel preparation regarding parent-professional partnership in implementing IDEA. OSERS should call for training program initiatives in the area of parent-professional partnership at both the preservice and in-service levels. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) working in conjunction with statewide CSPDs and PTICs should be encouraged to develop specific training programs to equip professionals with the knowledge and skills to allow them to establish effective partnerships with parents. Providing this emphasis will directly assist IHEs in addressing this critical area and will help ensure that new special education professionals are prepared to support parents and involve them in the educational process. This initiative should provide incentives to IHEs and require continuation of these efforts post federal funding.

Targeting Research Initiatives

The changing face of the American family (Fadd, Figueroa, & Correa, 1989; Harry, 1992a, & 1992b) requires that we devote substantial research efforts to investigating and clarifying strategies to strengthen the parent-professional partnership. As we deal with single-parent families, bilingual and multilingual families, ethnically diverse families, blended families, and rural families, we need methods that have been thoroughly investigated and proven to be effective in enhancing parental participation in schools. Additionally, we need to support efforts to investigate intervention strategies to enhance the parent-professional partnership (Singer & Irvin, 1991). OSERS can and should call for new research initiatives on these critical issues.

Preventing Due Process Hearings

Recognizing that the right to due process hearings should not be altered, but realizing that these hearings often lead to mistrust and longitudinal problems between parents and professionals, OSERS could fund a number of demonstration projects to investigate alternatives to due process hearings (e.g., mediation, appointed monitors, funded second evaluations, etc.). Nothing in IDEA precludes the use of alternatives, such as mediation on a voluntary basis. Encouraging reasonable and legally sound alternatives via demonstrations will encourage use of these alternatives to help parents and professionals find common ground with each other and resolve problems and misunderstandings in a speedy manner. If such demonstrations were to show that problems can be resolved without the typical costs and emotional stress, the entire special education process would be dramatically improved.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

State educational agencies should improve implementation of IDEA around parent-professional partnerships by providing education to professionals and parents, allowing for greater experimentation in meeting regulations concerning IEP meetings, and allocating funds to the PTICs.

Developing Plans for Professional and Parent Education

State educational agencies need to direct the CSPD to address the preservice and in-service development needs concerning families. In recognition that most special education personnel have not been prepared to work with families, each state agency should develop a priority plan to address this need. Working with the IHEs in each state, the CSPD can meet its ordained mission to systematically improve the skills of practitioners.

In a related set of activities the state agency should encourage and support parents to interact and participate with professionals in formal in-service education programs. While professionals typically have access to the latest information and are paid to attend workshops and conferences on state-of-the-art special education procedures, parents have few, if any, such opportunities. To correct this problem, the state agencies should direct the CSPD to include parents in statewide conferences and workshops on special education.

Supporting Experimentation and Innovation

The state agencies should establish permissive policies to allow schools to experiment with new ways to conduct IEP meetings to better meet the spirit of IDEA. As many districts wrestle with the gap between innovation and regulatory requirements, some freedom will enable creative solutions to the dilemma of parent-professional partnerships around team meetings.

Funding Parent Training and Information Centers

Each state should be required to provide partial funding to each PTIC. By involving the states in the funding of these centers, they will come to have a vested stake in the PTIC's success. The states need to meet their responsibilities to provide parents of children with disabilities with information and education to enable effective parent-professional partnerships.

References

Bailey, D. B. (1989). Issues and directions in preparing professionals to work with young handicapped children and their families. In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanus, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation & P.L. 99-457: Planning for young children with special needs. (pp. 97-132). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Bailey, D. B., & McWilliam, P. J. (1993). The search for quality indicators. In. P. J. McWilliam & D. B. Bailey (Eds.), Working together with children and families (pp. 3-20). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Bailey, D. B., Simeonsson, R. J., Yoder, D. E., & Huntington, G. S. (1990). Preparing professionals to serve infants and toddlers with handicaps and their families: An integrative analysis across eight disciplines. Exceptional Children, 57(1) 26-34.

Brusca, R. M. & Montemurro, T. J. (1994). Preparing teachers of pupils with mental retardation: Changes in course offerings from 1970 to 1990. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 96-105.

Cutler, B. C. (1993). You, your child and "special" education: A guide to making the system work. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Fadd, S. H., Figueroa, R. A., & Correa, V. I. (1989). Meeting the multi-cultural needs of Hispanic students in special education. Exceptional Children, 56(2), 102-105.

Fox, L., & Williams, D. G. (1992). Preparing teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 97-107.

Gerber, P. J., Banbury, M. M., Miller, J. H., & Griffin, H. D. (1986). Special educators' perceptions of parental participants in the individual education plan process. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 158-163.

Giangreco, M. (1990). Making related service decisions for students with severe handicaps: Roles, criteria, and authority. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 22-31.

Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. J., Mueller, P. H., Yuan, S., & Ashworth, S. (1991). Perspectives of parents whose children have dual sensory impairments. The Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 22-31.

Harry, B. (1992a). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harry, B. (1992b). Making sense of disability: Low-income, Puerto Rican parents' theories of the problem. Exceptional Children, 59(1), 27-40.

Harry, B. (1992c). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. Exceptional Children, 59(2), 123-131.

Hilton, A., & Henderson, C. J. (1993). Parent involvement: A best practice or forgotten practice. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28(3), 199-211.

Lytle, J. H. (1992). Is special education serving minority students? A response to Singer and Butler. In T. Hehir & T. Latus (Eds.), Special Education at the Century's End: Evaluation of theory and practice since 1970 (pp. 191-197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Mount, B. (1994). Benefits and limitations of personnel planning. In V. Bradley, J. Ashbaugh, & B. Blaney (Eds.), Creating individualized supports for people with developmental disabilities (pp. 97-107). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Singer, G. H. S., & Irvin, L. K. (1991). Supporting families of persons with severe disabilities: Emerging findings, practices and questions. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck & L. Brown, (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 271-312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Singer, J. D., & Butler, J. A. (1992). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act: Schools as agents for social reform. In T. Hehir & T. Latus (Eds.), Special education at the century's end: Evaluation of theory and practice since 1970 (pp. 159-190). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Smith, S. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education: From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57(1), 6-15.

Sontag, J. C., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparison of parent participation and information needs in early intervention. Exceptional Children, 60(5), 422-433.

Strickland, B., & Turnbull, A. P. (1990). Developing and implementing individualized education programs (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Turnbull, A. P., Turbiville, V., Jones, L., & Lee, I. (1992). A family-responsive approach to the development of the individualized family service plan. Osers News In Print, 5(1), 12-15.

Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (1990). Families, professionals and partnerships. New York: Merrill.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205-215.

Williams, W., Christie, L., Bakeman, A., Dennis, R., & Edelman, S. (1994). Teacher education and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 79-85.

Ziegler, M. (1992, Summer). Parent advocacy and children with disabilities. OSERS News In Print, 5(1), 4-6.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. J., Mueller, P. H., Yuan, S., & Ashworth, S. (1991) Perspectives of parents whose children have dual sensory impairments. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16(1), 14-24.

Abstract

The authors interviewed 28 parents of children with dual sensory impairments, the majority of whom also had cognitive disabilities, and identified several major themes that dominated the families' experience with school. These themes included indicators of quality, fears for their children, frustrations when dealing with special education and related professionals, and dealing with change and the large number of professionals. The authors made recommendations for special education practice.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Parents of children with severe disabilities want what all parents want for their children--that is, to have a happy, safe, social and productive life.

"When asked what would constitute a quality life for their child, parents identified five major characteristics. The need for a safe, comfortable, and stable home was paramount....It was also vital to establish and maintain a social network of 'people who care.'" (p. 18)

2. Parents encounter uncaring and insensitive professionals.

"Parents stated that some people...at school questioned the child's worth and treated the child as though he/she were unwanted. 'Sometimes when she is in therapy, I feel they treat her more as an object than a child.' Another parent recalled, 'Other people have always written him off. His preschool teacher told us that he wasn't worth wasting time on in terms of equipment and teaching when her time could be spent with other kids who could learn better.'" (p.18)

3. Dealing with schools and professionals can be frustrating for parents.

"Despite the fact that many parents perceived the well-meaning parade of professionals as 'hectic,' 'confusing,' and an 'invasion of privacy,' they cushioned their discontent by saying they had 'no objection to lots of people, as long as it helps....'

"...Statements by parents indicated deficiencies in coordination and communication among team members. 'They ask the same questions; they need to talk with each other.' Those families with a designated case manager or liaison with the school felt more satisfied." (pp. 19-20)

4. Some parents are not made to feel a part of the educational team.

"...Although parents strongly expressed their desire to have input in their child's education program, many indicated that, 'the school staff doesn't feel that I'm a part of the team.' 'They share information with me, 'but' they question whether I know what I am saying.'...More often than not, parents indicated that being informed rather than included resulted in irrelevant educational planning or decisions that did not match the needs of the child or the family." (p. 20)

5. Professionals need to listen to parents, involve them, and treat them with dignity and respect.

"...First and foremost, parents wanted professionals to listen to them and trust they know the child best. Secondly, parents wanted professionals to treat their family as individuals and unique, treat kids with respect and dignity, and 'treat them like kids no matter how little you think they understand.'... To be heard, trusted, treated as individuals, attain some basic level of stability, to expect honesty, and inclusion in important decisions that affect families, were the requests from these parents." (pp. 20-21)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Hilton, A., & Henderson, C. J. (1993). Parent involvement: A best practice or forgotten practice? Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28(5), 199-211.

Abstract

Hilton and Henderson conducted a study of 86 elementary teachers of students with severe handicaps who taught in self-contained classrooms in public schools to investigate the degree of their involvement with parents in nonmandated collaborative activities. Most of the teachers surveyed had some preservice experiences and education working with families of children with disabilities. Teachers engaged in few nonmandated activities with parents, and most teachers recognized the importance of parental involvement but did not hold it in high regard. The authors present a number of suggestions for teacher development based upon their findings.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Teachers are not overly involved with parents in the educational process and few value active parental involvement.

"Data indicated only minimal use of the non-mandated parental involvement practices listed on the survey....Inviting parents to come to observe (but not help) was the only parent involvement practice listed which even close to half (48 percent) of the teachers said they used almost always." (pp. 207-208)

2. Teachers who are better prepared to work with parents involve them more in the educational programs.

"...teachers who belonged to several professional educational organizations had higher reported levels of parental involvement, as did teachers who had a higher number of college level training experiences in parent involvement." (p. 208)

3. Teachers believe that they have sufficient work without the added duties of working with parents.

"...80 percent reported that they...agreed that teachers had enough to do without also having to work with parents." (p. 204)

4. Teacher education programs have a clear and present need to provide regular and systematic experiences to teachers-in-training to help them work with parents.

"The data provide some implications to training for teachers who will be working with students who have severe disabilities. The most obvious of these is that more time needs to be spent on the role of the teacher who serves students with severe disabilities. The data suggest that a relatively large percentage of teachers of students with severe disabilities do not view parent involvement as part of their responsibilities." (p. 209)

Model Profile

At the University of Kansas' Beach Center on Families and Disability, Ann and Rud Turnbull, the Center's codirectors, have created a strategy for family and professional collaboration. They call it "GAP: Group Action Planning."

GAP involves families--parents, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, grandparents, and indeed anyone related by blood or marriage who wants to be part of a dynamic team for helping the person with a disability "get a life."

GAP involves the person with a disability--the person's age, type or extent of disability, and life circumstances do not make any difference because all that counts is that the Action Planning is centered around the person.

GAP involves educators and other professionals--anyone who "serves" the person or family in any professional capacity, and that includes special and general education alike.

What is GAP? It is a strategy that families all across America have started to use after learning about it from the Beach Center. And, second, it is a strategy based on a belief that family members want to be actively involved, have the most important stake in the person's future, and can and should influence the service delivery system in a positive, proactive manner.

How does it work?

GAP is a dynamic way for people with a disability and their families to make dreams come true using allies with the knowledge, support, and commitment to get things done. Like Robert Kennedy, GAP prefers to see the world as it has never been seen, to ask "why not?", and to make positive changes for the person with a disability.

GAP meetings may be every week, month, or whenever. They can meet several times a year for years on end. Then again, they can meet infrequently and still be a success. GAP also can work for people of any age or disability.

1. Invite Support

You can't do it alone. You know that. Start your group with your family, then look to your extended family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, people in your community--any person who has helped, supported, or appreciated your family in the past. Write those names down. Think about what your child does now. (Write down with whom the child does these things.) Think of what you would like your child to do. (Get those names, too.)

• Before you ask anyone, determine the place to have meetings. Ideally, this would be in someone's home because you want a casual setting to put people at ease. If this is not possible, use a restaurant, community building, or other accessible, comfortable place. Come up with a good day and time. Then invite people.
  
  
• Explain to potential members what GAP is, why they would be a welcome addition, and that they do not have to make a definite commitment to the group. You only want them to experience the GAP meeting.
  
  
• Before you have an actual meeting, choose a facilitator to steer the meetings. This person should listen well, connect well with people, and make others feel valued. His or her job will be to set a comfortable discussion pace, maintain a positive tone, keep comments relevant, identify key points, summarize discussions, and assign tasks if needed.

2. Create Connections

At your first meeting (and in those to come) make sure people are acquainted with each other and know how valuable their support is. To encourage connection:

• Leave ample time before and after the meeting for members to visit.
  
  
• Offer food.
  
  
• Be alert to each other's special days and recognize those days.

Every member benefits from meetings. Obviously, the family receives support, encouragement, and guidance; but so do other GAP members, besides getting a sense of accomplishment seeing positive developments and improving their own problem-solving skills. Members also create new relationships and find out that GAP offers mutual support for all.

3. Share Great Expectations

Think big. Everyone needs to have a dream for their future. However, too often, people with disabilities and their families are not encouraged to have a vision of the best their life can be. When you think of ideal scenarios, think of job, home, friends, recreation, or whatever you like. This vision is the overall goal for planning. Once the vision is decided, figure out ways to make it happen. These great expectations are not etched in stone. They are fluid images of what is possible. Think "what if" and "why not." Push the limits of possibility.

Recognize that expectations will change. Outlandish dreams at first may seem like no big deal after time. Little dreams may grow and change into something no one would ever have thought. The unfolding of expectations is an exciting, dynamic process.

4. Solving Problems

Problems are really questions. Brainstorming is the easy process in GAP used to problem-solve--that is--answer questions. The facilitator begins the process by asking the group to solve a specific problem with as many ways possible in a set time. The ground rules are simple:

• All participants and ideas hold equal weight.
  
  
• Quantity, not quality of ideas, is the goal.
  
  
• Everyone may speak often.
  
  
• Building on another's idea is encouraged.
  
  
• Negative and critical remarks are discouraged.

After you have several ideas, examine the list and pick the best. To do this, discard impractical or impossible ideas. Decide the top three best ideas (which you may get by combining other ideas). Discuss their possibilities and problems, then pick the strongest.

Find out what needs to be done to accomplish the idea, then split tasks among group members. It is a lot easier to have 12 people do one task than for one person to do 12 tasks, isn't it?

5. Celebrate Success

You don't have to solve problems at every meeting. You need a get-together every once in a while for pure enjoyment. Consider watching a sporting event, having a backyard cookout, or whatever you can do to have fun and feel positive about the group's successes. Have food and drink and let members know how much their support is appreciated.

For further information, contact:

Beach Center on Families and Disability
3111 Haworth Hall
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Phone: 913-864-7600

SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING

Margaret McLaughlin
University of Maryland at College Park

Abstract

1. Numerous federal, state, and local restructuring initiatives are under way. Their major goals are to increase student outcomes in traditional academic content areas and in occupational skills. There is a major emphasis on assessment of student outcomes and on school accountability. Other themes include a commitment to high standards for all students, including those not college bound, efforts to redefine the governance and operation of schools, and enhanced professional development and new standards for teachers.
   
   
2. Progress is being made in a number of areas, including standard setting, the use of new student assessment techniques, and site-based management of schools.
   
   
3. Educational restructuring is most effective for students with disabilities when it leads to the creation of schools that implement the best practices for least restrictive environments. These are high performing schools in which staff work collaboratively to support all students and in which there is flexibility in curriculum and instruction and a strong sense of community.
   
   
4. Inhibitors to positive restructuring to create LRE-practicing schools are (a) lack of leadership, inflexible and rigid categorical program administration, (b) lack of accountability for the outcomes of students with disabilities, and (c) fiscal policies that promote the labeling and segregation of students with disabilities.
   
   
5. Congress should (a) require the alignment of IDEA with other federal and state restructuring legislation and policies, (b) require SEAs to have placement-neutral funding formulas, (c) require SEAs and LEAs to include students with disabilities in all large-scale assessment programs, by existing assessments or creating alternative assessments, and (d) monitor activities, including progress toward stated goals.
   
   
6. OSERS should support (a) professional development of local administrators and teachers and (b) research and evaluation of restructuring initiatives as well as inclusive schools. OSERS also should require state plans to specifically reference how students with disabilities will be included within the state's restructuring activities.
   
   
7. State and local agencies should (a) ensure that parents and advocates for persons with disabilities are represented in policymaking and restructuring decision making and (b) establish standards for students and programs and hold schools accountable for attainment of those standards.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of educational restructuring?

Current efforts under way to restructure local schools simultaneously involve national policymakers, governors and state-level education policymakers, local school policymakers and administrators, parents and community members, the business community, and institutions of higher education. A number of initiatives are supporting restructuring, chief among them being the l994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which codified the eight national educational goals. The Act calls for the creation of standards for academic content areas, occupational skill areas, and "opportunity-to-learn" as provided by the schools. In addition, the Act calls for developing assessments to be used voluntarily by states to assess student attainment of the standards. The eight national educational goals encompass more than enhanced academic standards for schools; there is a strong commitment to ensuring that students come to school prepared to learn as well as to adult literacy. Additional goals address the need for safe, drug-free schools and enhanced professional development. While Goals 2000 embraces much of the current emphases in restructuring, many states and local school districts have already implemented major restructuring initiatives, such as outcome-based assessment and accountability programs, site-based management of schools, and experimentation with privatization of some school functions and charter schools and school choice. The extent of these reforms is unprecedented in the history of American education (Toch, l991), and the reforms are marked by several major themes or intended outcomes.

Higher Standards and Accountability for Improved Outcomes for All Students

A central outcome of restructuring is the desire to increase the levels and complexity of knowledge and skills of students exiting public schools. Standards are being defined for traditional academic content areas as well as for the occupations. Multifaceted assessment of student attainment of the valued outcomes as well as systems for rewarding or sanctioning schools on the basis of student performance are also key elements of this element of restructuring.

Equity for Improved Outcomes

There is a commitment to raise the knowledge standards, both academic content as well as technology, critical thinking, problem-solving, and other critical enabling skills, of all students, not just those who go on to traditional higher education programs. The emphasis on developing a skilled work force is one of the major goals of the business community and is central to its involvement in both educational policymaking as well as support to schools.

Restructuring Systems

Educational bureaucracies are being fundamentally restructured through downsizing and consolidation of programs by function, not by special interest. Changes in governance structures are common, including decentralization of fiscal and programmatic decision making and increased flexibility of programs at the local school site. A common initiative is site-based management, which calls for the creation of school teams often consisting of school staff, parents, and other community members with authority to make management and instructional decisions.

Enhanced Professional Preparation and Development

Standards are being set for both entry-level teachers as well as "master" teachers. Certification categories are being reduced to several broad age or developmental categories, and efforts are under way to ensure that teachers can demonstrate competence with more diverse students. Ongoing professional development is supporting collaboration and more teacher control.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the past five years?

Great strides have been made toward achieving many of the goals of educational restructuring. Passage of major federal educational reform legislation (e.g., Goals 2000: Educate America Act and The School to Work Opportunities Act) as well as the enactment of numerous state-level policies are important outcomes. However, in some areas there has been especially noteworthy progress with respect to students with disabilities.

Improving Educational Outcomes

Students with disabilities are increasingly being included in national and state-level assessment programs. The National Assessment of Educational Progress will begin field testing assessment accommodations in 1995 to ensure representation of students with disabilities in this important national data base. Of the 46 states that are implementing statewide assessment programs (CEDR, l994), approximately 39 are including many students with disabilities, although exemptions from assessments and accountability still are common (Brauen, O'Reilly, & Moore, l994). Some states, such as Vermont, Kentucky, Maryland, and New Hampshire, have included or are working to develop statewide assessments that will include all students with disabilities, with accommodations or alternative assessments, in their statewide school accountability programs (McLaughlin & Warren, l994). This accountability for outcomes is critical to ensuring that the education provided to students with disabilities be held to standards as equally challenging as those for students without disabilities. In addition, inclusion in the assessment programs is linking the programs for students with disabilities to the larger general education curriculum. An important feature of the new assessments is the use of authentic assessment (such as portfolios, performance tasks, and individual evaluations) that are more inclusive of students with disabilities (McLaughlin & Warren, l994).

Financing Special Education Programs

There are numerous proposals to reform general school finance. However, within special education, 29 states are engaged in or actively considering changes in special education finance policies (Parrish, l994). Most of the changes are being made to make funding placement neutral or to ensure that special education funds that flow to local programs are not weighted to support more restrictive placements. However, about 11 states are working toward major restructuring of state special education funds to increase flexibility of use at local schools to promote prevention activities. The trend is toward a population-based formula and away from child count or unit formula (Parrish, l994).

Site-Based Management

Site-based management (SBM) of schools has become very common during the past decade. The decentralization of authority and decision making to the schools typifies the general restructuring theme of increasing flexibility to support local innovation. The impact of SBM on student performance has not been demonstrated (Wohlstetter & Buffet, 1992), and the impact on students with disabilities and special education programs is unknown. However, SBM is associated with innovative practices such as collaboration and team planning, mixed-ability classrooms, and curriculum innovations (GAO, l994), all of which have been noted as important to creating inclusive schools (McLaughlin & Warren, 1992; CEC, l994).

Professional Training and Development

Efforts to streamline licensure of teachers and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards have focused on enhancing the skills of teachers and acknowledging master teachers. In a few states, certification of regular education teachers is requiring greater competencies in working with students with disabilities, while special education certification is becoming less specialized (McLaughlin, 1993).

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Educational restructuring initiatives are most effective for students with disabilities when they are directed toward the creation of inclusive or unified schools or school systems (McLaughlin & Warren, 1992). These schools and school systems are collaborative, problem-solving entities in which staff share a common vision and a sense of purpose of educating all students to the highest possible standards. Such schools have a strong sense of community and strong connections to the school community at large. Students with disabilities are enrolled in their home or neighborhood schools and belong to regular classrooms just as their peers.

Inclusive schools have strong leadership and support by administrators but also are flexible, and staff are allowed to make curricular and instructional adjustments and encouraged to be innovative. The school is held accountable for student performance. Staff focus on results and assess the progress of every student. Inclusive schools have a collaborative work culture in which professionals, paraprofessionals, parents, and other staff form teams to develop instructional plans; design, modify, or adapt curriculum; and problem-solve. There is shared responsibility and shared expertise. Special educators and other specialists (psychologists, social workers, speech and language specialists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, etc.) support the instructional process and are regular or part-time members of an instructional team. Collaborative instruction occurs and includes co-teaching, team teaching with regrouping, and consultation and support.

The teaching-learning process is critical in restructuring schools. Curricula are organized to support the learning of challenging content and to promote personal success skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, group membership, use of technology, and lifelong learning skills. However, the curricula do not control the instruction; rather, teachers work together to determine how to accommodate students with learning differences. Some of the accommodations may include lower performance expectations for some students, but content is always meaningful and linked to the expectations of the regular classroom. There is no "your student/my student" mentality in the school; there is a common mission of school improvement.

Instructional arrangements in inclusive schools include cooperative learning and peer tutoring as well as flexible regrouping for instruction. Inclusive schools provide supportive professional development through both the collaborative team process as well as through more formal professional development. Teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and other community members are all potential "experts" and share in mentoring or providing information to each other. Resources for professional development are provided to the school and can be used to support school-wide goals. Specialized training may be provided at some times to some staff if needed, but in general everyone in a school learns together.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

A chief inhibitor of educational restructuring and the creation of inclusive schools lies with individuals within a school. Attitudes or beliefs about students and about restructuring initiatives are key to changing schools (Fullan & Stieglebauer, 1991). Lack of leadership at the school level is also an inhibitor because the school principal is important in both creating a sense of common purpose and in supporting staff (CEC, l994; Guerra, Smith-Jackson, & Madsen, l994).

Certain education policies are also inhibiting restructuring efforts. For example, inflexible categorical programs that have stressed separation of services and resources have contributed to schools that are compartmentalized and support the notion of "your student/my student." This separation inhibits the development of a school culture in which the entire school community is responsible for all of its students. Strong centralized control, coupled with strong categorical program identities, creates turf guarding and a desire to continue to sort and categorize students, staff, and programs; they inhibit working toward maximizing student progress (McLaughlin, in press). Other inhibitors include an unwillingness to involve parents and community members in the school decision-making process or to actively involve teachers and other staff in the process.

Specific special education policies and procedures are also significant inhibitors to creating more inclusive schools. Fiscal policies that define placements by weighting or providing more funds for students in more restrictive placements inhibit flexibility in programming. So, too, does funding that requires labeling and categorizing of students. Individual Education Programs (IEPs) that focus on documenting procedural compliance and not student growth or outcomes fail to promote restructuring. Low expectations for students with disabilities, coupled with a lack of accountability for results (student goals or outcomes are vague and/or do not permit long-term educational planning, and assessment of students' attainment of those goals is absent or very cursory and does not permit schools to be held accountable for what happens to students with disabilities), run counter to the goals of restructuring and inclusive schools. Professional certification and licensure policies that are narrow and do not permit more flexible collaboration among teachers and other specialists also inhibit reforms. The lack of articulation of educational policies across federal and state levels perpetuates the lack of ownership of students with disabilities within the larger school community. In addition, there is a lack of genuine knowledge of students with disabilities and special education services among a significant number of school leaders, specifically building principals and mid-level managers within school districts; this fact is particularly troublesome as more schools become site-based managed. Finally, there is a lack of a local support system within school districts that are attempting to restructure by becoming more inclusive.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress should take action on three plans.

Funding

Congress should:

(a) Increase the Part B funding and require greater collaboration between special education and other federal and state categorical programs to promote more flexible nonredundant use of resources.

(b) Ensure that IDEA is aligned with Goals 2000 and other educational reform legislation. State plan requirements should include specific strategies for ensuring that students with disabilities will be included in a state's Goals 2000 activities.

(c) Encourage collaboration between education and other human service agencies, particularly to require consideration of more efficient use of funds to support common goals.

(d) Require state-funding formula to be placement neutral, so that funds follow a student into regular classrooms and do not provide incentives for education in more restrictive settings.

(e) Permit use of Part B funds to support prevention or early intervention for students not yet classified as eligible for special education in order to remove the incentives for overidentification of students with disabilities. This might include allocating some or all of Part B funds on a population basis.

Individual Education Programs

Congress should require state and local education agencies to amend their IEP processes as follows: IEPs should focus on specific educational needs of a student and contain a statement of meaningful goals. Assessment of students with disabilities should establish current levels of performance and determine specific services and accommodations that will be made throughout the student's school program. The emphasis of the IEP should shift from simply documenting services and procedural compliance (e.g., parental notification) to assuring accountability for student results. Specific student performance expectations that parents and family members understand should be stated and specific assessments to be used to determine student attainment of goals should be described. Assessment of goals should occur at least annually. Short-term objectives are instructionally meaningless on the IEPs and should not be required. Parental input should be encouraged through use of multiple strategies and formats, such as a parent questionnaire that might be obtained by a social worker or advocate or other family liaison prior to the IEP meeting.

Categorical Labeling

Congress should abandon the categorical approach now set out in IDEA. Labeling students by disability category is not educationally relevant. The categories should be collapsed into several broad areas (e.g., speech and language, students with significant and multiple disabilities, etc.). Congress should support a consensus-building activity, including the major advocacy and disability groups, to study and develop the language for the broad new categories. Categorical labeling of young children (preschool and primary age students with disabilities) should not be required.

6. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

Articulation with Educational Reform Legislation

The U.S. Department of Education and, if necessary, Congress (by amending IDEA and Educate America Act) should ensure that IDEA activities acknowledge or align with larger state and local-level reform legislation. The federal agencies should require state plans to specifically state how students with disabilities will be included or protected in state restructuring efforts, including Goals 2000 activities, statewide assessment programs, charter schools, or similar alternative school initiatives.

OSEP should require state monitoring plans to specifically indicate how states will monitor local education agencies for student results or progress as opposed to only procedural compliance. This monitoring must go beyond current levels of performance assessment as stated on the IEPs to require multiple types of assessment information, including state or district assessments, performance-based or authentic assessments, and parent/family input.

Support Leadership Development

OSERS should support state-local leadership development. Local administrators, particularly building principals, are critical to the restructuring process and cited as key factors in the creation of inclusive schools. Yet, many building principals have little knowledge of students with disabilities or of current best practices. There is a need to support high-quality professional development of these individuals, if not other district-level administrators as well. Professional development programs need to be developed within states and local school districts to provide this critical knowledge within the context of building leadership and management skills. Ideally, such professional development might be developed in collaboration with administrators' associations, business roundtables, or similar general education organizations that are already engaged in providing professional development for these individuals.

Support Innovative Professional Development for Teachers

OSERS should support state-local teacher-professional development. Teachers who are currently teaching need a great deal of support and development if they are to implement or participate in the numerous new initiatives within the schools. More funding is needed to support collaborative training of general and special education teachers as well as other specialists together with parents and family members. In particular, new models are needed that capitalize on technology and are efficient and address the major time constraints schools face when they attempt to provide intensive and high-quality professional development.

Support Research and Evaluation of Restructuring

OSERS and other U.S. Department of Education entities should support research and evaluation of restructuring. A number of very interesting and innovative ideas are being promoted for restructuring IDEA, including funding formula changes, a simplified IEP that links student outcomes to larger state or national outcomes and assessments, a removal of all categorical labeling, and increased flexibility in blending of IDEA funds with other educational funds. Some of these efforts are under way in states. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) or other Department entities should provide support to states and local districts to systematically evaluate the intended and unintended impact of these pilot efforts, including evaluations of inclusive schools as well as general education restructuring initiatives, such as SBM or statewide assessment programs.

Support Research into the Development of Authentic Assessments

The Office of Special Education Programs should support research and development of alternative assessments, such as portfolios, performance tasks, and similar authentic assessment, that can be used within the larger system assessments that will be part of the implementation of Goals 2000.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

Monitor for Student Outcomes or Progress

State education agencies should monitor local education agencies, implementation of IDEA by focusing on what and how much students with disabilities are learning and not merely on whether a district has met its various prescribed timelines and has completed the appropriate paperwork. While procedural compliance remains an important piece of IDEA, parents and family of students with disabilities need to be assured that students are progressing toward important long-term goals that will enhance their ability to be employed and be well integrated in mainstream adult communities. State education agencies should also require that students with disabilities be included in statewide assessments, either those developed for the general student population or specifically for students with disabilities.

Create Placement Neutral Funding Formula

State education agencies should remove fiscal disincentives for educating students with disabilities in inclusive schools and classrooms. Formulas that weight or provide extra funds for students placed in more restrictive placements penalize schools attempting to provide more inclusive education.

Create Supports and Mechanisms for Promoting Family and Community Involvement

Parent and community involvement in local schools is a major goal of educational restructuring and a long-time goal of IDEA. State education agencies should support and reward local education agencies that increase parental involvement and should encourage schools to share strategies and obtain information and assistance. It is particularly important that state and local education agencies ensure that parents of students with disabilities are informed of various restructuring initiatives and participate in the various policy and decision-making groups.

Support and Provide Technical Assistance to Local Inclusive Schools

Schools that are engaging in major restructuring efforts, such as becoming inclusive schools, need a great deal of support. State educational agencies should devote additional funds for professional development or help finding outside resource people who can help solve specific problems. In addition, schools may need to explore innovative instructional procedures or unconventional use of personnel. State and local administrators need to be willing to support the flexibility at the same time that they establish clear and expected student and program standards for holding schools accountable.

References

Brauen, M., O'Reilly, F., & Moore, M. (1994). Issues and options in outcomes-based accountability for students with disabilities. College Park, MD: Center for Policy Options in Special Education, University of Maryland.

Council for Educational Development and Research (l994). Surveying the landscape of state educational assessment programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Council for Exceptional Children (l994). Creating schools for all our children: What 12 schools have to say. Reston, VA: Author.

Fullan, M., & Stieglebauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Government Accounting Office (l994, August). School-based management results in changes in instruction and budgeting. Washington, DC: Author.

Guerra, P. Smith-Jackson, J., & Madsen, C. (l994). Site-based management and special education: Policies, implications and recommendations. The Special Education Leadership Review, 2(1), 59-71.

McLaughlin, M. J. (in press). Perspectives on blending categorical programs: Fiscal and programmatic issues. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, Center for Special Education Finance.

McLaughlin, M. J. (1993). School reform and students with disabilities: Teachers and educational restructuring. Washington, DC: The Chesapeake Institute.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Warren, S. H. (1992). Issues and options in restructuring schools and special education programs. College Park, MD: Center for Policy Options in Special Education.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Warren, S. H. (l994). Performance assessments and students with disabilities: Usage in outcome-based accountability systems. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Parrish, T. B. (l994). Removing incentives for restrictive placements. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, Center for Special Education Finance.

Toch, T. (l991). In the name of excellence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wohlstetter, P., & Buffet, T. (1992). Decentralizing dollars under school-based management: Have policies changed? Educational Policy, 6(1), 35-54.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (l991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Abstract

This book provides a comprehensive review of research related to the implementation of educational reforms. While not specifically focused on the restructuring topics, the research is reviewed within the context of what is known about schools and the implementation of major educational innovations. The literature is reviewed as it applies to teachers, administrators, and policymakers, and a general conclusion of the research suggests that complex, multifaceted changes, as opposed to specific models, are the most difficult to implement and require extensive time and support. However, these initiatives have the most long-lasting impacts on schools.

Key Points and Quotes

1. The key themes of school improvement are vision-building, initiative-taking and empowerment, staff development and resource assistance, restructuring, evolutionary planning, and evolutionary planning.

"While virtually everyone agrees that vision is crucial, the practice of vision-building is not well understood. It is a highly sophisticated dynamic process, which few organizations can sustain." (p. 83)

2. Educational change depends on what teachers do and think, the principal's perception of himself or herself as a change agent, and the abilities of district administrators to lead the development and execution of system-wide initiatives.

"To bring about more effective change, we need to be able to explain not only what causes it but how to influence those causes. To implement [change] successfully, we need a certain amount of vision...and promoters of change need to be committed and skilled in the change process." (p. 95)

3. Six themes of a new paradigm of implementing educational change include moving from negative to positive politics, monolithic to alternative solutions, innovations to institutional development, going it alone to alliances, neglect to deeper appreciation of the change process, and "if only" to "if I" or "if we."

"Reform cannot be achieved without working with school sites. But school sites are going to need a massive change. Everyone inside and outside the school is going to have to put great energy over a period of time into changing the culture of the school. This means new values, norms, skills, practices and structures." (p. 352)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

McLaughlin, M. J., Schofield, P. F., & Warren, S. H. (in press). Educational reform: Issues for the inclusion of students with disabilities. In M. Coutinho & A. Repp (Eds.) Enhancing the integration of children with disabilities. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole.

Abstract

The authors present an overview of major themes within the current education reform movement: outcome assessment, curricular standards, equity, and restructuring systems. They discuss issues confronting special education programs such as assessment and identification of students with disabilities, defining the "least restrictive environment," and the post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. They also describe specific policies and options that must be considered if the inclusion of students with disabilities is to be a part of educational restructuring.

Key Points and Quotes

1. The forces for restructuring that emerged separately within the special and general education systems have come together to create unique opportunities for individual schools and school districts.

"These opportunities present significant challenges to leadership in special education. Professionals in special education are beginning to acknowledge the power of the general education reform movement to change the way in which special education programs operate. The movement offers an opportunity to move the education of students with disabilities into a new generation, but this will take leadership with a clear vision for what special education's role should be and the strong will to move forward." (p. 24)

2. If individual schools or school districts choose to restructure their schools to more fully include students with disabilities, several significant issues should be considered.

"...the pathway to decision must begin with careful consideration of the outcomes of education that are valued by students, their families, and the community at large. Supporting policies concerning outcome assessments, governance, funding, curriculum frameworks, and professional development must also be considered." (pp. 27-28)

Model Profile

There are any number of examples of restructuring schools, including schools that can be considered inclusive schools. Profiles of such schools can be found in a recent Council for Exceptional Children publication, Creating Schools for All Our Students (CEC, l994), and in a videotape available from the Council of Administrators of Special Education, profiling a Vermont school that represents features of a restructured school as well as an inclusive school.

The following profile of an actual school with a fictitious name exemplifies restructuring that includes students with disabilities. This school, which we will call Urban Middle School, is a Baltimore City, Maryland, public school of approximately 780 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. The city school system is implementing a number of reform initiatives, including a statewide school improvement program (The Maryland School Performance Program) that includes statewide performance assessments and the publication of the school assessment data as well as other indicators, such as attendance and suspensions and expulsion, on annual school report cards. Low-performing schools may receive "Challenge Grants" to help improve their schools; consistently low- performing schools may be "reconstituted," resulting in removal of the principal and possibly staff and possibly takeover by some other entity. In the city all schools are site-based managed; school improvement teams (SITs) are empowered to make most budgetary as well as instructional decisions.

Urban M.S. was identified as a low-performing school on the basis of its assessment data and other indicators. The school receives approximately $250,000 a year from the state educational agency for school improvement. About two years ago, the school improvement team, under the strong leadership of the principal, began to identify a number of changes they felt were necessary to improve their school. Chief among these was a move to a multi-grade, integrated curriculum and a narrative report card. At the same time, the school staff voted to fully include all of the special education students in the school into the general curriculum and classrooms. Using resources from their Challenge Grant, the school staff worked in teams with consultants during the summers to develop portions of their own curriculum. The faculty is organized into teams that include one to two special educators who play a variety of roles, including helping write adaptations into the curriculum, co-teaching, conducting demonstration lessons, and providing individualized instruction and support to specific students. Teams meet formally once a week to plan instruction, and special educators also have an additional formal once-a-week meeting. Because of the close contact and collaboration, informal discussion, problem-solving, and instructional planning occur daily. Specialists, such as the psychologist and social worker, participate with the teams as needed.

The principal has used his powers in a site-based managed school to use resources to maximize cost-effectiveness. As one example, he has lowered class sizes by hiring some additional staff under contract, by-passing the city hiring process, and is considering hiring new, lower cost teachers to replace open positions of more senior people. He believes the less experienced teachers receive sufficient training and mentoring through the collaborative team process. He has also established several formal partnerships with neighboring universities and has a number of college interns, with various majors, working in the classrooms. Finally, he has acquired a great deal of technology provided by business, foundations, and other partnerships that he solicited or created.

Although the restructuring has been under way only three years, the initiatives are beginning to show results. Attendance has consistently improved and suspensions have dramatically decreased. Test scores are slowly moving upward; significantly, all but a small number of students with disabilities participate in the state assessments, with accommodations, and are reportedly improving. Given that these students were for the most part educated in self-contained classrooms for five or six years and had not been exposed to either the regular curriculum or general education testing, these improvements are marked. In addition to formal assessments, special educators maintain extensive portfolios on each student with a disability; the portfolios consist of student work and narrative reports and are well received by parents who now can understand what their son or daughter is learning.

The school is in compliance with required special education rules and regulations, despite the fact that the district is involved in a law suit involving special education timeline and record-keeping violations. In addition, the city schools have a high rate of students identified with disabilities, about 17 percent, and about two-thirds are educated in separate classrooms. In this context, Urban M.S. has demonstrated tremendous progress toward becoming an inclusive school; even students with serious emotional and behavioral disorders are being successfully educated in this school. However, there is still a need for the reintegration of students with much more significant disabilities, including significant cognitive disabilities, and the school improvement team is beginning to consider how to do this. The important aspects of this school are team decision making, a sense of community, and strong data and accountability for student results.

For more information, contact:

Margaret J. McLaughlin
Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth
1220 Benjamin Building
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20814
Phone: 301-405-6509
FAX: 301-314-9158

SCHOOL-LINKED SERVICES

Wayne Sailor
The University of Kansas

Abstract

1. School-linked services are part of a larger movement for more integration of health, education, and social services for children and their families. The outcomes of school-linked services integration are that (a) families are aware of a broad range of service options, (b) a single point of contact for all services exists, (c) a single physical location allows "one-stop shopping," (d) supports to the child and family are fully integrated and coordinated, (e) collaborative mechanisms between the school and all other human services agencies within the community exist, (f) flexible funding arrangements reduce emphasis on eligibility requirements, and (g) families choose among support options rather than agencies making determinations.
   
   
2. The outcomes of school-linked integrated services have been achieved in a number of demonstrations, but large-scale evaluations of the efforts have not occurred.
   
   
3. Promising approaches have the following characteristics: (a) models are products of collaboration among families, schools, and community services providers including those in the private service or business sectors, (b) state leadership and incentives, (c) processes are interdisciplinary, (d) turf issues are transcended by flexible funding arrangements, (e) all systems participate, and (f) the process generates a simple family support plan.
   
   
4. Inhibitors to achieving outcomes include (a) eligibility requirements, (b) categorical, agency-specific service delivery, (c) turf issues that affect sharing, (d) mistrust of sharing power with consumers in governance or decision making, (e) categorical professional preparation, and (f) agency-specific access requirements.
   
   
5. Congress should promote further activity in school-linked services integration by (a) taking steps that will allow demonstration projects to move to scale; (b) encouraging state-level policy analyses across agencies as part of reform efforts in education, health, or welfare; (c) requiring that service integration mechanisms be in place for agencies to access discretionary grant funds; (d) requiring interdisciplinary training across discretionary programs in education, health, and social services; and (e) providing incentives to conduct research in school-linked services integration.
   
   
6. OSERS should (a) emphasize school-linked services integration in the transition and Part H initiatives, (b) fund research to investigate school-linked services integration models, (c) fund training and technical assistance programs, and (d) require school-community partnership arrangements to be in place to receive funding under all research, training, and demonstration grants.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) create an agency research agenda and invite participation of institutions of higher education and other agencies in conducting research, (b)create a demonstration, training, and technical assistance agenda, and (c) engage in partnerships with higher education to facilitate the development of school-linked services integration models.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

The basic problem is that services/supports to children with disabilities and their families are fragmented, categorical, sometimes overlapping or competing both within and across agencies and are seldom coordinated (Schorr, 1992; Behrman, 1992). Programs offered through IDEA within the schools may duplicate similar services available to families through community agencies, but the staff of each of the two programs may be unaware of the other's existence. Since various agencies have their own "case management" systems, family members receive information about available programs in a piecemeal fashion, with each "case manager" relaying information about only those supports available through a particular agency. The results are:

(1) multiple, disparate points of contact for family members, often in different physical locations; (2) waste and duplication of effort and funds; (3) children who "fall through the cracks," that is, do not meet eligibility requirements for one program but may not learn of another that is duplicative; and (4) lack of coherent planning and follow-through to maximize service use to families and children (Kirst & McLaughlin, 1990; Kagan & Neville, 1993).

The term school-linked services is an abbreviated descriptor for a method of transforming service/support-use access to children and families that confronts these problems. The longer descriptor is school-linked, family-focused, integrated, and coordinated services. Another often used descriptor is school-linked services integration (Behrman, 1992). These various descriptors refer to a common set of systems-change processes that include the following:

• services provision to children with disabilities and their families that is family- focused, consumer-driven, and cuts across all education, health, and social services systems;
  
  
• the community is the unit of coordinated services provision through a community services provision council;
  
  
• clients are identified through school screening and referral processes;
  
  
• "case management" is comprehensive across all systems, provided by school- linked services coordinators responsible to the community services coordination council;
  
  
• all agency funding for clients served is administered through the community council;
  
  
• flexible funding mechanisms are identified as a problem-solving approach to avoid duplication and expensive services that may not be necessary; and
  
  
• services coordinators are linked to school restructuring processes through membership on the school site resource management team or council.

Outcomes indicative of a successful services/supports access transformation of this type include:

• families become aware of and sustain contact with a full spectrum of educational services, health and its subsystems services, employment services, social and recreational systems, judicial systems, housing systems, religious supports, etc.;
  
  
• families have a single point of contact for all services and needed supports;
  
  
• a single physical location such as the school or a nearby "family resource center" provides "one-stop shopping" access;
  
  
• supports to the child at school and to the child and family in the community are fully integrated and coordinated;
  
  
• collaborative mechanisms exist between school and all other human services support agencies and systems available to the community;
  
  
• flexible funding arrangements for specific problem-solving replace traditional "gatekeeping" eligibility requirements; and
  
  
• families choose from among options those service/supports they need, rather than agencies making all determinations.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

The school-linked services agenda has been discussed at all levels of government since about 1972 (Kagan & Neville, 1993). Rapidly escalating service use or need, particularly in the cities coupled with escalating service system costs, such as in the health services systems (RWJ Foundation, 1993), has led to renewed focus on school-linked services as an idea whose time has arrived (Kagan & Neville, 1993). Within the past five years, a number of demonstrations of school-linked services have appeared in the literature (i.e., Kagan & Neville, 1993; Crowson & Boyd, 1993; Sailor & Skrtic, 1995; Skrtic, Sailor & Gee, in press.

Progress on moving isolated demonstrations of school-linked services to scale within communities and states appears to be occurring at three levels: (1) community, "grassroots" demonstrations (Bruner, 1991); (2) state-level policy transformation efforts (Gerry & Certo, 1992); and (3) interactive efforts of state policy and community demonstrations. Most significant progress seems to be coming from the interactive efforts, but large-scale evaluative data on these efforts (i.e., California "Healthy Start" initiative; Kentucky School Reform Act) have yet to appear (Sailor & Skrtic, in press).

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

In the last five years, a number of models of school-linked services have appeared and demonstrations of these exist in various localities. In California, the state "Healthy Start" (Senate Bill 620) initiative has produced a wide spectrum of services integration models that are unique to various population demographics of the variety of communities that are implementing them (Carreon & Johnson, 1993). In Kentucky, the School Reform Act provides more of a homogeneous, "cookbook" formula for statewide implementation of a particular model (Illback, 1993). Some models are stimulated with private seed money (i.e., Cities in Schools). Other models are identified with particular consultants and technical assistance providers, such as the "wraparound" model.

Promising approaches seem to have the following common characteristics:

• community/school partnership arrangements where the model is a product of collaboration among family members, school, and community service providers, members of the private service and business sector;
  
  
• state-supplied leadership and incentives to affect local transformations;
  
  
• interdisciplinary processes such that team arrangements affect the services integration plan and implementation at all levels;
  
  
• transcending of traditional "turf" issues by flexible funding arrangements, to which all service systems agree to support and "sign off";
  
  
• all community system participation so that no single agency stands apart from the transformation effort; and
  
  
• the generation of a simple "family support plan" by the process that includes the IEP in the case of a child who gets special education supports, and includes and supersedes all other specific support plans as well.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

These transformations are most inhibited by the following factors:

• eligibility requirements for service/supports access ("gatekeeping" requirements);
  
  
• categorical, agency-specific service delivery and consequent lack of coordination;
  
  
• turf issues affecting cost-sharing across agencies and programs;
  
  
• mistrust and consequent exclusion of consumer family members in service system governance and decision-making processes;
  
  
• categorical professional preparation within higher education and licensing within state agencies and boards;
  
  
• agency-specific access requirements such as application forms; reimbursement or payment procedures; access to insurance; and confidentiality requirements; and
  
  
• lack of state-level policy leadership to affect service agency participation at the grassroots, community-planning level.

Each of these "barriers" to school-linked services integration can be and has been overcome in a variety of demonstration community projects. What remains is to compile and disseminate a wider knowledge base gleaned from a comparative analysis of successful demonstrations around the country.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Encouraging Policy Analyses

Congress should enact a presumption in favor of conducting state-level policy analysis across states seeking to undertake systems change toward school-linked services integration as a part of health, welfare, and school reform efforts. Outcomes of these analysis efforts would include federally approved consolidated state plans with all commensurate waiver authority as needed. Congress already has done much in the last five years to stimulate the emergence of demonstration-level, school-linked services arrangements. Demonstration projects funded in five states by US-DHHS/ASPE in 1989 have produced a wealth of information on ways to overcome obstacles to services transformations of this type (see Kagan & Neville, 1993, for a review of some of these efforts). New congressional legislation geared to implementation of Goals 2000 and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title XI, Coordinated Services) contain language and appropriations that will continue to enhance and build on these efforts (i.e., the Family Support Act, etc.).

Congress now can further this activity by beginning to take steps that will allow successful demonstrations to move to scale within the states. Indiana and West Virginia, for example, now have consolidated state plans approved by the Federal Government to enable consolidated local planning to occur across agencies with cost-sharing mechanisms (Sailor & Skrtic, in press; Sugarman, 1993).

Requiring Service Integration

Congress should continue to require language in discretionary grant programs across all human assistance agencies and systems that encourage applicants to put service integration mechanisms in place as a prerequisite to accessing funds, particularly for prevention programs such as Part H, special education, Title I of ESEA, Transition/School to Work initiatives, etc.

Requiring Joint Funding

Congress should require the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) to devise conjoint interdisciplinary training programs that will prepare educators, for example, to address the needs of special as well as typical populations without removal to categorical service systems. Grants programs to universities, for example, should be predicated upon evidence of cross-categorical training models, rather than continuing to train special educators, physical therapists, reading teachers, nurses, social workers, etc., in isolation to pursue categorical professional roles within schools.

Specifically, Congress should amend Subchapter IV (20 USC Secs. 1431 and 1432) by adding a requirement that federally funded training projects shall specify procedures for providing training in a team format that is interdisciplinary and that includes the participation of family members or their representatives in federally or state-funded parent training programs. Furthermore, Congress should make it clear in its Committee Report that OSERS should create incentives, through the entire range of its discretionary grant programs, for school-linked services integration strategies, including the formation of school/community partnerships to establish Family Resource Centers and other integrated services arrangements. Proposals in response to RFPs containing such incentive language should include a section with appropriate sign-offs indicating how the state will facilitate such local school-linked services integration arrangements with appropriate state-level policies, waiver authority, etc.

Providing Incentives

Finally, Congress should make it clear in its Committee Report that all OSERS research programs should provide incentives to direct and stimulate the development of a data base on comparative models of school-linked services integration specifying a range of outcomes for children with disabilities and their family members. Specifically, Congress should create incentives for research applicants to address their investigations to issues that include or are affected by school-linked services integration models.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

Funding Mechanisms

OSERS is in a position to directly affect the process of systems change transformations to accomplish school-linked services integration, particularly through two of its most significant program areas: (a) transition from school to adult status, including work (i.e., RSA/NIDRR), and (b) Part H and other early childhood programs. Both of these programs afford logical points of entry into school/community partnership arrangements that include families at all levels of planning and implementation.

OSERS can, for example, (a) fund research to investigate school-linked services integration models and provide evaluative data on comparative models; (b) fund training and technical assistance programs to develop, implement, and monitor services integration arrangements at local, state, and interactive levels of process; and (c) require school/community partnership arrangements to be in place to receive funding under all research, training, and demonstration grants.

Funding Research

Specifically, research is needed to (a) identify appropriate outcome indicators for children, family members, professionals, community members, and service providers affected by models of school-linked services integration; (b) develop appropriate instruments with which to thoroughly assess and evaluate all aspects of school-linked services integration efforts; (c) compile a data base on demonstrable outcomes from these efforts for children and families; (d) provide benefit/cost studies as evaluative data on these transformational processes; and (e) compile an evaluative data base comparing different models of school-linked services integration within different geographical and geosocial configurations.

Funding Training and Technical Assistance

Training and technical assistance is needed to (a) prepare a noncategorical, interdisciplinary, professional work force to respond to the interdisciplinary, noncategorical school/community team processes under school-linked services integration arrangements at the state level; (b) prepare policy leadership personnel in a variety of professional programs in school-linked services integration policy areas; (c) extend in-service training to field professionals, paraprofessionals, and family members in interdisciplinary and noncategorical, team-driven services arrangements in the school and community; and (d) provide interdisciplinary technical assistance programs to stimulate systems change consistent with these directions at all levels.

OSEP could facilitate this agenda by (a) establishing noncategorical, interdisciplinary training programs as a core part of all professional and paraprofessional training grants and (b) requiring parent training programs to specifically prepare family members for participation in all levels of team-driven, services integration arrangements.

The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research could establish a priority for training practitioners in school-linked, services integration throughout all of its 47 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers and should establish a new National Center on School-Linked Services Integration.

HHS/Maternal and Child Health (MCH), through its involvement in the Part H and Head Start programs, should direct the university affiliated program (UAP) to take a leadership role in the provision of research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination of information on all aspects of the transformation to school-linked services integration programs. The MCH-UAP program should provide incentive grants to UAPs to start up and/or intensify these efforts.

HHS/Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) should be directed by Congress to use its extensive UAP program toward the same outcomes. ADD should provide financial incentives to its 50 state and trust territories' UAP programs to facilitate all aspects of research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities focused on the start up and facilitation of school-linked services integration arrangements.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

Funding Projects

State and local education agencies should (a) create an agency research agenda and invite the participation of Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), in partnership with the agencies, to conduct research on school-linked services integration arrangements and (b) create a demonstration, training, and technical assistance agenda to engage in partnership arrangements with higher education to facilitate the development of school-linked services integration models.

Monitoring Projects

State agencies presently implement IDEA through monitoring of the Part B program and by providing inservice training opportunities for special education teachers. Under school-linked integrated services arrangements, state agencies hold potential to assume a much broader role. Policy leadership at the state level, for example, can lead to "joint powers" agreements under which IDEA is implemented through an interagency consortium arrangement of which a Department of Special Education or its equivalent is but one element. Linkages with state-level health, social services, and judicial systems in a collaborative arrangement can leverage IDEA funds to facilitate and nurture school-linked services integration at the local/community level.

Higher education should be brought into strong partnership arrangements in these collaborative systems by use of state-administered, direct granting authority and by the process of endorsing federal grant applications from Institutions of Higher Education. The role of IHEs, in particular, UAPs, can be critical in providing research, training, and technical assistance for the interdisciplinary school-linked services integration arrangements at the local as well as policy leadership levels.

References

Behrman, R. E. (Ed.). (1992). Topical issue on school-linked services. The Future of Children, 2(1).

Bruner, C. (1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children's services. Washington, DC: Educational and Human Services Consortium.

Carreon, V., & Jameson, W. (1993). School-linked service integration in action: Lessons from seven California communities. San Francisco: California Research Institute.

Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140-170.

Gerry, M. H., & Certo, N. J. (1992). Current activity at the federal level and the need for services integration. The Future of Children, 2(1), 118-126.

Illback, R. J. (1993). Formative evaluation of the Kentucky family resource and youth service centers: A descriptive analysis of program trends. Louisville: Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources.

Kagan, S. L., & Neville, P. R. (1993). Integrating human services: Understanding the past to shape the future. New Haven, CN: Yale University.

Kirst, M.W., & McLaughlin, M. (1990). Rethinking policy for children: Implications for educational administration. In Mitchell, B., & Cunningham, L. L. (Eds.), Eighty-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part I (pp. 69-90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. (1993). Child health initiative. Minneapolis, MN: School of Public Health, University of Medicine.

Sailor, W. & Skrtic, T. M. (1995). American education in the postmodern era. In J. L. Paul, H. Rosselli, & D. Evans (Eds.), Integrating school restructuring and special education reform (pp. 418-432). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Skrtic, T. M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. (in press). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives.

Schorr, L. B. (1992). Community support for student success. In Council of Chief State School Officers (Ed.), Ensuring student success through collaboration (pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Sugarman, J. (1993). Indiana's proposal for using consolidated state and local plans for services to children, youth and their families. Indianapolis: State of Indiana.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Kagan, S. L., & Neville, P. R. (1993). Integrating human services: Understanding the past to shape the future. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Abstract

The document extracts lessons from the history of services integration in this country. Part I is an historical review of services integration policies at the federal level. The bulk of the historical information is from the 1960s to the present and includes cycles of interest in services integration concepts. Part II provides the theoretical context for emerging ideas about services integration. The authors offer several definitions of services integration and describe theories that have provided a basis for the concept. Part III describes how lessons from the past may be used to inform practice. The section describes the nature of linkages among services, barriers and incentives to integration, and specific strategies to enhance the effects of integration initiatives. Part IV identifies assumptions that have confounded implementation of services integration initiatives in the past and offers recommendations for improving the probability of success in the future.

Key Points and Quotes

1. The history of services integration offers important lessons in learning from past policy initiatives.

One of the definitions of services integration describes it as having four dimensions:

(a) client-centered integration;

(b) program-centered integration;

(c) policy-centered integration;

(d) organizationally centered integration.

To successfully integrate services, strategies need to be undertaken at all four levels.

A review of the history of services integration initiatives would indicate that strategies need to address both top-down and bottom-up considerations, or "state" and "street" efforts. (p. 113)

2. Services integration has potential as a powerful policy option for addressing complex needs of children and families when applied comprehensively and intensely.

"...services integration must be thought of as a philosophy, as a component of many disciplines, and as a strategy." (p. 132)

As a philosophy, services integration "demands an attitudinal conversion from competition to collaboration, from exclusion to inclusion, from involvement to empowerment, and from restricted to holistic approaches to human services." (p. 132)

As a component of many disciplines, the "body of knowledge [in services integration] that has been amalgamated is sufficiently unique so as to constitute a different domain of inquiry, replete with its own theories, literature, and approaches." (p. 132)

After having been viewed primarily as a strategy through much of its history, services integration strategies must now work to "match specific and differentiated goals, with a clear focus on outcomes. Strategies must be constructed with a knowledge of their limitations and their demands, and with knowledge of their interactive effects." (p. 132)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Melaville, A. I., & Blank, M. J. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Abstract

This document was a joint product of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and was designed to "help communities improve coordination of education, health and human services for at-risk children and families" (p. iii). An emphasis on systems change and collaborative strategies is evident throughout the document. Part I describes the vision for changing services to an integrated system that is "profamily" in orientation. Part II lays out a five-stage process for change. Part III offers profiles of successful initiatives to integrate and link services to schools.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Changing direction toward a profamily system requires expanding the capacity of helping institutions.

The characteristics of a profamily system are that it must be:

(a) comprehensive;

(b) preventive;

(c) family centered and family driven;

(d) integrated;

(e) developmental;

(f) flexible;

(g) sensitive to cultural, gender, and racial concerns;

(h) outcomes oriented. (pp. 12-13)

Effective initiatives:

(a) are school-linked;

(b) are rooted in the community and closely connected to state government;

(c) use place-specific service delivery prototypes (based on the unique characteristics of the community) to create systems change;

(d) are data-driven;

(e) are financially pragmatic;

(f) provide interprofessional training and leadership development;

(g) engage communities in decisions about social and economic well-being of children and families;

(h) are able to balance the political and technical dimensions of system change. (pp. 15-17)

2. Implementing a holistic and comprehensive strategy to address the complex needs of children and families requires a strategic process, but there is no "right way" to make the changes.

The authors recommend the communities follow a five-stage process:

(a) Stage One: getting together (initiating the collaboration process);

(b) Stage Two: building trust and ownership in the venture;

(c) Stage Three: developing a strategic plan;

(d) Stage Four: taking action on the plan for the prototype delivery system;

(e) Stage Five: going to scale (broad-scale systems changes).

Model Profile

"School-linked services" is a short-form rubric for a way to deliver human assistance services (including special education and related services) at the local level that has at least the following features:

• restructured and unified schools that are fully inclusive of all students and governed by site-based management, team-driven processes;
  
  
• fully integrated services within the school that are linked to nonschool services provided to the child or child and family in the community;
  
  
• services coordination by a single contact person ("case management") who sits on the school site resource management team or council as well as the community services planning council;
  
  
• governance of services coordination by a community services planning council made up of school-linked services coordinators; family members and other consumers of services and their advocates or representatives; directors of local service agencies both, public and private; and chief executive officers from local businesses and industry;
  
  
• the development of family services support plans by the community services planning council in concert with the integrated services coordinator that fully subserve all other services plans that are categorical or agency-specific (i.e., IEPs for special education under IDEA);
  
  
• flexible funding that is geared to direct problem-solving strategies in human assistance programs and that results from interagency, collaborative planning and cost-sharing mechanisms at the community level;
  
  
• state-level interagency agreements that facilitate collaboration, cost sharing, and use of flexible funding strategies at the local/community level;
  
  
• a single physical location, at the school site or nearby, that serves as a family resource center and provides "one-stop shopping" for all human assistance program services for children and their families;
  
  
• full participation by all agency human assistance service providers, including all health, education, social services, recreation services, housing services, employment services, religious services, etc.; and
  
  
• noncategorical services provision that waives eligibility for participation in discrete agency-provided programs; waives categorically specific confidentiality requirements with the informed consent of the consumer; waives gatekeeping authority for specific programs and delegates all such authority to the community services planning council.

School-linked services models contain these features and presently exist in a variety of communities across a number of states throughout the country. Such models offer an alternative to fragmented, duplicative, segregated, and isolated categorical services programs to families of children with disabilities and other human assistance consumers.

The promise of school-linked services integration models is for greater equity in consumer programs and across regions, for greater cost effectiveness, and for efficiency of the operation of human assistance programs for taxpayers. It is geared to reform processes in education, health, and social welfare and can be directly accessed by IDEA at the levels of service delivery under the Part H program and under the auspices of the transition and school-to-work initiatives of Goals 2000.

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Ann P. Turnbull and H. Rutherford Turnbull III
The University of Kansas

Abstract

1. Participatory Action Research (PAR) refers to a process whereby the researchers and constituents together identify the problem to be investigated and collaborate throughout the entire research, dissemination, and utilization process. The outcomes of PAR are (a) increased utilization of research by constituents and in turn (b) improvement of services and supports for students with disabilities and their families.
   
   
2. Outcomes have not yet been satisfactorily achieved.
   
   
3. Promising approaches include (a) developing mergers between researchers and constituents before specifying research questions, (b) ensuring ongoing collaboration throughout the entire research process, and (c) developing alternative formats for disseminating research results.
   
   
4. Four practices that most inhibit outcomes are the (a) unequal status of researchers and constituents, (b) university culture, (c) need for the cross-fertilization of competence, and (d) logistics of implementation.
   
   
5. Congress should ensure better research and utilization of research by (a) enacting a presumption in favor of a PAR process for research, demonstration, and training projects funded under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, and (b) directing OSERS to award extra credit to research, training, and demonstration projects that use a PAR process.
   
   
6. OSERS should (a) fund research to investigate the process and outcomes of a PAR process, (b) fund training and technical assistance to develop, implement, and monitor best practices associated with a PAR process, and (c) require a PAR process to be implemented in research, training, and demonstration grants.
   
   
7. State and local education agencies should (a) create an agency-based research agenda and invite the participation of researchers, (b) provide certification credit for PAR-related staff development and participation, and (c) require a PAR process for research, demonstration, and training projects.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

The basic problem is that there is a gap between what research and demonstration projects "know" and what state and local educational agencies practice (Kauffman, Schiller, Birman, & Coutinho, 1993; Malouf & Schiller, 1994). This gap exists in spite of the IDEA mandate that state educational agencies shall develop a comprehensive system of personnel development (20 USC Sec. 1413(a)(3)(A)). Significantly, those standards require the SEAs to also ensure the "continuing education of regular and special and related services personnel," to acquire and disseminate to professional staff "significant knowledge derived from education research and other sources," and to adopt where appropriate "promising practices, materials, and technology" (20 USC Sec. 1413(a)(3)(B)).

One way of solving the gap between what research shows and what practitioners and other constituents do has been suggested by a proposed policy of the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research on Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Fenton, Batavia, & Roody, 1993): To create a merger between researchers and constituents who are beneficiaries or consumers of the research results. The merger of researchers' knowledge and expertise with constituents' knowledge and expertise has two purposes: (a) to identify and solve problems and (b) to ensure that the solutions are useful to and indeed used by constituents. PAR refers to a process whereby the researchers and constituents together identify the problem to be investigated and collaborate throughout the entire research, dissemination, and utilization process. This means that researchers and constituents are "actively involved in defining problems; carrying out the research; evaluating the validity, relevancy and impact of the outcomes; disseminating the findings; and supporting training and use of the results" (Fenton, Batavia, & Roody, 1993, p. 11). PAR encourages each member to "share and utilize his or her unique skills, background, and experiences so that the common objectives of enhancing the quality of life and functioning abilities of individuals with disabilities are achieved" (Fenton, Batavia, & Roody, 1993, p. 11).

Many terms are used to refer to a somewhat similar process: participatory research, action research, participatory action research, emancipatory research, empowerment research, and discovery research. A major problem in the literature is that different authors define a number of these terms in conflicting ways. We have opted to stay with the term originally proposed by NIDRR--Participatory Action Research and Dissemination--since NIDRR has originally defined it and there are no existing conflicting definitions.

The outcomes of PAR are (a) increased utilization of research by constituents and, in turn, (b) improvement of services and supports for students with disabilities and their families. The term constituents refers to special and general educators (teachers, related service personnel, and administrators), families of students with and without disabilities, the students themselves, adults with disabilities, and policymakers.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

The outcomes of (a) increased research utilization and, in turn, (b) improvement of services and supports for students with disabilities and their families have not yet been satisfactorily achieved (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1990; Malouf & Schiller, 1994). This problem in special education is shared in other areas of education (Huberman, 1990; Kaestle, 1993). Although OSERS has a number of funding programs to produce research (i.e., model demonstrations, research, and policy evaluation) and a number of strategies for disseminating research (i.e., clearinghouses, technical assistance, rehabilitation research and training centers, dissemination and utilization programs, systems change, outreach, linkage with publishers, and a National Diffusion Network), the emphasis has primarily been on producing and accessing knowledge, but not on using a professional knowledge base: "OSEP's future challenge becomes to create strategies that enable and facilitate the use of the professional knowledge base as a means for improving practices in special education" (Kaufman, Schiller, Birman, & Coutinho, 1993, p. 264).

Teachers use the professional literature as a basis for resolving classroom instructional or behavioral problems as their last resort and administrators report that the professional literature lacks sufficient focus on key implementation issues (McLane, 1990 and Alberg, 1992 as cited in Kaufman et al., 1993). This is because researchers and constituents have different ways of verifying and using knowledge. Researchers tend to use research knowledge to verify propositions through the scientific method. Practitioners, individuals with disabilities, and families tend to rely on "practical knowledge" that is verified through experience and guidance from mentors and colleagues.

Many researchers view constituents as nonrational, too practical, or unwilling or unable to read and apply the professional literature. By contrast, constituents often view research knowledge as irrelevant, inaccurate, and unnecessarily complex (Malouf & Schiller, 1994). Some charge that researchers exploit constituents. Recently, a leader of a Latino grassroots disability organization asserted, "Research only exists in the fantasies of researchers. Researchers come in, take information from us, and use it to their own advantage. What's in it for us?"

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

Promising approaches include (a) developing mergers between researchers and constituents before specifying research questions, (b) ensuring ongoing collaboration throughout the entire research process, and (c) developing alternative formats for disseminating research results.

Developing Partnerships Prior to Specifying Research Questions

Research centers and individual investigators can team with constituents in preparing research proposals to ensure that "all voices are represented" in research programs. When constituents are involved at the initial stage of formulating research questions, they are in a position to identify the problems that are most troubling to them, thus increasing the likelihood that those problems will become the basis of the research. The other benefits of initial collaboration are that the reality of constraints, opportunities, and practice issues are considered; a potential plan is developed to use findings and this plan in turn can help shape the research process; and shared ownership results in heightened commitment and more intensive collaboration throughout the process and utilization after the research is completed (Menz, 1995). When research has addressed problems that are truly baffling and troubling to constituents and has recommended practices that are understandable, relevant, and manageable, it is far more likely that constituents will be motivated to utilize research findings (Kaestle, 1993).

Even before a specific research project is launched, funding agencies can involve constituents in setting the funding agenda as well as involving them as reviewers in the peer review process. The funding agencies should ensure training of constituents and researchers who are involved in the peer review process, so that their participation will be informed about research, dissemination, and utilization methodologies.

Ensuring Ongoing Contact and Collaboration

The second promising practice is to intensify the contacts between researchers and constituents throughout the whole research process. Indeed, the incorporation of research findings into practice is substantially influenced by the number, nature, and reciprocity of the contacts between the researcher and constituents. Research suggests a relationship between high contact intensity and the organizational time that constituents commit to carrying out the study and the number of individuals at the practice site involved in follow-up (Huberman, 1990).

Developing Alternative Formats for Disseminating Research Results

The third promising practice is to develop alternative media for disseminating research results (Havelock, 1972; Smith-Davis, 1993). Although academic reward systems generally give priority to articles in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences, these typically are not the vehicles for enhancing research utilization in educational settings.

Media can include cable television, video and audiocassettes, electronic networking, user-friendly manuals, a subscription service for abstracts of key literature, articles in the lay media, "quality circles" within practice settings, and one-to-one peer support. A key consideration in selecting alternative media is to consider the incentives that the constituents have for investing the time to understand the information and to make the necessary changes to incorporate it into daily routines. Although the variety of formats is expanding, much stronger emphasis is needed on ensuring accessibility to media for people with disabilities (consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act) and with a primary language other than English.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Four practices that most inhibit outcomes are the (a) unequal status of researchers and constituents, (b) university culture, (c) need for the cross-fertilization of competence, and (d) logistics of implementation.

Unequal Status of Researchers and Constituents

Because they have different ways of "discovering" facts (data) than many constituents based on their professional training and experience, researchers sometimes may believe that they have a clearer understanding of "reality" than constituents who have a different view of how to generate and express facts. This hierarchy of expertise is illustrated by the following perspective of a research team toward the teachers they researched: "We would not expect the teachers interviewed to either agree with or necessarily understand the inferences which were made from their responses" (Bullough, Goldstein, & Holt, 1982, p. 133). Many constituents react with frustration and defensiveness when researchers discount their knowledge derived from practice.

University Culture

A number of university culture considerations exhibit outcomes. The researchers' need to have single-authored research studies in highly respected peer-reviewed journals serves as a major impediment. The push for tenure, merit pay increases, and academic status can relegate collaboration with constituents to a low priority. Furthermore, a hallmark of university culture is academic freedom; thus, it is not surprising that researchers are cautious about collaborative efforts that can potentially restrict their autonomy. Speaking as a researcher, Zarb (1992) commented:

...we must be honest about the benefits which accrue to ourselves in terms of professional/academic recognition, career development and--obviously--financial rewards. Indeed, if we are going to start to change the relations of research production, it is absolutely essential that we recognize the purpose of this separation of disabled people and researchers and the conflicts of interests it produces. (p. 132)

Need for Cross-Fertilization of Competence

Researchers often do not appreciate the variables operating at the street-level of practice settings, nor are they always aware of the range of alternative dissemination formats that might best enhance research utilization. It is critically important for researchers to hone their understanding of practice settings--to make context-specific the possibilities for research utilization. Similarly, constituents often do not know the concepts and methodology of research nor the process for reviewing proposals and setting agency-directed priorities. There is a major need to better prepare individuals with disabilities, families, practitioners, and policymakers to serve on federal agency peer review committees and on research projects.

Logistical Implementation

The logistics of research--such as deadlines and funding restrictions--get in the way of successful outcomes. It takes substantial time to develop trusting relationships between researchers and constituents who have never before collaborated with each other, as well as to arrange and carry out a number of face-to-face meetings, exchanges of information through the mail, and telephone calls. Given that there is often a short timeline between the announcement of funding availability and the due date for proposals, setting aside time to locate and communicate with constituents is typically not a high priority.

For collaboration to be truly significant, proposal timelines will need to be extended, and funding proposals will need to require, provide funds for, and allow more time for collaboration in implementation, dissemination, and utilization.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress can ensure better research and utilization of research by (a) enacting a presumption in favor of a PAR process for research, demonstration, and training projects funded under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act and (b) directing OSERS to award extra credit to research, training, and demonstration projects that use a PAR process. Both of these actions are revenue neutral, both will have an effect on federally funded activities, and both will have a "modeling" or "trickle down" effect on research, demonstration, and training projects funded by state and local educational agencies. (See Questions 6 and 7.)

Enacting a Presumption to Require a PAR Approach

Congress should amend Subchapter IV (20 USC Secs. 1431 and 1432) by adding a requirement that federally funded training projects shall adopt a PAR process. Likewise, Congress also should amend Subchapter V (20 USC Sec. 1441) by adding a requirement that federally funded research and demonstration programs shall adopt a PAR process. These requirements should take the form of a rebuttable presumption in favor of a PAR-type approach.

PAR is more useful for applied than basic research (where the focus of the research may not be a problem readily identified by researchers and constituents alike). OSERS typically funds applied but not basic research. Accordingly, Congress should create a rebuttable presumption in favor of PAR in applied research but not require PAR to be adopted in basic research. Because in some applied research it may not be appropriate to use PAR, Congress should allow the researcher to overcome the presumption by providing compelling reasons why applied research should not use a PAR process.

Directing OSERS to Award Extra Credit

Congress should make it clear in its Committee Report that OSERS should create incentives for applicants for federal research, training, and demonstration projects to use a PAR process in these projects. The Committee Report should rely on the amendment to 20 USC Secs. 1431, 1432, and 1441, should make clear Congress' belief that collaboration between researchers and research constituents is desirable, state Congress' intent that OSERS should create incentives for applicants to use that kind of approach in their projects, and direct OSERS to carry out that congressional intent by awarding extra credit in the peer-review process to projects that adopt that kind of approach and by devising other means to induce projects to use that kind of approach.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS can (a) fund research to investigate the process and outcomes of a PAR approach, (b) fund training and technical assistance to develop, implement, and monitor best practices associated with a PAR process, and (c) require a PAR process to be implemented in research, training, and demonstration grants.

Fund Research to Investigate the Process and Outcomes of the PAR Process

Research is needed to establish best practice indicators, define and measure outcomes that accrue from a PAR process, and develop a PAR program evaluation model. OSERS should establish a research agenda on PAR:

• NIDRR could fund a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center or demonstration projects specifically aimed at researching the PAR process (as well as having a training and disseminating mission).
  
  
• OSEP could fund research and program evaluation on the PAR process as a priority for research competitions.

Fund Training and Technical Assistance Related to the PAR Process

As research on best practice is conducted and reported, it will be essential to have a systemic approach to providing training and technical assistance in order to ensure best practice:

• OSEP could establish the training of future researchers in a PAR process as a priority for the Leadership Training competition.
  
  
• OSEP could establish a priority for training practitioners in skills of the PAR process.
  
  
• NIDRR could require the 47 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers to use a PAR process, provide training and technical assistance to other researchers in this approach, and provide training and technical assistance to their specific constituencies on best practices for implementation.
  
  
• OSEP could require Parent Training and Information Centers and RSA could require Independent Living Centers to provide training and technical assistance to their constituents on the PAR process.

Require a PAR Process in Research, Training, and Demonstration Grants

The requirement to use a PAR process should be implemented after research has established best practice indicators and methods of program evaluation, and also after training and technical assistance have been developed and implemented based on the research finding. This requirement should be enforced by a presumption in favor of using a PAR process (see Question 5). This presumption should be adopted as agency policy through appropriate regulations.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local education agencies.

State and local education agencies can (a) create an agency-based research agenda and invite the participation of researchers, (b) provide certification credit for PAR-related staff development and participation, and (c) require a PAR process for research, demonstration, and training projects.

Develop an Agency-Based Research Agenda and Invite the Participation of Researchers

Many researchers and universities want to engage in research that will make a significant and sustainable impact on practice, but they are unaware of the priority topics from constituents' perspectives. Conversely, many constituents are frustrated by the irrelevance of research and their own inability to launch a research program without the support and expertise of researchers.

Local and state education agencies can develop a priority research agenda that would advance outcomes for students with disabilities and their families. The targets of research should be directly related to the knotty problems that constituents are facing on a daily basis. The agencies should share this agenda with researchers and invite them to participate in a PAR process. Using a PAR process, constituents and researchers can formulate researchable questions and proposals to address the priority issues.

Provide Certification Credit for PAR Staff Development and Participation

Implementing a PAR process requires significant new skills for all participants, researchers and constituents alike. In order to create an incentive and time availability for educational practitioners, local and state education agencies can provide staff development on PAR skills of critical reflection. These skills constitute a major contribution of practitioners to the PAR process. Critical reflection enables practitioners to critique their own practices, the practices of others within the educational setting, and the validity of researchers' ideas (Schon, 1983; Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992). Staff development can also provide a foundation in research concepts and methodology so that local and state education agency practitioners can participate with a basic research foundation.

The most compelling training will be the actual participation. The experiential learning that accrues from intensive collaboration from the outset of the research process throughout all stages of development, implementation, and utilization will significantly enhance the knowledge and skills of all participants. Release time needs to be made available, and certification credit can be awarded for this ongoing learning process.

Require a PAR Process to Obtain Funding Approval

As local and state education agencies formulate their priority research agenda and provide staff development and incentives for participation, they also can require a PAR process, using the rebuttable presumption that research will use PAR processes. Their requirements can track the language of a rebuttable presumption (see Questions 5 and 6).

References

Bullough, R., Goldstein, S., & Holt, L. (1982). Rational curriculum: Teachers and alienation. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 4, 132-143.

Fenton, J., Batavia, A., & Roody, D. (1993). Proposed policy statement for National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on constituency-oriented research and dissemination (CORD). Andover, MA: The Network.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1990, October-November). Making educational research more important. Exceptional Children, 102-107.

Havelock, R. G. (1972). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. In B. C. Porter (Ed.), The Oregon studies: Research, development, diffusion, evaluation, II(2), 623-673. Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research.

Hoshmand, L. T., & Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training. American Psychologist, 47(1), 55-66.

Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363-391.

Kaestle, C. S. (1993). The awful reputation of education research. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 23-31.

Kaufman, M., Schiller, E., Birman, B., & Coutinho, M. (1993). A federal perspective on improving practices, programs, and policies in special education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 263-269.

Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1994, August). Practice and research in special education. (Manuscript 93140-R). Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.

Menx, F. E. (1995). Constituents make the difference: Improving the value of rehabilitation research. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Improving Community-based Rehabilitation Programs.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith-Davis, J. (1993). The dissemination of research in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 14(3), 34-38.

Zarb, G. (1992). On the road to Damascus: The first steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap, & Society, 7(2), 125-138.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Kaufman, M., Schiller, B., Birman, B., & Coutinho, M. (1993). A federal perspective on improving practices, programs, and policies in special education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 263-269.

Abstract

The authors describe the changing OSEP perspectives--from developing and accessing knowledge to utilizing professional knowledge. They describe different perspectives of knowledge development in terms of the objectivist (based on social science) and subjectivist (based on practice in context) perspectives. Then they present suggestions for strengthening special education practices through investing in research, investing in knowledge access strategies, and investing in knowledge use strategies.

Key Points and Quotes

1. The professional literature has not been a significant resource for teachers and administrators.

"Teachers, for example, seek access to the professional knowledge base most frequently in response to a classroom instructional or behavioral problem. They are in search of ways to address a particular issue that fits their real world context (Gwaltney et al., 1990). Their need for the information is immediate. Their first efforts to identify effective practices is usually to a supervisor, union representative, or colleague. Their stop of last resort is the professional literature (McLane, 1990). Administrators, on the other hand, seek information related to making choices about effective practices and programs. They seek information that would identify potential choices and their features. They found the professional literature disparate and focused on effectiveness, not implementation features (Alberg, 1992)." (p. 266)

2. Different communities or constituents have significant roles in improving the special education knowledge base and practices.

"Research and evaluation is not the end-product, but a beginning point to foster professional reflection, design of education improvements, and provide direction for its implementation. Through supporting and enabling the creation of networks and facilitating flow of information within and across communities to produce, access, and use knowledge as a means for improving policies, practices, and programs, OSEP believes that better outcomes for individuals with disabilities and their families will be achieved." (p. 268)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Osher, D., & Kane, M. (1993). Describing and studying innovations in the education of children with attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Abstract

This paper is divided into three parts: (a) Terminology and Perspectives, (b) Describing Innovations, and (c) Studying Implementation. In the part on Terminology and Perspectives, the authors define the following terms: practices, products, approaches, programs, and policies. This discussion is followed by an explanation of the nature of innovations: single solution and developmental orientations. In the second part on Describing Innovations, the authors propose a model that addresses three dimensions of innovations: explicit (detailed description of how the innovation is implemented), implicit (analysis of hidden assumptions of the innovation), and external (context-related characteristics that shape the innovation). Finally, in the third part of the paper on Studying Implementation, the authors discuss the issues that must be addressed in the validation of innovations and highlight key concepts from the change and implementation literature.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Different orientations about knowledge generation contribute to gaps between research and practice.

"A single solution orientation involves three critical assumptions regarding improving practice:

• That 'best solutions' exist;
  
  
• By implication, that someone can identify them; and
  
  
• That there is a hierarchical and linear (as opposed to interactive or dialectical) relationship between theory, application, and practice....

A developmental orientation incorporates two critical assumptions regarding improving practice:

• That practice improvement evolves in a dynamic and unpredictable manner; and
  
  
• That there is an interactive or dialectical relationship between theory, application, and practice." (pp. 6-7)

2. Partnerships between researchers and constituents can overcome failed dissemination efforts and limited practitioner use of research results.

"The two orientations are each linked to problems in the knowledge market that are reflected by: (1) failed dissemination efforts and (2) limited practitioner use of the research data base (Kaufman, M., Kamennui, E., Birman, B., & Danielson, L., 1990; Osher & Kane, 1993a). If these problems are to be avoided, it is important that research and development efforts should involve the knowledge consumer in knowledge development, transfer, and use. Through their involvement users can play a key role in (1) defining what "research" problems should be addressed (conceptualization); (2) developing a research design that will produce practical and creditable information (operationalization); (3) monitoring and assessing research projects (evaluation); (4) identifying what they need (knowledge transfer); and (5) adapting products to assure that they fit the context in which they operate (implementation)....Researchers and practitioners can be brought together both when practitioners gain a voice in the definition, operationalization, and validation of traditional research and when researchers work with site-based collaborations to improve and evaluate practice. Both efforts can engage the energy and craft knowledge of teachers and provide a greater assurance that research will be put into practice (Leinhardt, 1990; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Lather, 1986)." (pp. 9-10)

Model Profile

A best-practice model of Constituency-Oriented Research and Dissemination is being implemented in a Field-Initiated Grant from the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) that focuses on measuring the efficacy of Parent to Parent support under the leadership of Dr. George Singer. (The Parent to Parent model involves matching a veteran parent who has successfully learned how to deal with the challenges of disability with a new parent who is just beginning to experience specific challenges to provide personalized emotional and informational support. Parent to Parent support has grown from one volunteer program in Nebraska in the early 1970s to approximately 450 local programs and 17 statewide programs in 1994. These programs have been developed almost exclusively by parents with very little professional input and practically no research.)

The initial idea for this three-year collaborative research effort began at the 1992 National Parent to Parent Conference. There, a small group of parents and researchers lamented the difficulty of obtaining funding for Parent to Parent programs, given that many funders ignore anecdotes of "what works" and instead want data to substantiate program effectiveness.

From this informal meeting, a partnership was established among parents and researchers at three sites: New Hampshire/Vermont (Vermont Parent to Parent Program, New Hampshire Parent to Parent Program, and Hood Center at Dartmouth College); Kansas (Families Together and Beach Center on Families and Disability at the University of Kansas); and North Carolina (Family Support Network and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Representatives from the three sites met through telephone conference calls to plan a two-day retreat.

There were approximately 12 people at the retreat, with equal representation of parents and researchers. Parents described the impact of Parent to Parent services in terms of their own personal experiences as referred and veteran parents; they shared the experiences of many other parents. From these accounts, the parents and researchers formulated the specific outcomes that the Parent to Parent model appears to engender. From a discussion of the actual outcomes that the parents had experienced, the researchers then presented a number of research instruments and the parents reviewed them for their appropriateness in precisely measuring the outcomes as the parents knew them. A great deal of discussion focused around the sensitivity of the instruments with researchers and parents trying to find the balance between respected and validated instruments, on the one hand, and sensitivity to the families' needs and clarity of the families' comprehension, on the other hand.

After selecting the instruments, the parents and researchers then delved into the intricacies of the research design to develop a rigorous procedure but to not compromise the delicate, responsive, and intimate delivery of Parent to Parent support. The group struggled over the need to have a control group but to not deny services to parents who critically need them. The perspectives of both researchers and parents were especially important in reaching a decision that met dual standards of rigor and ethics. Parents were especially valuable in informing the researchers about the projected timeline of data collection in terms of when they expected the various outcomes to be manifested. They also offered valuable advice on the numbers of parents they expected to be able to recruit for the study in each of the three states.

Over the next several months, the parent-researcher teams in the three sites divided duties for writing the grant proposal and for submitting it to NIDRR in a timely fashion. The grant was funded in October 1993. During this time, the consortium of parents and researchers have had two additional two-day retreats. Conference calls have been held typically on a bi-weekly basis to map out the process of recruiting the 540 parents across the three sites, finalizing instruments, enrolling parents in the study, and attending to the fine details of data collection and analysis. One of the researchers characterized the benefit of this collaborative approach as follows:

Sometimes research is esoteric and not really relevant to the family experience. Our parent-researcher team, with input from parents from the very start, helps ensure that the resulting research will indeed be meaningful to families. Not only did parents help us with the substance of the research, but also with the style or tone of the research. Our telephone protocol, our cover letters, and indeed some of our instruments themselves have a much friendlier feel to them because of the input of the parents on our team.

A parent member of the team commented:

One of the neat aspects of this parent-research team effort is that I always come away from our meetings feeling as though I have attended "Parent to Parent School."

The fact that researchers need to know precisely what is being measured is helping us to be more thorough in how we do Parent to Parent. We helped to define for the research what typically happens in a Parent to Parent match, and now the research is helping us to maintain and improve the quality of the support that we provide to parents through the Parent to Parent match.

For more information, contact:

Betsy Santelli
Beach Center on Families and Disability
3111 Haworth
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Phone: 913-864-8600
FAX: 913-864-7605

POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL SUPPORT

Robert H. Horner
with
Jeffery R. Sprague and George Sugai
The University of Oregon

Abstract

1. Positive behavioral support refers to procedures to reduce behaviors such as physical aggression, self-injury, property destruction, verbal aggression, truancy, vandalism, and harassment. Positive behavioral procedures focus on assessing the function of the problem behavior before intervening and on using the assessment information to identify multicomponent plans of support that can include environmental redesign, curriculum adaptation, schedule revision, instruction on new skills, and positive and negative consequences. The approach is targeted not just on reducing undesirable behaviors but also on teaching skills that will allow the student to be successful without using dangerous and destructive behaviors.
   
   
2. Problem behaviors influence every special education initiative. To build successful efforts to educate, employ, socialize, and include students with disabilities, educators need a better understanding of how to prevent and remediate serious problem behaviors.
   
   
3. During the past ten years, dramatic gains have been made in professionals' ability to assess and reduce very serious problem behaviors. The most impressive gains have occurred with students who have severe intellectual disabilities, but recent results are providing promise for high functioning students who perform problem behaviors.
   
   
4. Research is needed to help educators understand better how to organize support around an individual student and how to design a school so problem behaviors are (a) less likely to get started and (b) more likely to be handled without excluding the student or relying on severe negative consequences.
   
   
5. Congress does not need to make major changes in IDEA to promote positive behavioral support. The real challenge is implementing what is already in the law.
   
   
6. OSERS should promote the development and application of positive behavioral support by (a) continued funding of research on variables related to instruction and intervention, (b) funding longitudinal demonstrations of systems-level success by school buildings, and (c) funding both preservice and in-service training in positive behavioral support.
   
   
7. State and local agencies should adopt the same approaches as OSERS (see paragraph 6, above).

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

Among the most pressing issues in schools today is educators' response to severe problem behaviors. As efforts are made to include all students in general education settings, problem behaviors (aggression, self-injury, property destruction, truancy, harassment) pose the single most dramatic threat to success (American Federation of Teachers Report, 1993; Sonnecker, 1993). The U.S. Department of Education (1992) reports that students with problem behaviors are among the least likely to be served in regular classrooms (15 percent compared with 76.8 percent for students with speech or language disabilities), and as these students enter transition age, problem behaviors are the most likely reason for their exclusion from typical work, home, and community settings (Reichle, 1990).

In an era where student diversity is increasing, schools are not prepared to educate students with problem behaviors (AFT Report, 1993; Bannerman, 1987; Kauffman, 1993; Knitzer, 1993; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch, 1990; Tausig, 1985). Billingsley (1993) examined the causes of attrition among special and general education teachers and found problem behavior to be a key factor contributing to teachers' moving away from education. Problem behaviors were cited as the central reason why special education teachers shifted from special to general education (Billingsley & Cross, 1991) and as a major factor in the decision of special education teachers to leave the profession entirely (Billingsley, Bodkins, & Hendricks, in press). Discipline in schools is rated by Americans as one of the three largest problems facing public schools (Elma, Rose, & Gallup, 1992).

The need for information about problem behaviors also has been expressed by teachers in recent state surveys. Horner, Diemer, and Brazeau (1992) report that those teachers in Oregon who work with students with severe disabilities identified training in behavioral support as their most pressing in-service need. A similar survey conducted in Indiana found that teachers define problem behaviors as a major obstacle and as a top in-service focus (Sprague & Rian, 1993).

Bulgatz and O'Neill (1994) surveyed general education teachers who had included one or more students with disabilities in their classroom. These teachers supported the policy goals of inclusion, yet reported major frustration with (a) the time demands associated with including students with disabilities, (b) the classroom disruption and ineffective teacher support when these students exhibited problem behaviors, and (c) their personal lack of competence to respond to children with significant problem behaviors.

Both general and special education teachers have provided clear messages that problem behaviors are a major source of concern (Zanville, 1992). Students who engage in self-injury, aggression, acting out, and property destruction are viewed as (a) dangerous to other students, (b) dangerous to themselves, (c) dangerous to teachers, (d) dangerous to their families/providers, and (e) so disruptive that other students are unable to achieve meaningful educational outcomes. If schools are to achieve the educational gains that all students should expect and if inclusion policy is to be successful, a better structure and technology for addressing problem behaviors are needed.

The features and procedures of positive behavioral support will affect schools at two levels: individual students and school-wide structure. The outcomes of effective, positive behavioral support for individual students will be (a) reductions of problem behaviors in typical school and community settings, (b) maintenance of health and safety, (c) increased development of skills that allow individuals to be independent and productive, and (d) development of living patterns that include supportive social networks, regular physical integration, and living options that are consistent with personal preferences.

Outcomes of effective behavioral support in schools will be (a) a school-wide system that defines appropriate behaviors, teaches appropriate behaviors, focuses on preventing occurrences of problem behavior, and provides clear, simple, consistent consequences for problem behavior; (b) an individualized support system that teachers can access when they encounter a student whose problem behavior is not responsive to the school-wide system; and (c) an ongoing means of staff development and professional growth.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

Research during the past several years has dramatically improved the ability of professionals to respond to the problem behaviors of individual students. The development of a practical technology of functional assessment (Carr et al., 1994; Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Van Houten & Axelrod, 1993) has changed the very nature of how problem behaviors are perceived. Educators are less likely to view problem behaviors as "willful" misbehavior on the part of the student, or as some simply physiological/diagnostic trait (e.g., autism). More commonly, problem behaviors are now viewed as a complex interaction between the learning history of the student, the current features of the school environment, and physiological variables. This shift in our understanding of problem behaviors has increased attention on the functional assessment of the problem behavior and on the development of practical hypotheses about why the problem behavior is maintained (Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, & Rodgers, 1993; Mace, Lalli, Pinter-Lalli, & Shea, 1993; Repp, Flece, & Barton, 1988). Effective interventions often involve changing several different elements of a students' day (e.g., the curriculum, the schedule, the type and level of monitoring, the consequences for misbehavior, or instruction on social skills). During the past five years this approach to (a) assessing the function of problem behaviors and (b) building multi-element plans of support has changed professionals' understanding of how behavioral support should be developed and delivered.

Changes in the structure of how schools respond to problem behaviors have been less easily demonstrated. Researchers have found more opportunities to work with individual students, their teachers, and their families than with the structural remodeling of behavioral systems in schools (Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). One of the major challenges for the next decade will be moving from individual interventions to structural interventions within the whole school. Good, positive behavioral support is not something that is added to a school, but is an integral, embedded part of how a school is organized and operated.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

The models and procedures that appear most promising in the area of positive behavioral support are (a) functional assessment, (b) multi-element program design (that includes teaching new skills), and (c) structural redesign of school environments.

Functional assessment is the process of understanding when, where and why problem behaviors occur (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968). Rather than looking simply for a diagnostic label, functional assessment provides information that is directly relevant for constructing behavior support plans (Carr et al., 1994; Durand, 1990; Iwata et al., 1982; Reichle & Wacker, 1993). Following the recommendations of Bijou (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968), Carr (1977), Repp (Repp, Flece, & Barton, 1988), and Iwata (Iwata et al., 1982), a series of strategies have been developed for assessing the environmental and physiological variables associated with problem behavior (Harris, 1992; Mace, Lalli, Pinter-Lalli, & Shea, 1993; Pyles & Bailey, 1992). These strategies include structured interviews (O'Neill et al., 1990), formal observation of behavior in the school, and systematic functional assessment in which variables are manipulated while the problem behavior is observed (Iwata, Vollmer, & Zarcone, 1990; Wacker et al., in press). Together these approaches provide a powerful and effective technology for determining when and why problem behaviors are occurring. This approach to assessment has great value in part because it provides information that is directly useful for building plans of support. The research on functional assessment also has demonstrated that without a good understanding of the function of a problem behavior, teachers may inadvertently use procedures that make the problem behavior worse. Functional assessment has become a standard part of good behavioral support, but effective application of functional assessment in schools is just beginning to occur.

Multi-element behavioral support is an alternative to the traditional strategy of applying a single intervention technique to change behavior. A multi-element approach may include (a) altering the curriculum for a student, (b) changing the daily schedule, (c) teaching new social skills, and (d) modifying the consequences for positive and negative behaviors. The specific strategies would be developed based on the results of the functional assessment (not the diagnostic label). This assessment-driven, multi-element approach to building behavioral support has demonstrated major success in school and community contexts (Carr & Carlson, 1993; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; Durand, 1990; Reichle & Wacker, 1993). At this time the application of functional assessment, coupled with multi-element behavior support plans, will result in not only more effective behavioral support but also support that is easier for teachers and families to use, less intrusive, and results in more durable outcomes. The research needed to document these final assumptions will be important for understanding how to carry this technology to typical schools.

The redesign of school-wide systems of behavior support is just beginning to be understood. Three recent developments are focusing attention on school-wide systems: (a) violence in school, (b) inclusion of students with disabilities, and (c) positive results from preliminary research. An unprecedented wave of violence is moving through our schools (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Not only students with a wide variety of special education labels but also many unlabeled students are making schools unsafe, and the nation is just becoming aware of the need to change the way we address problem behaviors in schools. Predictably, the initial response is to punish and exclude these students (Sugai & Horner, 1994). Punishment and exclusion will neither avert the problem nor improve schools. As educators recognize the complex challenge presented by violent students, they will understand that one fundamental factor for success is the redesign of the structural systems they use in schools to address problem behaviors. Specific recommendations for redesign are available, and the challenge now is to validate and develop these ideas to determine what can be done efficiently and effectively in real schools across the country (Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Reitz, 1994).

The inclusion of all students with disabilities in regular schools has had the very positive effect of awakening schools to the responsibility of supporting all children in their service area. The behavioral challenges presented by some students, however, have stretched the capacity of educational systems (Bulgatz & O'Neill, 1994). Teachers are indicating a major need for training in effective behavioral procedures and for a more sophisticated system of teacher supports when students present severe problem behaviors (Sprague & Rian, 1993). Teachers need more than a few techniques; they need structural reorganization of schools (Paine, Radicchi, Rosellini, Deutchman, & Darch, 1983). If real educational inclusion is to be achieved, school buildings (not just individual children) need to become a major research/demonstration focus.

The final factor emphasizing the need for structural reform lies in research successes in local schools. The power of positive behavioral support procedures is evident in the work that has been done with individual students and in individual classrooms. The current need is to extend the procedures throughout the school building rather than isolating them as part of the support of individual children.

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

The impact of specific barriers is always difficult to assess with precision, and different factors inhibit positive behavioral support in different areas. The following factors most often limit the educational successes of children with problem behaviors.

Local education agency commitment to educate all children is absent: The commitment of schools to develop and maintain positive behavioral support is weakened if policies and procedures allow and promote the exclusion of children with problems to "other" settings. When schools accept the obligation to provide effective education for all students in their service area, a greater commitment to tackling the difficult challenges presented by students with problem behaviors is fostered.

There are limited options for staff development: Schools are in the midst of major educational reform that is taking different shapes in different parts of the country. However, if improved behavioral support is to be part of the reform efforts, existing teachers will need more assistance. Training in behavioral support is the single most common request from teachers working with students who have behavioral challenges. Current systems of personnel development need to focus both on developing new teachers who can enter the changing field of education and who can provide novel and effective opportunities to train existing teachers. Training of existing teachers should be done not on a person by person basis, but through the training of teacher teams (preferably teacher teams that include an administrator). Without ongoing staff development options in the area of behavioral support, positive behavioral support in our schools will be a rare commodity.

Existing curricula and behavior support models: Two major barriers to effective behavioral support are the absence of good curricula and the continued use of narrowly conceived behavioral models. The traditional approach to children with problem behaviors has been exclusion and punishment. These are not strategies that benefit the student and indeed in the long run are dysfunctional and expensive for the school system. Positive behavioral support is a system that ties curriculum and behavioral support into a single package. Good teaching is among the most powerful techniques available for decreasing problem behaviors.

Inflexible models of school discipline: Effective behavioral support is at once preactive and flexible: preactive in the sense that behavioral expectations are clearly defined and taught and flexible in the sense that curriculum features, staffing features, etc. are modified to fit the needs of individual children. Existing school management, staffing, and organization often lack the flexibility to respond to the needs of students with significant problem behaviors. The need to maintain the health and safety of other students forces school administrators to exclude students with problem behaviors. A sense of relief is created by the removal of the "problem student." However, this relief is not only false but is also temporary. As soon as the student returns, or another student with similar behaviors joins the class, the teaching process will again come to a grinding halt. Schools must look beyond the inflexibility and false security associated with a reactive, exclusionary approach to behavioral support. Only by adopting a more broadly conceptualized disciplinary approach (e.g., altering staffing support, examining scheduling options, teaching replacement skills) will schools meet the challenges of individual students with problem behaviors.

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

The major recommendation for Congress is to facilitate, assist, and require that existing law be implemented. IDEA requires that schools provide a free and appropriate education for all students and creates a presumption that each student will be educated in the same school that his or her local peers attend. The challenge is to develop and implement the technical procedures and systems that make these goals both possible and practical.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years. Funding Research on the Development and Implementation of Procedures for Decreasing Problem Behaviors

There is a tremendous amount of practical information professionals do not have about the interconnecting links between physiology and problem behavior, between instruction and problem behavior, between social interactions and problem behavior, etc. In addition, a tremendous need exists to better understand the early development of dangerous and destructive behavior. Without this knowledge educators are not prepared to prevent problem behaviors from developing. Prevention will be the single most effective (though long-range) approach to reducing problem behavior in schools.

The research conducted over the past 10 years has produced dramatic, practical results. Now is the time to continue research efforts in this very productive area. Each of the major initiatives related to inclusion, improved education, implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act supported employment, family support, etc., interfaces with the complex challenges posed by problem behaviors. Unless practical procedures to assist children with problem behaviors are continued, schools will face major limitations in all other educationally relevant areas.

Funding School-Wide Models of Behavioral Support

Longitudinal (five-year) projects are needed that will support the changeover of schools from traditional "discipline" systems to an integrated policy of positive behavioral support. Schools today are trying to respond to the needs of individual children, but they make this effort without attending to the fundamental organizational problems that inhibit good behavioral support. Few schools, for example, can provide the immediate and intense support that a student with severe disabilities and severe problem behaviors may need during a one-hour period of difficulty that occurs only once every three months. Until funding is available for schools to try new systems, they will be less likely to enter into the hard and expensive challenge of system change.

Providing Staff Development in Positive Behavioral Support

Two initiatives are needed, one addressing the development of new teachers who are skilled in positive behavioral support, and one focusing on training existing teachers (regular and special education) inthe new developments related to positivebehavioral support. Any personnel preparation program for special education teachers should be expected to deliver a strong emphasis in behavioral support. Teachers who graduate should be able to support a wide range of behavioral challenges. Some of these teachers also need the opportunity for training in more advanced behavioral procedures (those procedures needed by 3-5 percent of the students who present problem behaviors). These students, though small in number, have the ability to destabilize a school that lacks adequate support.

The need for retraining existing teachers is well documented but difficult to coordinate. A wide range of retraining/in-service options around behavioral support are needed. Exciting results are beginning to be reported when that type of training (a) is done with groups of teachers from the same school, (b) is done with the active participation of the administration of the school, (c) is done as part of multiple short training events rather than individual conferences or workshops, and (d) is tied to defined policy goals of the school.

In summary, problem behavior is a critical issue for special education. Special educators' ability to develop effective school reform to create successfully inclusive schools and to regain the strong support of regular educators will rest in large part on their ability to address problem behaviors in our schools. The past ten years have produced dramatic, practical results in defining procedures that both reduce problem behaviors and increase educational gains. Special educators, students and families need a major effort from the Federal Government to (a) continue the practical research on problem behavior reduction, (b) fund longitudinal demonstrations of schools that are adopting structural changes to improve their ability to support students with problem behaviors, and (c) fund preservice and in-service training on positive behavioral support.

References

American Federation of Teachers Report (1993). Unpublished report to congressional committee.

Baer, D. M ., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. F. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, l, 91-97.

Bannerman, S. F. (1987). The politics of caring. Philadelphia: The Farmer Press.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, H. M. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175-191.

Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 137-174.

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1991). Teachers' decisions to transfer from special to general education. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 496-511.

Billingsley, B. S., Bodkins, D., & Hendricks, M. B. (in press). Why special educators leave teaching: Implications for administrators. Case in point.

Bulgatz, M., & O'Neill, R. E. (1994). Teacher perceptions and recommendations concerning students with challenging behavior in regular-classrooms: An initial survey. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Oregon.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 8, 800-816.

Carr, E. G., & Carlson, J. J. (1993). Reduction of severe behavior problems in the community using a multicomponent treatment approach. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 157-172.

Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McComachie, G., Carlson, J. K., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behavior: A user's guide for producing positive change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.

Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F.R. (1991). Fractional assessment, curricular revision and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387-397.

Durand, V. M. (1990). Severe behavior problems: A functional communication training approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Elma S. M., M. Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M.(1992). The 24th annual Gallup/Phi Delta Kappan poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 74(1), 42-53.

Harris, J. C. (1992). Neurobiological factors in self-injurious behavior. In J. K. Luiselli, J. L. Matson, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Self-injurious behavior: Analysis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 59-92). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Horner, R. H., Diemer, S., & Brazeau, K. (1992). Educational support for students with severe problem behaviors in Oregon: A descriptive analysis from the 1987-1988 school year. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 154-169.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 1-20.

Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., & Zarcone, J. R. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, application, and limitations. In A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 301-330). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Co.

Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., Zarcone, J. R., & Rodgers, R. (1993). Treatment classification and selection based on behavioral function. In R. VanHouten & S. Axelrod (Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment (pp. 101-125). New York: Plenum.

Kauffman, J. (1993). Characteristics of behavior disorders of children and youth (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrile.

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children's mental health policy: Challenging the future. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 8-16.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., Pinter-Lalli, E. P., & Shea, MC. (1993). Functional analysis and treatment of aberrant behavior. In J. K. Luiselli, J. L. Matson, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Self-injurious behavior: Analysis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 122-152). New York: Springer-Verlag.

O'Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole Publishing Co.

Paine, S. C., Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. D., Deutchman L., & Darch, C. B. (1983). Structuring your classroom for success. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Pyles, D. A. M, & Bailey, J. S. (1992). Behavioral diagnostic interventions. In J. K. Luiselli, J. L. Matson, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Self-injurious behavior: Analysis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 155-180). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Reichle, J.(1990). National working conference on positive approaches on the management of excess behavior: final report and recommendations. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. (Eds.) (1993). Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Reitz, A. L. (1994). Implementing comprehensive classroom-based programs for students with emotional and behavioral problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 312-331.

Repp, A. C., Flece, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses on their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21. 281-289.

Sonnecker, A. (1993, December 17). News report, National Public Radio.

Sprague, J. R., & Rian, V. (1993). Support systems for students with severe problem behaviors in Indiana: A descriptive analysis of school structure and student demographics. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon Conference Monograph: 1994, 109-120.

Tausig, M. (1985). Factors in family decision making about placement for developmentally disabled individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 353-361.

U.S. Department of Education (1992). Fourteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of public law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Van Houten, R., & Axelrod, S. (1993). Behavior analysis and treatment. New York: Plenum.

Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L., Peck, S., Derby, K. M., & Berg, W. K. (in press). Family- performed functional assessment. In A. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), Functional problem behavior: from effective assessment to effective support, New York: Brookes/Cole.

Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. New York: Brooks/Cole.

Zanville, H. (1992). 1992 school staffing trends study. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education and Board of Higher Education.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Horner, R. H., O'Neill, R. E., & Flannery, K. B. (1993). Effective behavior support plans. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed.), (pp. 184-214). New York: Macmillan.

Abstract

In describing functional assessment and outlining a model for using it to build effective behavior support plans, the authors present a new and comprehensive way educators can use to assist, teach, and support students in their classrooms with problem behaviors.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Positive behavioral support recognizes that the problem behavior often resides in the failure to provide personally tailored and comprehensive support. It focuses efforts on creating responsive environments rather than attempting "to fix" the person.

"For too many years, the pattern has been to isolate people who have significant problem behaviors and to deliver ineffectual and highly intrusive interventions with the sole objective of decreasing the targeted behaviors. However, expectations are changing, and the array of options available to teachers, families, and community support staff are changing. Among the most important changes is the move to include all students in the least restrictive settings possible. Isolation and segregation have been identified as among the most damaging policies in all of special education and students with severe problem behaviors are the most likely group to experience segregation from typical settings. As the nation includes more people with disabilities in regular schools, jobs and communities, teachers and support staff are faced with complex behavioral challenges. The expectation is that teachers (and their consulting staff) will design supports to allow...students to live, work, learn and play in typical settings." (pp. 184-185)

2. In positive behavioral support, the absence of challenging behavior is not the only criterion of success. Success must also be judged by the progress being made on accomplishing the lifestyle vision for the individual.

"Effective behavioral support should result in changes in problem behaviors and life-style options of a student. Educators typically think of behavioral support as effective if it results in changes in patterns of behavior performed by a student, but behavior change alone is an insufficient outcome. Some behaviors are problematic in part because they interfere with the student's achieving valued life-style outcomes (e.g. the student does not make friends, the student cannot go into the community, the student cannot be away from a staff person, the student must wear protective restraints).

A major reason for changing a student's behavior patterns is to provide a wider range of options within society. With this in mind, we suggest the following as important outcomes for any behavior support plan: (a) reduction of problem behaviors, (b) health and safety, (c) acquisition of new skills, (d) changes in activity patterns, and (e) choice and preference." (p. 185)

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behavior: A user's guide for producing positive change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Abstract

In explaining that problem behaviors often serve as a form of communication, this text describes how to discover the communicative purpose behind problem behavior and how to teach individuals with developmental disabilities alternative skills to convey their messages. In following three individuals through a communication-based intervention process, the text reinforces the multi-component, yet individual, nature of this approach.

Key Points and Quotes

1. Critical dimensions of communication-based intervention set it apart from traditional behavior management strategies which tend to focus on manipulating consequences after a behavior has occurred.

"Major Themes

• Problem behavior usually serves a purpose for the person displaying it
  
  
• Functional assessment is used to identify the purpose of problem behavior
  
  
• The goal of intervention is education, not simply behavior reduction
  
  
• Problem behavior typically serves many purposes and therefore requires many interventions
  
  
• Intervention involves changing social systems, not individuals
  
  
• Lifestyle change is the ultimate goal of intervention." (pp. 3-5)

2. Instead of looking only at the inappropriateness of the behavior, positive behavioral support begins by taking the time to understand the behavior.

"If you interact with a person with disabilities who shows serious problem behavior, you have good reason to believe that you can change this behavior. By viewing the person's behavior as purposeful and by focusing your efforts on education (rather than simply on behavior reduction), you have an excellent opportunity to deal successfully with the problem behavior and help make the life of the person with disabilities richer and happier, and that is the best reward of all." (p. xxii)

Model Profile

Research on positive behavior support has been under way for many years and has had its "headquarters" in a national consortium of researchers scattered around the country. The consortium is directed by Robert H. Horner, Research and Training Center on Positive Behavioral Support, University of Oregon; consortium members are Jacki L. Anderson at California State University at Hayward; Edward G. Carr at State University of New York at Stony Brook; Glen Dunlap at University of South Florida; Robert L. Koegel at University of California at Santa Barbara; Richard W. Albin at University of Oregon; Doug Guess, Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas; and Ann P. Turnbull at the Beach Center on Families and Disability, University of Kansas.

The consortium conducts research on the causes of challenging behavior and develops and disseminates strategies for positive behavior support. The research and strategy development occurs at University of Oregon, California State University at Hayward, State University of New York at Stony Brook, University of South Florida, and University of California at Santa Barbara. The dissemination has two basic components: the training that the researchers do for service providers and the distribution of information by the Beach Center through its "Family Connection" project. For example, the Beach Center has created a document, "How To Reduce Challenging Behavior for Children with Developmental Disabilities." That document summarizes the research and describes the strategies--all in two pages--and is aimed at families and providers, not researchers. In short, the consortium combines research, training and teaching, and publication efforts and targets them on appropriate audiences.

Following is a sample of information distributed by the Beach Center "Family Connection" project: You ever hear the phrase. "Treat the symptom, ignore the disease"? Many people handle discipline that way. They try to eliminate challenging behavior (usually with punishment) without looking into why the behavior occurred. Positive behavior support is different--even revolutionary--because it is based on "Why?" Why does Pat never seem to sit in his seat at school? Why does Richard bang his head repeatedly? Why does Anastasia wander off so much?

Behavior usually serves some purpose. Usually, the purpose is a communication need, particularly for people with limited language capabilities. When these children throw objects in the classroom, they may be expressing a need for attention. Yelling may be a way to get out of an assigned task. (Problem behavior frequently is a result of exclusion, segregation, and control by others.)

Face it. Problem behavior works to a certain degree. People do get more attention, higher levels of physical contact, or escape from work. But disruptive behavior (such as aggression to others) interferes with inclusion. It also can be dangerous (to the person exhibiting it and others), upset staff, and contribute to a negative attitude toward people with disabilities.

The goal in positive behavior support is not to "eliminate." Rather, it is to understand the behavior's purpose so that a new behavior that achieves the function can be substituted. This experience helps children learn better ways to make their feelings and needs known. Everyone shares responsibility for the behavior.

To do this, you must first identify the behavior (say, tantrum), then check to make sure you are on target about the probable purpose of the behavior (for instance, to quit doing a difficult task). This is the key to positive behavioral support: Functional assessment, "why" the behavior is exhibited. With instruction, you can learn how to use positive behavioral support. Or you can use someone with technical training in this area. (Ask your director of special education or call The Family Connection at 1-800-854-4938 for a reference.)

This person (or team) first talks to the family and people in the child's environment about the problem. Next, the child is directly observed over a period of time. To test conclusions, experiments are generally necessary. This is not a one-shot assessment. It will be ongoing.

After behavior identification comes intervention. This means that everybody interacts differently to support the desired behavior. People working with the child need to build rapport and have the child associate them with positive experiences. They need to find out what the child likes and be enthusiastic in conversation rather than talk matter-of-factly. You will know if rapport is successful if the person becomes more responsive to the trainer (stays close, smiles, etc.). Building rapport is especially necessary to help overcome the passiveness that some people with disabilities show (or, worse, are encouraged to show).

Rewarding good behavior is another key factor in positive behavioral support. Also, try to predict what might "set off" the child. Make changes in advance to ward off problem behaviors.

This long-term, educational approach will have ups and downs. Do not get discouraged by crises. You must have patience and the flexibility to change your actions and goals. In time, reinforcement can be delayed because the person has learned the new behavior works.

To review:

• Picture in your mind the child with challenging behavior living life in the most inclusive setting. Ask others to join you in creating this vision.
  
  
• Identify the purpose(s) the behavior serves the child by completing a functional assessment.
  
  
• Reorganize the individual's environment. Focus on what happens between the challenging behavior incidents and when the behavior occurs. Work toward having an environment of preferred activities and relationships that make targeted desirable behavior more likely to occur. Ways you can do this are by providing choices, incorporating the child's preferences, not compromising on your family's key decisions, making tasks more relevant, putting rewards in throughout the activity instead of only at the end, alternating between easy and hard tasks, and other methods.
  
  
• Teach new skills to achieve the child's desired outcomes. For instance, if the child wants attention, teach how to better connect with others. Show how to cordially greet others, improve grooming skills, and engage in shared interests. Another necessary skill is to communicate negative emotions in a positive way. If the child is angry, teach how to say or indicate this anger ("I need to cool down") and practice deep breathing.
  
  
• Reward positive behavior. Work with the child to determine things that the child likes.
  
  
• Anticipate disruptive or dangerous situations. Figure out in advance how you will respond to a challenging behavior.
  
  
• Ensure a proper fit. Support plans should be comfortable for the individual and family and reflect their skills, routines, and values.
  
  
• Monitor improvement. You will probably be fine tuning and changing your plan all along the way. Look for what is working and what is not.

For further information, contact:

Mike Ruef
The Family Connection
Beach Center on Families and Disability
3111 Haworth Hall
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Phone: 1-800-854-4938

VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SCHOOL SAFETY

Hill W. Walker
University of Oregon

Abstract

1. Violence threatens to become endemic to our society and way of life. Youth violence is increasing dramatically as a result of the deteriorating social and economic conditions of our society. Pervasive exposure to poverty and the breakdown of the family are the primary reasons for this explosion in violent and criminal behavior among children and youth.
   
   
2. Effective educational or noneducational models and approaches to solving this problem are lacking. Promising practices have been identified. However, satisfactory solutions have so far been elusive.
   
   
3. Promising approaches include (a) early intervention with at-risk children, families and community agencies where the school serves as a hub for comprehensive, coordinated efforts, and (b) the development of safe schools plans that reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors.
   
   
4. (a) Barriers to effective approaches involve a history of excluding at-risk students from schooling and from access to mainstream settings where social skills and adaptive coping strategies can be acquired. (b) Schools have a history of punishing rather than habilitating students with antisocial behavior patterns. (c) The problems of such students are often ignored until they progress to the point where they cannot be solved.
   
   
5. Congress should consider legislation that addresses three areas: (a) violence in the media, (b) mandated child find activities for children and families who are at risk for antisocial behavior patterns, and (c) the development of family resource centers attached to school districts.
   
   
6. (a) OSERS and state directors should change their approach to dealing with this student population. (b) The currently used SED eligibility definition should be scrapped and replaced with the one developed by the National Coalition of Mental Health and Special Education. (c) Finding ways to include students in the mainstream activities and affairs of schooling is essential.
   
   
7. (a) State and local educational agencies should consider adopting combined universal-selected intervention approaches to addressing the problems and pressures posed by this least liked but most capable of all at-risk school populations. (b) Comprehensive school-linked intervention models are needed in which families, schools, and community agencies forge effective partnerships in treating the problems of antisocial children and youth.

1. What outcomes signify successful implementation of the topical issue?

America has been galvanized by the specters of violence and the victimization of innocent individuals--particularly vulnerable individuals, including women, children, and persons with disabilities. Media portrayals of violent acts have intensified their salience to the point where many believe that violence is pervasive and unavoidable (Lieberman, 1994); the nation's quality of life has been diminished accordingly by the constraining effects of such perceptions. Ominously, many also believe that violence has become culturally normative and is societally endemic--perhaps due to pervasive exposure to it.

In spite of these beliefs, nearly all scientific studies of violence prevalence rates indicate that violent crime, overall, has remained relatively stable over the past 15-20 years in spite of much harsher sentences meted out for such crimes during this period (see Furlong, 1994; Roth, 1994). However, this does not hold true for violent juvenile crime, which is increasing dramatically in all sectors of society. Violent crimes among juveniles increased by 41 percent from 1982 to 1991. During this same period, the number of arrests for murder and aggravated assault committed by juveniles increased by 93 percent and 72 percent, respectively (Wilson & Howell, 1993). In a recent report, the Office of Juvenile Justice reports that the national juvenile homicide rate has doubled in the past seven years. Youth are killing each other; 55 percent of the victims of juvenile murders are fellow juveniles (Coie, 1994).

A safe schools study by the National Institute of Education revealed that 40 percent of juvenile robberies and 36 percent of assaults against urban youth took place in schools (Crowe, 1991). Clearly, juvenile street crime is spilling over into the schools at an alarming rate. Each day, 100,000 children and youth bring weapons to school; 40 are killed or seriously wounded with these instruments of destruction. Half of all students who admit to bringing weapons to school say they do so for their own protection.

2. To what extent have these outcomes been achieved in the last five years?

The overall juvenile crime rate and increase in interpersonal violence are associated with a dramatic escalation in the number of children who are bringing antisocial behavior patterns to the schooling experience (Kazdin, 1993). During the past five to ten years, there has been a huge surge in the number of children and families experiencing antisocial behavior. It is estimated there are four to six million antisocial children and youth in schools at the present time (Kazdin, 1993). This number is swelling at an alarming rate.

Antisocial behavior provides a fertile breeding ground for the later development of a delinquent lifestyle and is the single best predictor of juvenile crime (Reid, 1993). Coie (1994) notes that if children are antisocial at home and school, they are 50 percent more likely to be violent than if they are antisocial in only one of these settings. Schools are increasingly victimized by children and youth who are themselves victims of pervasive poverty, neglect, chaotic family environments, crime-ridden neighborhoods, racial discrimination, a sense of hopelessness, and so on (Soriano, 1994).

Recent research by Patterson and his colleagues (Capaldi & Patterson, in press) indicates that violent juvenile offenders very often share three characteristics: (1) they have their first felony arrest at an early age (age ten or younger), (2) their first arrest tends to be for a serious offense, and (3) they are chronic offenders (three or more arrests by early adolescence). This profile identifies an extremely high percentage of later violent juvenile offenders. The vast majority of these youth are heavily invested in antisocial behavior patterns from earliest childhood.

The spread of poverty, deterioration of urban neighborhoods, collapse of the family infrastructure for socializing our children and youth, involvement of caregivers with drugs and alcohol, failure to use good parenting practices of discipline and monitoring, and all forms of abuse are producing thousands of at-risk children and families. There is a national emergency that requires the galvanizing of all the nation's skills, resources, and energy to address this problem. Currently, there is clearly visible the front end of a wedge of antisocial children and youth who are cutting a destructive swath through our society. Due to the sheer numbers that are already in the pipeline, the problems of today are going to become substantially worse before they can get better.

3. What educational models/procedures are most effective for achieving these outcomes?

The American Psychological Association (1993) recently produced a superb synthesis of the knowledge base relating to the prevalence of violence among youth, associated causal factors, and recommended approaches to addressing it (see Violence and Youth: Psychology's Response). This task force report makes some important observations:

(1) Violence is not the human condition; it is learned behavior that is preventable.

(2) Violence cuts across all lines of culture and ethnicity; it is not exclusive to any single group or class.

(3) Prevention of violence requires education of and by all segments of society; it requires a reassessment of how conflict is view and resolved.

(4) There are four individual social experiences that contribute powerfully to the increase in violence among children and youth: easy access to firearms, especially handguns, early involvement with drugs and alcohol, association with antisocial groups, and pervasive exposure to violent acts portrayed in the media.

(5) Schools must be a hub or key center of activity in the development of comprehensive, interagency interventions for the prevention and remediation of violent behavior.

This report makes clear that youth violence is pervasive, is a result of multiple causes, and will require complex, multiple solutions if it is to be dealt with effectively. There are no educational models and procedures for effectively addressing these outcomes. There has never been a demonstrated cure of any kind for delinquent behavior and a delinquent lifestyle. The same is true for antisocial behavior patterns. There are, however, some promising practices that affect these problems to some extent (Reid, 1993).

A realistic goal is to divert at-risk children and youth from a path leading to delinquency, interpersonal violence, gang membership, and a life of crime. In order to achieve it, there must be action by and impacts on three social agents who have the greatest influence on the development of children and youth: parents, teachers, and peers. Intervention has to begin early in a child's life--preferably at the point of school entry or even earlier if possible. The school has to play a key coordinating role in the intervention process and involve parents and community agencies meaningfully in partnerships for change. Support, resources, and assistance need to follow at-risk children and families rather than be tied to agencies as is currently the case. If society can marshal and coordinate these elements, it may be possible to actually prevent antisocial behavior and its associated outcomes in many instances. The National Institute of Mental Health has funded a series of multi-site prevention centers at universities around the country to evaluate whether such approaches can work. However, in the interim, policy and practice must at least ensure that schools are safe and free of violence, weapons, and gang activity.

Schools are highly vulnerable to interpersonal violence and gang activity; they are no longer the safe havens they once were for children and youth to learn and develop their potentials. Morrison, Furlong, and Morrison (1994) have reframed the issue of school violence within a model of school safety that includes both developmental and educational concepts and emphasizes prevention and schooling effectiveness. These authors argue that effectively dealing with school violence requires careful attention to the key dimensions of school safety; schools that are violence free are thus also effective, caring, nurturing, inclusive, achieving, and accepting. The absence of violence is but one of a series of positive characteristics of safe schools.

Figure 1 operationalizes this conceptualization along a bipolar dimension that ranges from unsafe to safe; schools are distributed along this dimension, not only in relation to incidents of violence, but also as a function of the extent to which risk factors are diminished and protective factors are enhanced or facilitated. This figure lists a series of characteristics that define safe versus unsafe schools and also lists the skill-based risk and protective factors that determine or influence safe versus unsafe school status.

[Figure 1 not available.]

This approach has great relevance for the design of prototype safe school models. It addresses violence within a context of improved schooling effectiveness and safety that is developmental in its perspective.

Larson (1994) has provided a recent review of selected programs and procedures for preventing school violence. He identifies some promising violence prevention programs for use at both elementary and secondary school levels (e.g., The Second Step Program: A Violence Prevention Curriculum and The Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents). Systematic instruction in such curricular programs on a school-wide basis would be an essential part of any effective school safety plan. Currently, the U.S. Department of Education is conducting a competitive review of proposals to establish and demonstrate safe schools plans in 36 school districts across the country. The outcomes of these efforts will significantly advance our ability to achieve and ensure school safety.

Figure 2 illustrates the core elements of a prototype safe schools plan. These are the components that must be addressed effectively in order to ensure a safe school environment in today's society. The relative investments of effort and resources in these components will vary by school site and neighborhood.

[Figure 2 not available.]

4. What educational models/procedures most inhibit these outcomes?

Larson also presents a three-level intervention model for addressing school violence and safety that involves primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts. Primary prevention focuses upon enhancing protective factors on a school-wide basis so that students in general do not become at risk. Secondary prevention involves providing support, mentoring, and assistance to at-risk students. Tertiary prevention (perhaps a misnomer) involves intervention with seriously involved students, many of whom are habitual offenders. Figure 3 illustrates the correspondence between target student type (regular, at-risk, and chronic juvenile offender) and the prevention approach most appropriate for addressing the problems of each.

Currently, an incarceration frenzy in dealing with juvenile crime and violence is the mode of action. However, we will never be able to incarcerate ourselves into a satisfactory solution to these social problems. A three-pronged approach is required involving detention, intervention, and prevention. Detention is for serious habitual offenders who have a low likelihood of being rehabilitated. Intervention involves school and youth services diversion programs that teach skills, adaptive strategies, and positive attitudes that will keep at-risk students out of the juvenile justice system. Prevention means keeping potentially vulnerablestudents from becoming at risk. Resources should be reallocated from detention to intervention and primary prevention.

Major barriers to achieving positive schooling outcomes and safe, violence-free school settings are (1) a failure to recognize and address emergent risk factors, (2) a long history of punishing and excluding at-risk students as a primary solution strategy, (3) failure to teach the skills and competencies, in cooperation with parents, that support social effectiveness and responsibility among students as part of the core school curriculum, and (4) poor design and supervision of school space so as to prevent discipline problems and student conflict. Until policies and practices are in place that address these barriers, safe schools and control of violence and gang activity on school grounds will be elusive.

[Figure 3 not available.]

5. Provide two or three specific recommendations for action by Congress.

Congress should consider passing legislation in the following areas: (1) control of the exposure of children and youth to violent acts in the media, (2) mandated child find activities to identify children at risk for antisocial behavior early in their school careers, and (3) development of family resource centers attached to school districts. Each of these areas and the intent of legislation are described below.

Reducing Media Exposure

Media violence is a subject of continuing controversy. There is overwhelming evidence that pervasive, long-term exposure to media violence (i.e., TV cartoons, videogames, broadcast news, films, and prime-time TV dramas) does two things: (1) it desensitizes children and youth to violent acts and (2) it makes individuals themselves more likely to commit violent acts. The response of the media to this evidence is nearly identical to that of the tobacco industry's response to scientific evidence of the negative health effects of tobacco use--denial of the evidence. Media violence is a social toxin that is poisoning the wellspring of our society. Violent acts must be reduced and controlled across the board in the media, and parents must be informed about its effects on their children and how to attenuate them.

Intervening Early

Antisocial children and those at risk for developing at-risk behavior patterns must be found early in their school careers--in preschool settings if at all possible. The P.L. 99-457 amendments to IDEA mandate child find activities for preschool children who are developmentally at risk. Similar legislation must be established for children and families who carry risk status for antisocial behavior. If children are not diverted from this path by the end of grade three, then in the great majority of cases the antisocial behavior should be treated much like a chronic disease such as diabetes for which there is no cure. The behavior should be managed and coped with as effectively as possible without the expectation of anything approaching a cure. Early detection and intervention are the single best hope for successfully addressing this complex problem.

Several states (e.g., Kentucky and California) are experimenting with family resource centers attached to school districts that allow parents to access support, assistance, and training and that also allow parents to deal with the school-related problems of their children in a problem-free, nonjudgmental atmosphere. Such resource centers have great potential for creating the kind of partnerships necessary for parents and schools to work together as an effective team.

6. Provide two or three recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation through federally funded activities, including but not limited to monitoring, technical assistance, personnel preparation, demonstration, and research, to be carried out over the next five years.

OSERS, in cooperation with state directors of special education, should consider rethinking the approach to the population of students having antisocial behavior patterns that are now crowding our schools. These students and the problems they present have to be dealt with on a school-wide basis; however, the provisions of IDEA can play a pivotal role in addressing them.

Currently, only 9 percent (approximately 396,000) of the total population of students served by IDEA have serious behavioral or emotional problems. In contrast, 73 percent of all students served by IDEA have either learning disabilities (50 percent) or speech and language problems (23 percent). There needs to be a drastic reordering of priorities in this context so that far more of the resources of IDEA can be devoted to the problems presented by antisocial students who are at risk for school failure and a host of negative, developmental outcomes that ultimately prove extremely costly to them and society.

Redefining Eligibility

A first step would be to eliminate the current definition used to determine eligibility for severe emotional disturbance status under IDEA. The definition is highly restrictive and stigmatizing; its use effectively prevents schools from proactively screening and identifying students who are at risk for antisocial and related behavior disorders. The definition that has been developed and promulgated by the National Coalition of Mental Health and Special Education is a far less restrictive and more functional definition that would allow students to be identified and served based on the severity of their adjustment problems. Currently, schools' abilities to deal with the increasing pressures posed by this student population are hamstrung by continuing adherence to the IDEA archaic definition.

Schools need to stop punishing this student population and trying to exclude them from schooling. Police indicate that 90 percent of daytime burglaries are committed by truant youth. Alternative programs and schools need to be developed for antisocial students, including developing strategies for including them in mainstream educational processes. A therapeutic and habilitative school posture must be adopted, whenever possible, in dealing with this student population, and ways must be found to support and reclaim them.

7. Provide two or three specific recommendations for improving IDEA's implementation by state and local educational agencies.

State and local education agencies need to assume leadership roles in developing approaches for implementing combined universal-selected intervention approaches for addressing the emotional-behavioral adjustment problems of at-risk students and in developing effective relationships with community agencies and families in addressing the problems of this population.

Designing Universal Interventions

Universal interventions are designed for an entire school; they are applied to everyone in a uniform manner, regardless of student characteristics or attributes. They are frequently used in primary prevention efforts. Universal interventions can also positively influence some at-risk students. As a rule, however, at-risk students and those who are more seriously involved require selected, individually tailored intervention approaches in addition to and following their exposure to the universal intervention. That is, they select themselves out as needing additional intervention because the universal approach is not sufficient for them. Secondary and tertiary prevention efforts rely primarily upon these more powerful, individually tailored intervention approaches.

Examples of universal interventions include the review, identification, and selection of social skills curricula for school-wide use in teaching violence prevention (conflict resolution, anger management, peer mediation), development of a school-wide discipline plan, development of a comprehensive communication system, reviewing and changing building design and use features to improve its physical security and capacity for supervision, and school-wide, proactive screening of all students in the elementary grades to identify those potentially at risk. Examples of selected interventions would include: direct, individualized instruction in key social skills for at-risk youth, development of a comprehensive, interagency intervention and plan of assistance for habitual, juvenile offenders who are potentially violent, and implementation of a teacher consultant-based playground intervention for very aggressive students who are rejected by peers.

Developing School-Linked Interventions

Ways must be found for schools to develop effective school-linked intervention and support services for at-risk students and their parents or primary caregivers. Attitudes, turf issues, and funding barriers all work against the formation of effective partnerships in this context. State and local educational agencies can assume the lead in paving the way in this critically important area. Figure 4 provides an overarching model or schema containing the dimensions that should be addressed in organizing communities to support competent social behavior among children and youth. Schools are the last institution to come on board in dealing with youth violence and criminal behavior. It is the consensus of many experts from mental health, child welfare, corrections, family courts, public safety, and social agencies that schools should assume the lead role in developing and coordinating intervention approaches in addressing these problems. This is an issue that federal and state governments should consider in depth.

[Figure 4 not available.]

References

American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and youth: Psychology's response. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (in press). Interrelated influences of contextual factors on antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence for males. In D. Fowles, P. Sutker, & S. Goodman (Eds.), Psychopathy and antisocial personality: A developmental perspective. New York: Springer Publications.

Coie, J. (1994, July 21). The prevention of violence. Keynote address presented at the National Research Director's Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.

Crowe, T. (1991). Habitual offenders: Guidelines for citizen action and public responses. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Furlong, M. J. (1994). Evaluating school violence trends. National School Safety Center News Journal, 3, 23-27.

Kazdin, A. (1993). Treatment of conduct disorder: Progress and directions in psychotherapy research. Development and Psychotherapy, 5(1/2), 277-310.

Larson, J. (1994). Violence prevention in the schools: A review of selected programs and procedures. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 151-164.

Lieberman, C. (1994, May). Television and violence. Paper presented at the Council of State Governments Conference on School Violence. Westlake Village, CA.

Morrison, G. M., Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, R. L. (1994). School violence to school safety: Reframing the issue for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 236-256.

Reid, J. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5(1/2), 243-262.

Roth, J. A. (1994, February). Understanding and preventing violence. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Soriano, M. (1994, Winter). The family's role in violence prevention and response. School Safety, 12-16. Westlake Village, CA: National School Safety Center.

Wilson, J., & Howell, J. (1993). A comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile delinquency. American Psychologist, 47(8), 997-1006.

Key Points and Quotes

1. To date, no intervention program or approach to curing delinquency has ever been found to work.
   
   
2. Delinquency intervention programs are generally applied when delinquent behavior emerges in the upper elementary or middle school grades.
   
   
3. The best delinquency interventions to date can only claim to be promising practices.
   
   
4. Early childhood intervention has been shown to prevent delinquency years later among at-risk children.
   
   
5. Early intervention that focuses on school readiness skills, developing social skills, and building self-esteem is highly effective in the prevention of delinquency.

Annotated Literature Abstract

Citation

Walker, H. M., & Sylwester, R. (1991). Where is school along the path to prison? Educational Leadership, 47(8), 14-16.

Key Points and Quotes

1. School is merely a way station for many at-risk children and youth on the road to prison.
   
   
2. Young people who represent about 20 percent of the total population now account for 40 percent of all crimes; half of all youth charged with serious crimes are under the age of 15 and 75 percent are boys.
   
   
3. Antisocial behavior, manifested early on in a child's school career, is the single best predictor of delinquency years later in adolescence.
   
   
4. Using three measures of adjustment in grade 5 (teacher social skills ratings, negative social behavior involving peers, and school discipline contacts in archival records), we can correctly predict the arrest status five years later in grade 10 with 80 percent accuracy. These three measures take about an hour and a half to collect and record per case.
   
   
5. Comprehensive early intervention at the point of school entry or before is the single best hope we have of diverting at-risk children from this destructive path. The intervention needs to focus on and impact the three key social agents in a child's life: parents, teachers, and peers.
   
   
6. Early intervention of this type has proven to be effective in preventing the adoption of a delinquent lifestyle years later in adolescence.
   
   
7. The school needs to be the "hub" or lead agency in coordinating and delivering this intervention approach. True partnerships need to be forge between parents, schools, and community agencies in this regard.

Model Profile

The National Institute of Mental Health has, over the past five years, funded a series of centers for the prevention of conduct disorder and antisocial behavior patterns. The Oregon Social Learning Center in Eugene, Oregon, was funded in 1989 by NIMH for a conduct disorders prevention center.

The focus of this center is on the primary prevention of antisocial behavior patterns among populations of first and fifth grade students. A universal home-school intervention has been developed called Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Students in regular classrooms learn social and academic skills in small, cooperative learning groups. Playground recess periods are used to teach students to apply and demonstrate their newly acquired skills under the supervision of school professionals. Group incentives are made available at school to motivate students to participate. Careful communication is maintained between schools and families via telephone voice mail to monitor and report on student performance. LIFT has been successful in reducing the expected base rate or frequency of conduct disorders. Stronger effects have been achieved with first than with fifth graders.

For more information, contact:

John Reid, Ph.D.
Oregon Social Learning Center
207 East 5th Avenue, Suite 202
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Phone: 503-485-2711
FAX: 503-485-7087

Appendix

A Brief Description of the National Council on Disability

Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency led by 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The National Council was initially established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education (Public Law 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) transformed the National Council into an independent agency. The overall purpose of the National Council is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

Specific Duties

The current statutory mandate of the National Council includes the following:

• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; and all statutes and regulations pertaining to federal programs which assist such individuals with disabilities in order to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities;
  
  
• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities at the federal, state, and local levels, and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with disabilities, access for health care, and policies that operate as disincentives for the individuals to seek and retain employment;
  
  
• Making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Education, the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies respecting ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities;
  
  
• Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis, advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional information which the Council or the Congress deems appropriate;
  
  
• Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);
  
  
• Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department of Education, and the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;
  
  
• Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect to the policies of and conduct of the Rehabilitation Services Administration;
  
  
• Making recommendations to the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting persons with disabilities;
  
  
• Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of such Council for legislative and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with the purposes of the Council to promote the full integration, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities;
  
  
• Preparing and submitting to the President and the Congress a report entitled National Disability Policy: A Progress Report on an annual basis; and
  
  
• Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the President a report containing a summary of the activities and accomplishments of the Council on an annual basis.

Population Served and Current Activities

While many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with disabilities, the National Council is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues of public policy which affect people with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran, or other individual circumstance. The National Council recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people with disabilities by assuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

The National Council plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, it was the Council that originally proposed what eventually became the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Our present list of key issues includes monitoring the implementation of federal civil rights laws affecting people with disabilities, analyzing the performance and results of special education programs, development of a national approach to personal assistance services, health care reform, the inclusion of students with disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, equal employment opportunity, community housing, improving assistive technology and access to the information superhighway, and ensuring that persons with disabilities who are members of minority groups fully participate in society.