Research to Practice Summit

Self-Perceptions,Values, and Case Studies in Early Elementary Grades ¹

by Robin McWilliam

• Investigator and Fellow
• FPG Child Development Institute
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Findings and Implications: Rating Scales    Case Studies

Three sets of practices that might be pertinent to inclusion in the early elementary grades are:

1. family-centered services,
2. integrated and coordinated services, and
3. individualized and developmentally appropriate practices.

These three areas have been the focus of our research on the perceptions of professionals and families involved with children in kindergarten through 3rd grade. We have developed "discrepancy tools," which ask respondents to rate their current experiences and their ideal experiences along continua from least recommended (i.e., a score of 1) to most recommended practice (i.e., a score of 5). Specific practices are defined along the continuum for each item. The discrepancy involved is the difference between current-practice and the typical-practice scores.

To validate our instruments (Family-Centered Practices in Elementary Schools, Integrated and Coordinated Services in Elementary Schools, Classroom Practices in Elementary Schools), we recruited participants in 95 schools from 35 school districts in North Carolina. We first recruited the special education teacher in each school. This person helped us identify K-3 students with disabilities who (a) the special educator taught and (b) spent at least half the day in a regular education classroom. We then recruited those children's regular classroom teachers (including classroom assistants) and therapists. In addition, a child not receiving special education services who is in the same classroom and his family were recruited.

The three instruments were sent to the adult participants in the study. Parents, special educators, and regular educators completed the Family-Centered Practices scale; special educators, regular educators, and therapists completed the Integrated and Coordinated Services scale; and regular educators and classroom assistants completed the Classroom Practices scale.

Twenty schools were selected for case study investigation. Data collection, in addition to the rating scales, involved observation (with measurement as well as field notes) and interviews.

Research Findings and Their Implications for Inclusion

Rating Scales of Three Important Practice Areas

• All respondent groups' ideal-practice scores were statistically significantly higher (p <.001) than their typical-practice scores (Maxwell & McWilliam, 1997). This means that people would like their practices to change-to become more family centered, more integrated and coordinated, and more individualized and developmentally appropriate. It appears, therefore, that professionals would be receptive to training or technical assistance in these areas.
• Educators (both special and regular) reported more family-centered practices being typical than did parents of children with disabilities, which means that they might need to examine more closely whether they are meeting families' expectations. On the other hand, parents of children with disabilities reported less family-centered practices as being ideal than did educators and parents of non-special-education students. Further investigation is needed to determine why families of special-education students would have lower expectations for family-centered practices.
• Among the subscales of the Family-Centered Practices scale, the Special Education subscale was less family-centered than were the two generic subscales (a) Atmosphere and Communication and (b) Advocacy and Participation, which means that perhaps training should concentrate on those practices with families specifically related to children with disabilities.
• Reports of typical integrated and coordinate services did not differ among respondents, but special educators had higher expectations (i.e., higher ideal-practice scores) than regular educators and therapists. This means differential training and technical assistance might be required for different types of professionals.
• The Integration subscale was lower in both typical- and ideal-practice scores than the Coordination and Consultation subscales, which means that professionals are probably least knowledgeable and experienced with specific strategies for incorporating specialists' recommendations into classroom activities.
• Regular education teachers reported higher typical and ideal practice for classroom practices than their assistants, which might be a reflection of different perspectives associated with their roles and education levels.
• The Instructional Context subscale was lowest in individual and developmental appropriateness, and the Inclusiveness subscale was highest-with Child Control in the middle. This means professionals are most comfortable and experienced with involving children in activities but least comfortable and experienced with ensuring that the specific learning opportunities are appropriate.

Case Studies

The following themes were identified by examining field notes, having interobserver triangulation discussions, memoing, examining self-report measures, and building confirming and disconfirming tables. Children's special needs were not well-addressed in regular classrooms, and the kid-classroom match was poor. Some classrooms were really boring. Specialists were not involved in regular-class activities, and responsibilities were strictly divided by discipline (i.e., regular ed did one thing, special ed did another, and to some extent the related services did yet other things). Service delivery models did not change. We saw little variability in specialists' reported locations and methods of providing specialized services to an individual child.

¹ Presented at the Research to Practice Summit, July 30-31, 1998, Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System in collaboration with the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI).