///%// Ru g \\\\\\.\ §A &fi\\ e W///, 7/4 \x. l k z/xzdzx c E Review of Model School Programs and Practices James H. Hughes, PhD. and Joicey L. Hurth, PhD. Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration US. DEPARTMENF OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute of Mental Health 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20857 For sale by the Superintendent ol‘ Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. 20402 This monograph was written by James E. Hughes, Ph.D., and J oicy L. Hurth, Ph.D., under Contract Number 278—80—0013 from the NIMH Center for the Studies of Minority Group Mental Health. Dr. Hughes is a member of the faculty of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Dr. Hurth is associated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the National Institute of Mental Health or any other part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Joseph W. Griggs, Ed.D., was the NIMH proj— ect officer for the manuscript's development. All material appearing in this volume except quoted passages from copyrighted sources is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission from the Institute or the authors. Citation of the source is appreciated. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 84—1361 Printed 1984 Acknowledgments This work could not have been accomplished without help from many dedicated teachers, aides, and administrators who volun— teered time and took such an active interest in this project. More specifically, the persons who made all of the arrangements and served as facilitators for investigations at each of the six sites. They are: Mr. Loren Gratz, Hastings Public Schools, Minnesota; Dr. Stanley A. Fagen, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland; Dr. Robert Battisti, Mayfield City School District, Ohio; Dr. James P. Comer. Yale University Child Study Center, New Haven, Con- necticut; Dr. Henry Bertness and Mr. Ralph Baird, Tacoma Public Schools, Washington; and Dr. Wylamerle G. Marshall, Dr. Eleanor L. Levine, and Ms. Eydie Sloane, Dade County Public Schools, Florida. Acknowledgment also, is made of Drs. Ann P. 'I‘urnball of the University of Kansas in Lawrence, William C. Morse of the Uni— versity of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and William G. Hollister of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill who served as members of the Project Advisory Group in reviewing various drafts of the monograph and offering technical assistance to the authors. In addition, Dr. Eli M. Bower of the University of California in Ber— keley, Dr. Betsy C. Lowman of the North Carolina State Depart— ment of Public Instruction in Raleigh, and Ms. Barbara Israel of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill served as consultants to the project. iii Foreword A review of mental health programs in schools today would re— flect the influence of two major trends in the field of mental health: the basically medical model and the comprehensive pre— ventive design. Mental health professional personnel, including psychologists, social workers, and counselors, began working and sewing in the public schools early in this century, initially testing children for special programs. Community—based child guidance clinics and other services developed later represented the same trend—mental health professionals provided services on the basis of individual referrals from teachers, usually seeing children only after school troubles were well established. Often, evaluation and assessment were followed with recommendations for placement in segregated programs outside the mainstream. This traditional model was based in part on the assumption that the main purpose of schools was to develop academic and cognitive skills, with other concerns, such as mental health, being secondary. The alternative perspective embraces a broader definition of education, a more humanistic approach, concerned with the devel— opment of values, interpersonal relationships, and a positive self— concept. This perspective relates mental health to ego develop— ment, reduced general anxiety, and the ability to handle stress and frustration; it recognizes the school's important role in the forma— tion of the child's self—concept. Consistent with this humanistic educational philosophy is the effort to focus mental health inter— vention in the schools on prevention rather than exclusively on treatment of severe, longstanding problems. An early focus on problems before they become serious prevents their escalation. Integrating the "treatment" into the ongoing school curriculum minimizes disruption. The approach also emphasizes the use of nonprofessionals, working cooperatively with classroom teachers, and recognizes the need for strong parental and community support. During the 19705, efforts were made to increase awareness of the need for mental health in the schools. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) was a leading force in several activities that were important to the overall effort. Consultation and education were among the five basic services required for funding support for community mental health centers. Consultation to schools to im— prove mental health was recognized as a key area for prevention and early intervention. A report prepared for NIMH by the Beha— vior Science Corporation, entitled "Evaluation of the Impact of Community Mental Health Center Consultation Services on School Systems," stated: One of the major visions of the Community Mental Health Centers Act was the improvement of the skills of educators to become resources for positive mental health action. . . . The school is the vehicle for training the child to cope with his environment. . . . Because of the educator's special training, access to the students, and influence with the students, he is in a position of primary importance in dealing with community mental health (1972, p. 11). Two popular books published in the early seventies concluded that all was not well for our nation's children. Crisis in the Class— room, by Charles E. Silberman, raised many questions about the extent to which public schools had become grim, joyless places, oppressive and petty in their rules, intellectually sterile and bar— ren, with a lack of civility on the part of the teachers and princi— pals toward children. The report of the Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, Crisis in Child Mental Health (1970), found a similarly dismal picture for children in need of mental health prevention and intervention services. Lack of adequate services, lack of coordination between service agencies (schools and mental health agencies, for example), and a low national pri— ority on the mentally healthy development of our nation's children and youth were noted. The report pointed to a need for closer school—mental health collaboration, as well as a specific need for advocacy services for children. In response, NIMH and the then Bureau of Education for the Handicapped jointly sponsored a number of child advocacy demon— stration projects throughout the country. Through training in con— sultation, research and demonstration projects, films, and related publications, NIMH also continued its efforts to influence the schools toward better mental health practice. The following pub— lications and activities are illustrative of these attempts. Promoting Mental Health in the Classroom, a handbook by Karen P. Todd (1980) based on the "causal approach" to understanding human behavior, contains background information, theoretical discussion, and specific curriculum activities and suggestions for classroom teachers. Mental Health and Learning, a joint publication of the U.S. Office of Education and NIMH (1972), highlights the benefits of collaboration between public schools and community mental health centers: School—based mental health programs in five community mental health center areas are featured. NIMH also supported the National Consortium for Humanizing Education, which conducted training programs for teachers and school administrators and researched the effectiveness of the training. As a result of the training, the quality of the interactions between teachers and students improved, student self-concept and achievement improved, and absenteeism rates dropped. Two curriculum development projects that focused on teaching children about human behavior and on infusing mental health prin— ciples in all aspects of school operations were supported. Present NIMH-supported activities and projects emphasize a progressive, preventive approach to mental health in the schools. This orientation recognizes two things. First, the status of mental health conditions in the schools merits concerned attention and action. Simply bringing "all the children of all the people" into nonvoluntary institutional settings, where they are confronted by a host of individual temperaments, levels of maturity, and prof es— sional preparation by teachers and administrators, under a great variety of learning conditions, is enough to ensure that tensions and pressures on the very young and the very vulnerable will often be great. Second, overwhelming evidence indicates that the schools offer the best—perhaps the only—real hope for primary pre— vention in mental health. They also offer the best opportunity for early detection and early treatment, which are part of secondary prevention. Mainstreaming in the public schools is an extension of the na— tional mental health process of "deinstitutionalization," the move— ment of special populations back into their normal environments insofar as possible, with extended support services provided when necessary. The ill effects of segregation, stereotyping, and forced dependency fostered by institutional or special class placement are recognized. Mainstreaming creates demands and stress on school systems; unfortunately, many current efforts to cope with the "mental health f allout" from mainstreaming resemble the tradi- tional approach to mental health—attempting to remedy the situation only after problems have become acute. Children's mental health services were the focus of a survey conducted by MITRE Corporation for NIMH (Salasin et al., 1977). Critical problem areas identified were learning disabilities and inflexibility of educational systems; ignorance, incompetence,and insensitivity of adults; lack of a sense of competence and self— esteem; not being taught life management skills adequately; and psychological problems related to physical differences or handicaps. The MITRE study found that the following services were needed: training and counseling for parents to foster healthy mental de— velopment in children; early detection and referral for appropriate intervention; education for all children in life management skills; training for educators on developmental and humanistic approaches; improved services coordination and accessibility; comprehensive, community—based outpatient treatment; and training for teachers about the needs of handicapped children. The MITRE survey suggested that many educational systems do not adapt to the individual needs of the children they serve. Too often, children are instead forced to adapt to the school's system. Teachers may unknowingly fail to recognize handicaps or dis— abilities in children and may respond in an insensitive and poten- tially damaging manner. Such responses can further increase a child's negative self-image and low opinion of self—competence and social worth. This can be complicated further when the child has a disability, whether it is visible or not so visible. Overt or subtle discrimination against a handicapped child may add to feelings of rejection that produce emotional stress, which may be even more vii damaging than the disability itself. Mental health programs and services for children need to deal with children directly but also indirectly through the important adults in their lives. For this reason, it is important to develop in teachers a humanistic ap— proach to make them more understanding and sensitive to individ~ ual differences. The need for this type of training will increase as legislation brings more children with special needs into regular classrooms. Increased coordination and cooperation between edu— cation and mental health systems should assist in this training effort. Teachers should be specifically trained about the nature of var-‘ ious handicaps, appropriate remedial techniques, and how to inte— grate handicapped with nonhandicapped children. Without this type of specific training, mainstreaming of physically and psychologi— cally handicapped children will not be successful. Too many teach— ers do not feel competent to handle handicapped children and feel threatened by them. Understanding and acceptance by teachers and peers is critical to change the all—too—familiar responses of sym— pathy, pity, and patronization. Under insightful and skilled guid—» ance, peer relationships can provide a secure environment for academic and social development. Cautious implementation of mainstreaming—for it is not ap~ propriate for all handicapped children—should result in increased independence of handicapped students, better adjusted students, and better handling of special problems in normal situations. A major barrier to implementing programs that would facilitate mainstreaming, however, is the resistance of the educational sys— tem to school—based mental health services. School personnel and administrators resist participation and remain isolated, perhaps because of a desire to maintain the status quo, fear of losing con- trol, or fear of having to admit existing weaknesses. As this re— sistance is overcome and facilitative programs and practices are implemented, however, the potential for successful mainstreaming will improve. This monograph is intended to aid this process. Joe Wright Griggs, Ed. D. Division of Prevention and Special Mental Health Programs National Institute of Mental Health viii Contents Acknowledgments Foreword Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of the Study Chapter 2: Model Programs Hastings, Minnesota: A Pervasive Mental Health Climate for Mainstreaming Mayfield, Ohio: Hand—in—Hand Mainstreaming Tacoma, Washington: Progressive Inclusion Montgomery County. Maryland: An Emphasis on Inservice Mainstreaming in Miami: Dade County Style The Yale Child Study Center Project in New Haven: School Power Chapter 3: Analysis and Summary Chapter 4: Implementing Mentally Healthy Mainstreaming References Appendix A: Additional Programs Appendix B: Resource Materials 21 34 47 61 75 88 100 106 109 117 Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview of the Study Implementation of the least restric— tive environment (LRE) provision of Federal legislation affecting the educa- tion of handicapped children has been viewed primarily from legal and person- nel preparation perspectives. From the legal perspective, there has been focus on compliance with provisions of the law, with monitoring by State and Fed— eral review teams. From the personnel preparation perspective, State and local education agencies and institutions of higher education have responded with inservice and preservice training pro— grams to increase regular classroom teachers' knowledge about and skills at serving handicapped children. Another perspective on implementa— tion of the LRE provision, or main— streaming, is a mental health perspec— tive. This perspective embraces a broader definition of education, with a humanistic approach concerned with the development of values, interper— sonal relationships, and a positive self— concept. Mental health intervention in the schools is focused on prevention of problems and early intervention before problems become serious. The approach also strives to integrate treatment into the ongoing school curriculum; it em— phasizes the use of nonprofessionals working cooperatively with classroom teachers and recognizes the need for strong parental involvement and com— munity support. A mental health per— spective recognizes the benefits to be gained from mainstreaming practices but also notes the mental health prob— lems that may arise. Mental health needs include those of patients, stu— dents, and teachers involved in this process. Background and Purpose of the Study Two major pieces of Federal legisla— tion require the integration, where ap— propriate, of handicapped children into regular education programs, popularly known as mainstreaming. Public Law 93—113, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is considered major civil rights legisla— tion for the handicapped. Section 504 of this act prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap by programs or activ- ities receiving Federal financial assist— ance. The rules and regulations that set forth requirements for nondiscrimina— tion in preschool, elementary, second— ary, and adult education programs and activities require that handicapped stu— dents (a) be provided a free and appro— priate public education, regardless of the nature or severity of their handi- cap, and (b) be educated with nonhandi— capped students to the greatest appro— priate extent. The second piece of Federal legisla— tion relevant to mainstreaming is Pub— lic Law 94—142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This legislation is designed to assist States in meeting the educational needs of their handicapped student populations. States receiving Federal funds under P.L. 94—142 must comply with several major provisions: (a) free, appropriate public education; (b) least restrictive environment (LRE); (c) individualized educational programs (IEPs); (d) pro— cedural safeguards in testing and eval— uation; (e) due process; and (f) parent involvement. The LRE provision of P.L. 94—142 stipulates that handicapped stu— dents are to be educated, to the great— est extent possible, with their non— handicapped peers. Mainstreaming can be viewed as an approach to imple— menting this provision. With main— streaming, mildly handicapped students are being served in regular classrooms, and moderately handicapped and se— verely handicapped children and youth have their educational programs pro- vided in regular schools instead of spe— cial schools. This provides the oppor— tunity for social interaction with non— handicapped peers. For handicapped children and youth whose chronic or acute needs are extremely severe, how— ever. a special program may be the most adequate, least restrictive set— ting. Handicapped children include those who are mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally dis- turbed, speech impaired, visually im— paired. hearing impaired, and physical- ly handicapped. Mainstreaming handicapped children into regular schools, programs, and classrooms requires change by all in— dividuals involved—handicapped chil- dren, nonhandicapped children, parents of both groups, teachers, and other school personnel. Routines and tradi— tional practices of all involved may be disrupted. New roles, attitudes, and skills will have to be learned. Although the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children widens the range of potential social interaction for all participants in the process, it can also cause discomfort—even conflict. Mainstreaming involves a major modi- fication of existing school practices (Reynolds and Birch 1978). Such a far- reaching change has implications for the mental health of individuals in— volved in or affected by the change process—Le, teachers, students, and parents. A mental health approach to problems that may arise from such stresses can help administrators, teachers, students, and parents respond in positive and proactive ways that will help meet the needs and expressed concerns of all parties involved. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has long recognized the importance of the public school pro— gram and the regular classroom teacher as major vehicles in both promoting mental health and preventing the de— velopment of mental illness (Todd 1980). The purpose of the study was to determine how schools have succeeded in coping with these potential mental health problems. Two major objectives were (a) to determine successful fac— tors in preparing parents, teachers, and pupils for mainstreaming handicapped children into regular classrooms, and (b) to prepare a monograph describing six exemplary school programs that, from a mental health perspective, have been successful in preparing teachers and pupils for mainstreaming. Mental Health Needs and Concerns Central participants in the main— streaming process include the students, parents, and teachers. The needs and concerns of these three groups of people vary, depending on whether the students are handicapped or not, whether the parents have handicapped or nonhandicapped children, and whether the teachers are special edu— cation or regular classroom teachers. Also, within each of these groups there are both potentially positive and po- tentially negative considerations. The following discussion focuses on positive and negative aspects of mainstreaming from the perspectives of these dif— f erent groups. Parents. Although many parents of handicapped children do not support mainstreaming, many have worked hard to make it a reality and are pleased that mainstreaming has occurred. Al— though they can now feel they are re— ceiving a more equal share of public education, these parents may also wor— ry that their children will fall behind in regular classrooms and not receive ade— quate teacher attention. Parents also have many concerns about mainstream— ing's being implemented appropriately. They can express their concerns during the IEP planning process, though many are not adequately prepared to do this. They may suggest services and actions that will provide a smooth transition from a special classroom to a regular classroom. Many of these issues and concerns are being examined by pro- f essionals, with emerging procedures and ways of understanding and working with parents of handicapped children being articulated (Paul 1981). Many parents of regular students may be less than enthusiastic about main— streaming (Gallup 1979), feeling that handicapped children will require undue attention from the teachers at the ex— pense of other children. Such parents may anticipate that teachers will be able to accomplish less; they may think that mainstreaming is not worth the expense to regular children. In situa— tions involving behaviorally disordered children, parents of regular students may be concerned about the physical safety of their own children. Among parents, the fear of the unfamiliar is potentially as powerful as it is among their children. Students. Nonhandicapped children will probably experience a range of reactions. At first, they may not feel comfortable about their new handi— capped peers, who look and behave differently. Nonhandicapped children may recognize that teachers will need to spend more time with special stu— dents and that class members may be asked to assist with the new children, too. They may also be curious about handicaps. If they form friendships with handicapped students, such relation— ships may not be accepted by less tolerant classmates. Many methods and programs are available to modify at— titudes toward the handicapped, and many attempts have been made to alter attitudes of nonhandicapped children toward the handicapped (Hughes and Lowman 1980). Handicapped children may welcome the relief from the negative stereotype associated with separate special edu— cation classes (Dunn 1968; McMillan et al. 1974; Reynolds 1976). Work in the regular classroom will most likely be more challenging, and handicapped students may wonder if they can do the work. They will almost certainly re— ceive less attention from the teacher in a class of 25 rather than 10. Being with regular children may intensify feelings of differentness and separateness (Cohen 1977; Goodman et a1. 1972). While there will be opportunities for new friendships, there will also be new chances for rejection. Programs to promote understanding and peer ac- ceptance (Barnes et al. 1978) and af— fective education programs to improve self—esteem and interpersonal rela— tionship skills (Morse et a1. 1980) pro— mote a positive mental health climate in the integrated classroom. Dupont (1978) reviewed the emotional—social needs of the mildly retarded, the vis- ually impaired, and the hearing im— paired and emphasized the importance of meeting these needs in the context of the children's educational experi— ences. Expressing concern that the mainstream of American education traditionally has not been a comforta— ble place for children with special needs, he stressed the need for an edu— cation program that helps handicapped students develop higher levels of emotional-social maturity, one that goes beyond the current emphasis on individual plans and individualized instruction. The goal of such a program is the development of mentally healthy individuals. Redl and Wattenberg (1959) articulated 12 signs of mental health, indications that a child is essentially in good shape. These signs are happiness (finding life enjoyable), range of emo— tion, control over behavior, sensitivity to other people, ability to communicate (seeking help when needed), effec— tiveness in work (within limits set by abilities), good appraisal of reality, ability to deal with mistakes, good self—concept, attitudes toward the fu- ture that are real and basically trustful and positive, assertion of a degree of independence appropriate to age, and emotional resilience. Teachers. Regular classroom teach— ers may be exasperated by the turn— around in school policy. After many years of setting up more elaborate spe— cial education programs, administrators now announce they are returning spe— cial children to the mainstream. Teach— ers are likely to feel this policy in— creases their workload since it will probably increase the academic ability range in their classes and the learning problems with which they will have to cope (Kennon and Sandoval 1978; Panda and Bartel 1972). Teachers may feel that they lack special skills needed to teach former special education students and that special students will take more time than regular students. Often they expect special children to have behav— ioral as well as learning problems (Alexander and Strain 1978). And like parents and children, some teachers will feel uncomfortable around individ— uals who look and behave differently from the nonhandicapped children to whom they are accustomed (Casey 1978). Special education teachers will have to deal with concerns they have over seeing their students reenter the main— stream. Concerns about changing from working in isolation as a specialist to working as a consultant with high vis- ibility may limit special education teachers' effectiveness. For some, it will mean an opportunity to work more intensely with children with severe problems. Changing role responsibilities, lack of clear delineation of roles and respon— sibilities of key school staff, discrep- ancies between goals and resources provided, conditions of marginal com— pliance with Federal law, and lack of understanding and acceptance of indi— vidual differences have been identified as sources of stress for teachers (Bensky et a1. 1980). Reactions of participants to the process of mainstreaming can range from curiosity and altruism to discom— fort and anger. Teachers' attitudes toward increased involvement by par- ents, for example, may range from re— sentment of this intrusion to eagerness to get parents actively involved (Kroth 1978). In most situations, participants' reactions will depend in large part on how those responsible for implemen— tation manage the transition and on the types of program efforts adopted. Project Activities Eight activities were conducted to achieve the study objectives. A review of the literature (including computer files, current journals, and Federal re— search and development projects), a mail survey with phone call followup to education and mental health personnel in each State, and a review of profes— sional conference proceedings were conducted to identify exemplary pro— grams and practices and to establish a file of 105 program nominations. More specific and complete information on these programs was requested from each of the nominated programs. The request letter described the mental health project on mainstreaming and asked for program information in areas related to the criteria used for se- lecting the exemplary programs. Criteria for selection of 6 exemplary programs from among the 105 nomi— nated programs were developed with input and guidance from the Project Advisory Group. Six guidelines/stan— dards were used. For each guideline/ standard, specific criteria were stated, related practices and activities were identified, and examples or evidence to support the achievement of criteria were indicated. The selection criteria follow: 1. Temporal integration. Handi— capped students are educated, to the maximum appropriate extent, in regular education classrooms/ settings with their nonhandi— capped peers. 2. Instructional integration. The in— structional program in the main— stream setting is compatible with the student's needs, is coordi— nated between the regular class— room teacher and support person— nel, and includes appropriate modifications of instructional practices. 3. Social integration. Increased self- acceptance and self—adjustment among handicapped students and increased understanding and ac— ceptance of handicapped students by their nonhandicapped peers lead to increased social inte— gration for handicapped students. 4. Teacher support and involvement. Teachers (special education and regular education) and other school personnel understand and support mainstreaming philosophy and practice, are accepting of handicapped students, and are improving their professional and personal skills to work more effectively with handicapped students in mainstream settings. 5. Parental support and involve— ment. Parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped students under— stand and support mainstream— ing philosophy and practice, are accepting of handicapped stu— dents, and participate in program implementation. 6. Attention to the mental health needs of parents, teachers, and students. The program's goals, objectives, and activities have improved the mental health of parents, teachers, and students. The first three criteria, which focus on the student, incorporate the defini— tion and criteria for mainstreaming proposed by Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, and Kukic (1975), which emphasize the planned and systematic temporal, in— structional, and social integration of handicapped children with nonhandi— capped peers. The six model programs were select— ed for site visits and written docu— mentation using the criteria, with con» sideration also given to urban, subur- ban, and rural distribution and region of the country. Visits of 2 to 4 days were conducted at each of the program sites. At each program site, a local program person (special education director or inservice coordinator, for example) coordinated the site visit activities, which included group or individual in— terviews with key program personnel; visits to selected schools; interviews with teachers, parents, and students; and related activities. Observations were made of major program activities, including inservice training sessions, parent advisory group meetings, and classroom instruction. Available pro— gram information, evaluation reports, and examples of exemplary materials were obtained and reviewed. Exit in— terviews were conducted with program directors at each site. Descriptions of the model programs are presented in the next chapter, followed by an analysis and summary in Brief descriptions of additional exem— chapter 3. In chapter 4, successful plary programs and an annotated listing strategies for implementing mentally of selected resource materials are in— healthy mainstreaming are presented. cluded in the appendices. Chapter 2 Model Programs The mainstreaming programs and 0 activities presented in this chapter are presented as models because they i1— lustrate what local education agencies and schools can do to address the men- tal health concerns and needs of teachers, students, and parents. The six programs are as follows: 0 Special Education Programs, Hastings Public Schools, Hastings, Minnesota: Located in a rural area southeast of Minneapolis—St. Paul, this was a sound education program with extensive mainstreaming. A positive mental health climate was reflected in every aspect of the program. 0 Pupil Personnel Services, Mayfield City School District, Mayfield, Ohio: The programs at this small 0 suburban school district included an exemplary program for the hearing impaired and extensive programming at the secondary level (including vocational educa— tion). The school board and com— munity were highly supportive. 0 Progressive Inclusion, Tacoma Pub— lic Schools, Tacoma, Washington: The progressive inclusion program in Tacoma schools was one of the earliest mainstreaming programs in the country. Mental health services were provided to handicapped stu— 0 dents and their families through the school social work program. Tacoma is a medium—sized urban area. 467-5000— 85 — 2 : QL 3 Mainstreaming lnservice Train— ing, Montgomery County Public Schools. Rockville, Maryland: The inservice training program for mainstreaming in the Montgom— ery County Public Schools was ex— tremely comprehensive in terms of the number of schools actively in— volved. The program reflected a great deal of respect for teachers and the roles and responsibilities they were being asked to carry out with the mainstreaming move— ment. School personnel had unique arrangements with parents and in— volved them integrally in the in— service process. The Montgomery County Public School District is a large. economically well—to—do, suburban community. Exceptional Student Education, Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Florida: This major metro. politan area had the typical prob— lems associated with school dis— tricts of its size. Mainstreaming was facilitated by the initial placement of all exceptional stu— dent programs in regular school buildings. The school system had interagency cooperative agree— ments with the mental health sys- tems which facilitated joint pro— gram development. Yale Child Study Center Project, New Haven Public Schools, New Haven, Connecticut: School Power, by Dr. James P. Comer (1980) of the Yale University Child Study Center, describes a school mental health program operating in three low—income schools in the New Haven area. With a much improved climate in the schools, the imple— mentation of mainstreaming was facilitated and accomplished with minimal stress. Hastings, Minnesota: A Pervasive Mental Health Climate for Mainstreaming We try to grant all children the dignity of risk. Introduction The Hastings Public School District recognized the varied educational and emotional needs of all involved in mainstreaming implementation. Rather than providing a separate program to promote the mental health of students, teachers, and parents, a concern for mental health needs was evident in all aspects of the mainstreaming program. The district's understanding of the mental health issues involved in main— streaming implementation was demon— strated in the following statement of the philosophy of mainstreaming pre— pared for a teacher inservice training program: Mainstreaming is a partnership be— tween regular and special educators. Service to students with special needs depends upon four interrelated systems: curriculum, administration, teachers (regular and special educa— tion), and students. First and foremost, the students are human beings with the usual human needs for feeling wanted and loved. Teachers working with special needs students will be aware of the quali— ties they have and will be concerned with the skills they need to develop. Life experiences of exceptional stu— dents will be a part of, rather than apart from, those of typical normal students. ---A Hastings teacher The following sections describe the school district, the regular education program, the continuum of special edu— cation services provided, the proce— dures for developing IEPs for handi— capped students, and the special acti— vities that promote mental health. The final three sections discuss the chal— lenges the district continues to face in implementing mainstreaming, key fac— tors found by school personnel to con— tribute to successful implementation, and the benefits of mainstreaming. Description of the School District Hastings Independent School District served an area of 152 square miles with a population of 20,000; 12,800 of the people served lived in the Town of Hastings on the Mississippi River, 20 miles southeast of St. Paul. Four ele— mentary schools, one junior high school, and one senior high school were located in Hastings. Much of the surrounding area is rural farm land. Farming is the primary income source for approxi— mately 270 of the district's families. Others are employed in city services or industries, or they commute to Minne— apolis or St. Paul. The average income of district families is also average for the State of Minnesota. Most school— children are white, though blacks, American Indians, and children of Laotian—Cambodian families recently relocated in the Hastings area also at— tend district schools. The student pop— ulation has doubled in 10 years to ap— proximately 5,000 pupils enrolled in grades K through 12. Of these students, 450 are handicapped and receive special services. Direct and associated in- structional services are provided by 278 education professionals, supported by 230 additional employees. Overview of School Services The Hastings Public School District is committed to the goal of providing quality educational services to all its students. A comprehensive K—12 regu- lar education program emphasizes in- struction in the basic academic skills. At the secondary level, the curriculum includes college preparatory work, vo— cational education, and a variety of elective and exploratory courses. Dis— trict students consistently score above State and national norms on the regu— larly administered standardized tests. In addition to promoting academic achievement, the district puts emphasis on providing a positive learning envi- ronment and promoting the social— emotional development of all students. Parent involvement is actively pro— moted. The community's overall sat— isfaction with the district school sys- tem is shown by results of a survey con— ducted by the District Curriculum Office in May 1980. Citizens were polled via questionnaire. Results, pub— lished in the School News, a quarterly newsletter, indicated that a large maj— ority of respondents were satisfied with the district's educational services, personnel, and responsiveness to par— ents and community. Well over three— quarters of the respondents felt that the school system was doing a good job of teaching basic skills; maintaining good student behavior; promoting a lifelong interest in learning and crea— tive activities; and developing student social skills, self-confidence, self— awareness, and the ability to relate positively with others. Special Education Services for Handicapped Students In compliance with P.L. 94-142, the district provides comprehensive special services for children with special education needs. The district employed more than 50 special services staff, in- cluding a director of special services, a school psychologist, certified special education teachers, management aides, elementary school social workers, sec— ondary guidance and counseling person— nel, and school nurses. Special services expenditures were actually less here than in other demographically similar Minnesota school districts, because the director of special services, principals, and certified special services staff shouldered the supervisory responsibili- ties, eliminating the need for manage— ment personnel. The district provided a continuum of special programs, including resource services and self—contained classrooms for more severely handicapped children. The following list describes many of the services: 1. An early education program was provided to meet the needs of 4— year—olds who show delay in so— cial—emotional, cognitive, speech and language, or gross and fine motor skill development. 2. Special services for mildly to moderately retarded school-age children were provided through resource room and self—contained classrooms depending on the child's instructional needs. Se— verely retarded elementary stu— dents are served in a self—con— tained classroom based at an ele— mentary school. At the secondary level, more severely impaired students received vocational training through contracted serv— ices from the Dakota County Cooperative Special Services, an intermediate school district (de— scribed later). A special learning and behavior problem (SLBP) program was pro- vided for children experiencing specific learning disabilities or behavior problems. Students par—v ticipated in regular education with special resource help from the SLBP teacher. One SLBP teacher served each of the four elementary schools. There were also SLBP programs at the junior and senior high schools. Other special education resource services for handicapped children included speech and language therapy and an adaptive physical education program. Visually im— paired and hearing—impaired stu— dents attended the regular pro— gram in the Hastings public schools and received itinerant teacher services on a resource basis from the cooperative inter— mediate school district. . The management aide position was developed specifically to fa— cilitate mainstreaming. Aides were assigned to students needing individual attention or to classes in which students used machinery or lab equipment. . Elementary school social workers and secondary school counselors provided individual and group counseling services to handi- capped and nonimpaired students. . The district provided home or hospital instruction on the recom— mendation of a physician or psy— chiatrist. School. nurses provided 10 10. 11. regular vision, hearing, and sco— liosis screening and help coordi— nate school, medical, and other related family services. Students with temporary handi— caps or learning or adjustment problems were offered counseling and academic assistance through the Teenage Parent Education Program, Chemical Abuse Pro— gram, English as a Second Lan— guage Program, and Instructional Tutor Program. Out—of—district resources included (a) the special services of the Dakota County Cooperative In— termediate School District which serve children with low— incidence handicapping conditions; (b) the secondary vocational program of the Dakota County Adult Voca— tional Technical Institute for vo— cationally—oriented nonimpaired and mildly handicapped 10th. 11th, and 12th grade students; (0) the diagnostic services of nearby universities and hospitals; and (d) special private school placements. Collaboration with other agencies was also practiced. For example, the school cooperated with a police liaison officer, a mental health intervention team, and the Hastings Community Education Services to sponsor a person who organized basic recreational serv— ices f or handicapped students. In compliance with procedures outlined in P.L. 94—142, the dis— trict used a child study team model to process referrals, assess abilities and needs, and develop IEPs. Each school—based child study team was made up of spe— cial services and regular staff ac— tive in providing the child's edu— cational program. Determining a Student’s Individualized Educational Program While categorical labels were used in accordance with P.L. 94—142. school personnel recognized that a child often cannot be served by one type of special service. All district resources were reviewed to develop a program that best served the child. The following case illustrates the district's flexibility. "Chrissie"1 was a bright preschool child when a brain trauma left her with seizures and severe attention, language, and behavior problems. District special services personnel began working with Chrissie's family, which preferred public school placement, prior to her enrollment in the Hastings schools. Using the diagnostic services of the University of Minnesota and St. Paul Children's Hospital. the child study team, which included Chrissie's par— ents, developed a program that used the strengths of individual teachers and a variety of regular and special services. Chrissie was assigned a management aide to help her follow her schedule and to assist her in the regular classes. She was assigned a regular first grade classroom, attended a self—contained class for trainable mentally retarded (TMR) students, and saw the resource teacher for educable mentally retarded (EMR) students for special instructional services. Chrissie accompanied the regular kindergarten class to gym. She returned to her regular classroom for music and other special activities and class projects. Her management aide was skilled in seizure management and in recognizing periods when Chrissie was ready to learn new skills. The child study team met less often as staff and parents became more confident that Chrissie was making progress. 1All names are fictitious. Nonrelevant case details are either deleted or altered to protect the privacy of individuals. 11 History of Mainstreaming The Hastings Public School District has been mainstreaming handicapped children for a long time. In the early sixties the district began integrating handicapped students into selected reg— ular education classes and activities. School personnel recalled the needs and interests of individuals for whom vari— ous regular placements "just made sense." The district's commonsense ap— proach foreshadowed many of the prin~ ciples embodied in P.L. 94—142. The following November 1971 super— intendent's memo illustrates the dis— trict's commitment to mainstreaming and its recognition of the necessity for careful preparation of parents, stu— dents, and teachers: Years ago integration of special ed— ucation students into regular classes for portions of their school day was done in our system, but then state recommendations seemed to frown on this philosophy. Now there is much talk about this "integration innova— tion" as though it is a new concept. I want principals and all teachers to know I feel this integration should again be initiated after careful prep— aration among the parents, regular classroom teachers, principals and special education teachers. . . . I re— member how successful it was for the students years ago, and hope it can be just as successful now. Special Activities That Promote the Social-Emotional Adjustment of Handicapped Children The sensitivity of school personnel to the needs of handicapped students in— cluded an awareness that attention to a child's emotional needs is an insepa— rable component of providing an ap— propriate educational program. As one principal stated, "The better a child feels about himself, the better he will be able to rea ." The role of the elementary school social worker was developed specifi— cally to deal with the emotional needs of handicapped students and to support their adjustment to the mainstream of school life. Two school social workers provided individual and group counsel— ing for elementary students as an aid in promoting their personal, social, and academic development. The elementary school social workers also provided in— direct services to students by con— sulting with their regular and special education teachers, by providing parent training on behavior management or other family problems, and by referring families for other community social services. Students were referred to the social workers by school personnel, parents, outside agencies, or the stu- dents themselves. Reasons for referral include behavior problems, negative attitudes toward school, difficult peer relations, family problems, or a nega— tive self—concept. The school social workers ran play groups for handicapped children spe— cifically to improve social skills. Social workers also ran change groups for families coping with stressful family situations, such as death or divorce. On occasion, school social workers worked directly in regular classrooms, provid— ing special affective education expe— riences for all students or helping stu— dents deal sensitively with their hand— icapped classmates. For example, when a child with cerebral palsy was teased by his regular classmates, the school social workers helped him prepare a program on cerebral palsy to present to his regular class. Junior and senior high schools pro— vided extensive counseling services to support children with special needs as well as nonimpaired students. Handi— capped students, like their nonimpaired peers, were assigned to one of three school counselors. Each counselor maintained responsibility for his or her 12 students throughout their years at the two secondary levels. Students them— selves, their teachers, or their parents could request the counselor's help with specific problems. For some students, regular individual sessions were pro— vided for more global adjustment or self—concept problems. Counselors fre— quently helped students, teachers, and parents develop contracts for work on specific social or behavioral goals. The counselors also provided consultation services to teachers and parents and referral services to other community agencies and were actively involved in the child study team processes. Orientation activities, directed by the junior high school counselors, ex— emplified the school system's sensi— tivity to the needs of students and parents involved in change. Orientation activities were offered in the spring and again in the fall for students about to enter junior high school to prepare them and their parents for the transi— tion between elementary and secondary school. A consistently large turnout (approximately 96 to 98 percent of families) indicated that families valued this service. A tour of the school building and small group discussions on coursework, grading, school procedures, rules, activities, schedules, and so on, helped families know what to expect in junior high school. Discussion groups were described as "reality oriented" and addressed typical problems and con— cerns faced at this age level. To es— tablish the understanding that handi— capped students are as much a part of the student body as their nonimpaired peers, handicapped students and their parents were fully integrated into the orientation procedures. For example, the handicapped student, like his or her nonimpaired peers, received a computer card of schedule options, even though his or her personal program was de— termined in a meeting of the child study team and parents. Special education staff also worked systematically with handicapped stu— dents to promote healthy self—concepts and adjustment to the mainstream. SLBP teachers reported that an impor— tant focus of their group work was to help students understand their handi— caps, thereby fostering self—acceptance and a more positive self—concept. One teacher reported that after viewing a film on learning disabilities, students often respond, "Oh, that's what's wrong with me. I'm not dumb." Teachers of trainable mentally retarded students used small groups to help students de— velop social skills. The development of social skills was also an important as— pect of resource service to mildly re— tarded students. At the secondary level, instruction on developing skills for in— dependent living was added to a con— tinued emphasis on relating positively to others. Speech and language teachers used both individual and small group inter— vention to stimulate oral language skills. Group work with speech— and language—impaired youngsters often focused on problems students encoun— tered in the regular classrooms. Teachers used the groups to help stu— dents discover coping strategies. For instance, understanding directions was a particularly difficult skill for some speech— and language—impaired young— sters. However, this skill is critical to success in the regular classroom. Stu— dent groups practiced following direc— tions, and teachers reported that peers were often very effective in suggesting practical strategies for dealing with this problem in the regular class. District personnel helped handi— capped children join in special activi— ties available to nonhandicapped stu— dents. For example, Hastings junior and senior high students could participate in an 8—day camping and canoe trip through a Minnesota natural wilderness area. One summer, a girl with cerebral palsy who walked on crutches partic— ipated, using a special backpack pur- chased with special education funds. With the help of the other students and 13 her teachers, she was able to canoe, to portage, and to make it up a steep in— cline to an overlook. Teachers reported that the experience was a successful learning experience for the teachers and other students involved. The teach— ers planned to include other handi— capped students on such wilderness pro— grams, recognizing the benefits of handicapped students' seeing them— selves as capable people. District personnel recognized that continuous collaboration among admin— istrators and regular and special serv— ices staff was needed to deliver coor— dinated services to the handicapped child and maximize his or her potential for success in the mainstream envi— romnent. The child study team care— fully selected the regular teachers who worked best with a particular handi— capped child. Copies of each child's program were distributed to all his or her teachers. Regular education teachers were active members on the teams for children in their classes and attended child study team sessions any time to discuss a problem or request advice. Resource teachers collaborated with regular teachers to develop resource instructions that supported the child's regular curriculum and adapted regular curriculum materials to meet the handicapped child's needs. Teachers communicated with notes or frequent informal meetings; more formal, scheduled meetings were held to re— solve particular problems. At the sec— ondary level, where the handicapped student had several regular teachers, communications among special and regular staff was both necessary and more difficult. Often, the principal, the counselors, and the resource teachers were actively involved in preparing regular teachers for the handicapped students. At the junior high level, the principal and all teachers who received a particular child met for a case con— ference on goals and strategies before the child was mainstreamed, or when problems occurred. Further, it was school policy that grades for handi— capped children be determined coop— eratively by both special and regular teachers. Both principals and special teachers reported that on the whole, the regular teaching staff was an extremely coop— erative group, willing to try a variety of strategies to maintain a child in regular classes and assure his or her success. Developing and maintaining close working relationships among ad~ ministrators, special teachers, and regular education personnel was seen as a key ingredient in a child's successful mainstream experience. Services That Promote the Mental Health of Nonimpaired Students in a Mainstreamed Setting School personnel recognized that nonimpaired children would not auto— matically feel comfortable with and adjust positively to the presence of handicapped children. Special aware— ness activities were used to anticipate and respond to students' questions and concerns about handicapped people. The goals of awareness activities were (a) to increase students' understanding of handicapping conditions, (b) to increase their acceptance of their own and others' individual strengths and weak— nesses, and (c) to promote their recog— nition of the many ways handicapped children are like them. For example, during Handicap Aware— ness Week (in honor of the International Year of Disabled Persons), special and regular teachers cooperated in develop— ing special materials through which children could experience a variety of simulated handicapping conditions. After extensive inclass preparation on the purpose of awareness activities, children watched a movie without 14 sound, learned signing, and experienced mobility problems while wearing blind- folds or using crutches and wheelchairs. In addition to simulation activities, a former football player for the Minne— sota Vikings, who had been crippled by an accident, talked to students and an— swered questions about his experiences. Student response was very positive. Students were both impressed by handi— capped persons' abilities to compensate for their limitations and appreciative of their own normal abilities. Teachers noted improvements in the students' relationships with their handicapped peers as well. For example, one young— ster donated the artificial limbs he had outgrown. He later remarked to his teacher, "The kids sure have been friendly since they saw my legs." Other awareness activities offered regularly at the elementary level in— cluded slide—tape presentations on handicapping conditions, opportunities for students to tutor special education classes, and special activities promot— ing the acceptance of individual dif— ferences led by the school social work— ers in cooperation with regular class teachers. Junior high awareness activ— ities were integrated into the English class curriculum. An elective course on "Exceptional People" increased stu— dents' understanding of and sensitivity to life experiences of handicapped people through literature, other media, and presentations by handicapped per— sons and special services professionals. At the high school, an awareness ac— tivity involved groups of physically handicapped and mentally retarded adults who discussed their experiences with social studies students and several teachers. As a result, several students became active volunteers in a variety of programs for handicapped persons sponsored by the Hastings Community Education Program. School personnel suggested that many special services and activities for handicapped students have benefited nonhandicapped children as well. As special personnel worked with regular class teachers to adapt curriculum ma— terials, individualize instruction, and plan behavior management strategies, teachers were better able to meet the individual needs of the nonhandicapped children. Special aides and resource teachers working in regular classes with handicapped children were often able to include nonhandicapped peers in group work or to offer them some individual attention. Teachers reported that allowing nonhandicapped children to assist in special education programs improved their sensitivity to handicapped peers and promoted friendly relationships. Students assisted in the special early childhood education class, special classes for retarded children, or the adaptive physical education program. High school students with an interest in special education careers worked as aides in special classes and assisted special teachers offering homebound and hospital instruction. Other activities exemplified the school personnel's efforts to promote the healthy overall development of all children and to provide a positive learning climate. Elementary schools regularly used affective education curriculum materials, such as SRA's Focus on Self-Development (see ap- pendix B). Principals and special serv— ices staff periodically presented a review of available affective materials to promote teacher use. The district also supported the training of 14 teachers and adminis— trators in the Positive Attitudes To— ward Learning (PATL) project, offered by Bethalto Schools, Illinois. and spon— sored by the U.S. Office of Education. The project focused on improving teachers' ability to relate positively to students and to share responsibility for learning with students. School personnel receiving training became facilitators for school—based inservice teacher groups conducted over the next school year. One principal, involved as a fa— 15 cilitator for his school, reported that the PATL program for helping teachers improve student self—concept was par— ticularly well—received by his staff. He reported that one outcome of his in— volvement was a change in his approach to supervision; he became more atten— tive to promoting positive teacher— student relationships. Further, he has sponsored the regular assessment of students' self—esteem as a means of evaluating both school climate and the impact of the use of affective materi— als and PATL training for teachers. Results for grades 1 through 6 indicated a school mean score above test norms and a small but steady mean increase for all grades over the first year. Services That Prepare and Support Teachers Involved in Mainstreaming A districtwide inservice training program entitled Mainstreaming: A Partnership of Regular and Special Educators was offered in 1978—79, sponsored in part by the National In— Service Network of the Office of Spe— cial Education. The training program offered information on the laws, regu- lations, and school procedures govern~ ing special services; promoted teacher understanding and acceptance of handicapped students; and focused on mainstreaming as a collaborative ef— fort. Federal funds were used to pro— vide special consultants, substitute teachers for participating staff , and instructional materials for use with students. Evaluation of the inservice program included the use of the Rucker—Gable Teacher Attitude Survey (Rucker and Gable. 1974). Results in- dicated a significant increase in posi— tive teacher attitudes toward handi- capped youngsters overall. Howe ver, acceptance of children exhibiting de— fiant or acting—out behavior remained relatively low. New teachers met with special serv- ices staff to learn about mainstream— ing procedures and available supportive services. In addition, districtwide presentations described available spe— cial services. Ongoing inservice training and support for regular teachers was provided through consultation with the special services staff. Consultation increased teachers' understanding of handicapping conditions, expanded their repertoire of instructional approaches, and facilitated materials development and adaptation. Special staff reported that teachers need to voice the frus— trations inherent in working with children having special needs. All spe— cial service roles included consultation responsibilities. Administration actively promoted the collaboration of special and regular education staff by providing opportu— nities for them to interact and by enacting policies and procedures that supported a team approach to main— streaming. For example, teachers' classes were covered by school per— sonnel and adminstrators to allow teachers to attend child study team meetings or receive special staff as“ sistance on problems. The special serv- ices director tried to follow a policy of responding to teachers' requests for assistance within 24 hours. He noted that teachers do not expect problems to be solved immediately, but they can expect to be informed of plans for working on solutions. At the time of the site visit, the focus of teacher inservice training was on individualized consultation to rein—- force teacher skills and positive rela- tionships with handicapped students. An important focus of support for teachers of mainstreamed classes was to con— vince them of their own competence. Cooperative work on individual cases helped teachers apply their skills to meet the needs of handicapped stu— dents. Further, efforts in promoting student awareness and sensitivity to their handicapped peers was seen as 16 indirectly promoting the teachers' un— derstanding as well. School procedures were also seen as important in supporting the mainstream teachers. For example. student—teacher ratios were kept low: 1 to 25 at the elementary level and 1 to 19 at the secondary level. Administrative staff were careful not to overload a teacher with too many handicapped children in one class. District personnel felt that the co— operative effort and training for regu— lar teachers resulted in a lower number of referrals for special services. Re- portedly, teachers were able to deal with a wider array of student needs and abilities in their classrooms, and re— f erred only the children who were clearly in need of special education services. The success of efforts to promote collaboration of special and regular education staff was seen in the teachers' willingness to use the special resources available. A teacher spon— taneously offered this "word of advice" to other regular teachers: "Use every— one and everything available to help you work with handicapped students. Don't feel that asking for assistance means you aren't competent." For the special services staff, there were 2 to 4 staff development days each year. Inservice training included the use of outside consultants; review of current research, service delivery trends, and issues in special education; and staff planning and problem solving. Staff were encouraged to use the out-— side consultants available in various community service agencies. For in— stance, the social worker regularly was aided by the Community Mental Health Center staff in preparing materials for her special student groups and in con- sulting with regular classroom teachers. Special workshops were offered on a voluntary basis for continuing education credit. Many were related to teachers' overall. mental health needs, such as stress management and time manage— ment. To encourage regular education teachers to receive further training in special education, the district had stated that special education courses were germane to every teacher's pro— fessional development. Therefore, spe— cial education course credits were applicable to continuing education credits necessary for salary increases. Many regular district teachers were working toward or had special educa— tion certification. Activities That Promote Parental Involvement and Provide Support to Parents Over 90 percent of the parents of handicapped children participated reg— ularly in school IEP meetings. This very high rate was promoted by scheduling convenient meeting times and by giving parents the message that their input was valued. Parents were often given choices of services, and their prefer— ences were respected. Parents were encouraged to request extra meetings if concerned about their children's prog— ress. School staff noted that the in— volvement of the regular education teachers in conferences with parents of handicapped children was particularly valuable. Because regular teachers worked with so many children, their input helped parents see how their handicapped children were similar to nonhandicapped children. School collaboration with private preschool programs, with community agencies, and with services for adult handicapped persons facilitated conti— nuity in service delivery and helped parents in planning for the lifelong needs of their handicapped children. School special services personnel ac— tively assisted parents in finding other community services. The Special Services Flaming and Advisory Group was a vehicle for par— ental involvement and input into school procedures, activities, and so forth. 17 Parents of handicapped children, spe— cial services staff, and administrators met regularly to share information on school activities, to develop proce— dures, and to plan for meeting families' needs. This group conducted a needs assessment for parents of handicapped children. As a result, parent education nights were held periodically on dif— f erent topics, such as parents' rights under P.L. 94—142, parent advocacy, behavior management and other par— enting skills, available school and com— munity services, and so forth. Parents of both handicapped children and nonhandicapped children benefited from regular school conferences and contacts. Two parent conferences were scheduled yearly in all district schools. Schools scheduled their meeting times so that parents with children of dif— ferent ages could attend the various school conferences. Further, confer- ences were scheduled at convenient times, including evening hours. There was excellent attendance at school conferences. For example, the junior high school reported that approximately 90 percent of families attended the first conference and 75 percent at— tended the second conference. Parents showed appreciation for teachers' willingness to hold evening meetings by requesting compensatory time off for teachers from the administration. Ongoing teacher—parent contact was promoted in individual schools in a variety of ways. Some teachers used the "congratugram," a form that pro— vided positive feedback on a child's accomplishments in school. The junior high school had adopted a policy that a child could not receive a failing grade without prior notification of the parent. The school also installed a number of telephones to facilitate teacher—parent contacts. Further, principals regularly encouraged parents to call the schools about any problems their children faced or community problems in general. There were a variety of efforts to inform parents and the community about school activities. A packet of information was provided to new fami— lies moving into the school district. School News, the quarterly newsletter mentioned earlier, described school services and activities. Articles on mainstreaming, handicap awareness activities at school, available special services, and the like were integrated into reports of other school activities. Continuing Challenges To Maintaining a Positive Mental Health Climate Despite exemplary mainstreaming practices, problems still existed with transportation, determining appropriate academic and behavioral expectations, safety factors, grading policies, main- taining morale, and reluctant teachers. Because the district covered 152 square miles, bus rides were long and expensive. Long bus rides can lead to behavior problems and emotional upsets that may "spill over" into school. Hastings and neighboring districts were reviewing the various bus routes to de— termine if establishing some coopera— tive routes could reduce transportation time and expense. Bus aides were trained in behavior management and to monitor behavior contracts developed by the school and parents to reward children for good behavior. An inservice training program, Transporting Handi- capped Students, was planned for bus personnel. Knowing what to expect of handi— capped children is difficult, particularly in the case of children with "invisible handicaps," such as emotional insta— bility. School personnel found that collaboration between regular and special teachers, with the involvement of the principal, was essential in de— termining appropriate expectations. At the secondary level, teachers were concerned with safety when 18 handicapped children used machinery or equipment. All children were required to pass a safety test to manage indus- trial arts equipment. High school teachers and special services staff were working cooperatively with the Dakota County Area Vocational—Technical Institute to develop assessment proce— dures that could determine minimum physical abilities to run equipment safely. Management aides had been assigned to junior high school lab areas. Grading handicapped children was less of a problem at the elementary than the secondary level, because ele— mentary report cards for all children included opportunities to note individ— ual progress and effort. Parents had worked with the schools to adopt the following grading procedure for ele— mentary and junior high schools: A handicapped child earning an A, B, or C received that grade. A child earning a D or F received a "pass" if he or she was trying; otherwise the child received the D or F. This system was used at the high school at the teacher's discretion. Having regular and special teachers determine grades cooperatively helped resolve some grading problems. When student progress is slow, it is hard not to be discouraged. Teachers wanted to help the child and reported feeling discouraged by slow progress and continuing problems despite their best efforts. Parents reported that discussion often focused on their chil— dren's problems, inabilities, and special needs. Using measurable objectives on IEPs helped teachers, parents, and children to focus realistically on achievements. Not all teachers were prepared to work with handicapped children. Some were unwilling to modify their in— struction and standards to meet in— dividual needs. Some were uncomfort— able with children who were different. Others were reluctant to take on "extra wor " or afraid they did not know how to teach children with special needs. Special services personnel noted that they began mainstreaming with teachers who were willing. They ac— cepted that individual teachers, like individual students, required different amounts of time and training to be able to deal effectively with mainstreaming. Individual work with teachers, espe— cially in supporting their initial efforts with handicapped children, helped to increase the numbers of teachers who were comfortable with mainstreamed children. Factors Contributing to a Mentally Healthy School Climate and Successful Mainstreaming Several factors contributed to suc— cessful mainstreaming in Hastings. For example, the variety of services available to students, teachers, and parents supported the mainstreaming program. When school personnel were asked, "What makes mainstreaming work?" however. their responses sug- gested that a spirit of cooperation, in— dividual caring, and competent school personnel were essential. Administrative Support and Involve— ment. There is ample evidence in the literature on mainstreaming that ad— ministrative support is a critical factor in the success or failure of implemen— tation efforts. In the Hastings Public School District, administrative com- mitment to mainstreaming was ex— pressed through active involvement at all levels of implementation. The su- perintendent maintained contacts with state legislators and actively lobbied for special education funds. The school board was described by school personnel as proud of the district's special serv— ices and willing to allocate local funds to establish or maintain special programs. Administrators assumed implementa- 19 tion responsibilities. For example, the superintendent chaired child study team meetings. In recognition of his efforts on behalf of handicapped children, the Minnesota Association for Children with Learning Disabilities named him the "Educator of the Year," the first time an administrator had been so honored. The director of special services and the principals often chaired child study meetings, were active with parent training, participated in most problem— solving sessions, took over teachers' classes so they could attend meetings or training activities. and worked directly with individual children. In discussing their participation in mainstreaming implementation, several administrators noted that effective leadership involved showing a willing— ness to work cooperatively so that teachers do not feel that they alone are responsible for mainstreaming. If teachers open their doors to handi— capped children, then administrators must be accessible to staff, parents, and students. Collaboration and Communication. To promote a team approach to main— streaming, staff meetings served plan—- ning and problem—solving purposes. Social workers and resource teachers teamed with regular education teachers to serve both handicapped and nonim— paired children. Regular educators re— ciprocated by inviting children in spe— cial classes to join their groups for special events or by helping design and implement special awareness activities. School personnel were able to describe various programs and activities occur— ring throughout the district, a sign of good communication. Complete cooper- ation was not practiced at all times by all teachers, but a commitment to sharing the responsibility of main- streaming was evident. A variety of channels for parent— school communications included con- ferences, orientation sessions, parent advisory committees, parent informa— tion nights, and required teacher— parent contacts. Parents were urged to call administrators or staff or to re- quest a child study team meeting in case of problems. If parents were not satisfied with the school's response, they could ask for a conciliation meet- ing at the district level before they be- gan due process hearings. School per— sonnel saw the conciliation meeting as a less intimidating step for parents than due process procedures. Collaboration with the community included a number of cooperative pro— grams. jointly funded positions, and collaborative teams of community agency and school personnel that were essential in providing coordinated serv— ices. Liaison staff and case managers helped children in transition between services. School-community relationships were enhanced through information sharing. Various civic groups sponsored volun— teer programs to assist schools. Busi— ness people were involved in deter— mining functional vocational compe— tencies and cooperated with school job placement programs. Respect for Individual Competence. Supportive services staff saw teachers as competent and capable of working with children with special needs; their role was to support the teachers' ef— forts and to collaborate rather than to tell the teachers what to do. Inservice peer training models and the use of district staff as trainers promoted the message that teachers were capable. This philosophy extended to handi— capped children as well. As one teacher said, "We try to grant all children the dignity of ris ." Children were en— couraged to try new activities and to function as independently as they could —-to go camping, for example. In daily practice, classmates were reminded not to "help too much" when a handicapped child was able to accomplish a task in- dependently. Whenever possible, handi—- 20 capped children were subject to the same school procedures and expecta— tions as nonimpaired children. Conclusion: The Benefits of Mainstreaming Implementing mainstreaming does entail added work for schools. However, Hastings personnel and parents indi- cated that special services mandates have been a positive force in the dis- trict. Periodic focus on the benefits of P.L. 94—142 and mainstreaming helped them cope with implementation on a day-towday basis. The following bene- fits were reported by administrators, parents, and teachers. Though Hastings has a history of as— suming responsibility for handicapped children, P.L. 94-142 had more clearly delineated the areas of school responsi— bility and facilitated district efforts to fund more comprehensive services. Mainstreaming makes fiscal sense for a rural district because it opens many re— sources to handicapped children and helps limit transportation expenses—— for example, no longer are children bused to a single special facility. Benefits for handicapped children have been numerous. School personnel were able to select from a variety of regular and special services to build educational programs in which children could succeed. Handicapped children benefited from social interaction with nonimpaired peers and were better able to assess their own abilities and limi— tations realistically. Parents were bet— ter able to assess their children's abi1i~ ty in a normal setting and could there— {igre make more realistic plans for later e. Teachers found that mainstreaming helped nonimpaired children understand and accept a wider range of individual differences. There was almost no teas— ing of handicapped children, and chil— dren enjoyed helping their handicapped classmates. Many special programs and activities developed for handicapped children improved the quality of edu— cation in the regular class as well. Teachers reported an increased awareness of individual needs and abili— ties. They said that they were less like— ly to "lump all the 'normal' kids in one big group." Modifying their approach for handicapped children helped them become more creative and encouraged them to read and problem solve. Col— laborating with special teachers yielded many good ideas and materials appro— priate for regular students. Parents reported that the many op— portunities to interact with school personnel helped them become advo— cates for their children. One parent reported that regular contacts with the school helped eliminate the fear that asking for help for the child might result in the child's being singled out and suffering because of "parental in— terference." Parents appreciated the schools' willingness to provide the edu— cational and social services necessary for their children to have prospects of leading independent lives later on. Mayfield, Ohio: Hand-in-Hand Mainstreaming What's best for the kids has been the deciding factor in any deci— sions we have made. Mrs. Irene Kay, member of the Mayfield City School District Board of Education Introduction The Mayfield City School District is a small. suburban school district east of Cleveland, Ohio. The district served 4 suburban communities with a combined population of about 36,000. The area is primarily residential, with some com- mercial activity and light industry. The district population is almost all white, and incomes in the district are in the middle to high range. Occupational groups included skilled workers and tradesmen, self—employed businessmen, and professionals. Seven schools in the Mayfield City School District served just over 4,200 students in kindergarten through high school. There were five neighborhood elementary schools with grades K through 5; a middle school for grades 6, 7, and 8; and a comprehensive high school. Also included in the May— field City School District was the Millridge Center for the Hearing Im— 21 paired, a regional program for hearing— impaired students from 27 surrounding school districts. At the time of the site visit, May— field was considered a leader in pro— viding special education services to its handicapped and exceptional student population. A continuous program, from early identification of preschool chil— dren through high school graduation, was carried out by 36 special education teachers, 4 school psychologists, 3 speech therapists, 1 full—time director, and 5 special consultants. In Mayfield, mainstreaming was defined as the edu— cation of handicapped students with their nonhandicapped peers, when ap— propriate. It was a planned experience, not indiscriminate dumping of handi— capped students into regular classes; nor did it include the elimination of special education classes or support services. The philosophy of maintaining the district followed had been outlined in its mainstreaming manual. In order for us to integrate handi— capped students into a mainstream of the regular curriculum, we must be— gin with a belief in the dignity and worth of all children and youth, whether handicapped or not. He/she has physiological and psychological needs just like any other person: needs of acceptance, belonging, participation, and accomplishment. These are basic to all of us. The student who is handicapped can gain social and peer acceptance in a more normal school experience while re— ceiving an appropriate education if we permit the experience to happen. The Mayfield City School District implemented its mainstreaming phi- losophy through a variety of programs and services provided to teachers, students, parents, and administrators. Many aspects of the program contrib— uted to successful implementation. Chief among these were the commit— ment and support of the board of edu— cation. the awareness and support of the community, the key role of the psychological services staff in main— streaming implementation, and a per- vasive expectation among all school personnel that handicapped students would achieve and perform at their highest possible level. The Board of Education. In the late 19605, the school district embarked upon its major mainstreaming emphasis. It was in 1969 that the school board agreed to serve as the host district for a regional program serving hearing— impaired students. Since these early days, through commitment by the school board and support from the com- munity, Mayfield continued to provide exemplary mainstreaming services to its handicapped student population, which has included hearing-impaired, multiply handicapped, learning—dis— abled, behaviorally disordered, men— 22 tally retarded, visually impaired, and physically handicapped students. In its history of dealing with pro— grams for handicapped students, the board established a record of fairness in attempting to understand the programs proposed to it and to be responsive to the needs expressed. The board has a proud history of leadership in develop— ing, evaluating, and promoting suc— cessful programs. It has emphasized evaluation as a key part of all program initiatives, and has expected school staff to present programs with this perspective in mind. Mayfield's pro— grams for the hearing impaired, for example, have received national awards, and its student graduates have received scholarships as well. These types of recognition have given the board reason to be proud. Another part of the board's support is its members' involvement in and un— derstanding of special programs. Two of the board's members have served for more than 10 years; thus, there has been continuity and knowledge of the history of programs. Over time, the board has attempted to develop a school system capable of accommodat— ing any student who comes into it. The board's interest and commitment to include everybody, to make each stu— dent a part of the system, were re— flected in the merit award it estab- lished for special education students. The track record of the school board in its decisions in regard to the handi~ capped and mainstreaming provided teachers, parents, and students with a visible endorsement of and support for their efforts. The board's position was clear, substantiated by its past actions. This not only relieved doubt but also encouraged those concerned with handicapped students to pursue a pro— gram of excellence. The Community. Because the school board had taken such an active role in supporting school programs for the handicapped, including mainstreaming, the community's awareness and support was very high. The community has pro— vided strong support for education in general; for example, they supported an extensive adult education program. Many teachers and administrators spoke of this community interest in and sup— port for programs for the handicapped and cited as examples such tangibles as job placement opportunities for stu— dents in cooperative or work—study pro~ grams and integration into the com— munity after graduation. Psychological Services. Mayfield's mainstreaming program was a "hand— in—hand" program; that is, there was cooperation between special and regu— lar education. In the day—to—day opera— tion of the schools, school psychologists played a supportive and facilitative role that brought special and regular teach— ers together. The director of special services and the four school psycholo— gists provided support to both the regu— lar classroom teachers and the special education teachers involved in the mainstreaming process. In addition, they also worked directly with students leading support groups. The psycholo— gists served as advocates for the main— streaming process, providing support to the students, parents, and teachers. Each was assigned schools to staff and students to monitor. Along with coun— selors and administrators, the psycholo— gists were given specific responsibility for helping to make mainstreaming work. They were recognized as sup— port persons by parents, teachers, and students. Expectations. No matter the level— elementary, middle, or senior high school—there was a pervasive expec— tation that handicapped students in the regular schools and in mainstream classrooms would meet the general be— havioral expectations of all students in those settings and achieve and perform to the best of their ability. This was the expectation of numerous persons within 467-5000- 85 - 3 : QL 3 23 the school system, but most especially of the special education teachers and special services staff. The continuous emphasis on normal expectations pro— vided for a real—lif e implementation of the normalization principle. Its effect, from the perspective of the student's mental health, was to communicate ac— ceptance along with expectations for continued growth and development. It also had a future orientation, acknowl— edging that students were preparing for something. These four aspects of Mayfield's mainstreaming programs provided a healthy climate for implementation. Specific programs and services for stu— dents, teachers, and parents were pro— vided within this context. In the next four sections, programs and services for the elementary, middle, and senior high school levels are briefly described. Elementary Schools The Millridge Elementary School mainstreamed learning—disabled and hearing—impaired youngsters. On the same campus and physically connected to the Millridge Elementary School was the Millridge Center for the Hearing Impaired. The aural/oral program served 72 children with an extensive number spending all or part of their time in the regular school program. All the hearing—impaired students were mainstreamed in physical education and art and for lunch, recess, and relat— ed school activities. For the balance of their programs, about 50 percent of the hearing—impaired students were served full—time in the hearing—impaired class— rooms, but the remainder participated to some extent in regular education programs. About 20 students spent 20 to 25 percent of their time in regular education classrooms, 7 were main— streamed 50 to 60 percent of the time, and 10 were involved in regular aca— demic classes for 90 percent of the day. Generally, students would not be— come involved in mainstreaming in the academic areas until the fourth grade. In the preschool and early elementary years, emphasis was placed on the de— velopment of language and communica— tion skills for hearing—impaired stu— dents in the self—contained setting. As these skills developed, students were better prepared to meet expectations and handle interactions with teachers and peers in the regular education classrooms. One particular reason for the success of the program was the coordination and cooperation between special edu— cation teachers and the regular educa- tion faculty members. The high sta— bility among staff over the last several years had contributed to effective working relationships. For example, hearing-impaired teachers had gone on field trips with regular classes and participated in class social functions. The regular education and special edu— cation teachers had also team—taught in the mainstreamed classes. Special efforts were made to build peer understanding and acceptance among the nonhandicapped students. Activities such as joint field trips, joint film sessions, tours of the hearing- impaired program area, and demon- strations of hearing aids by hearing- impaired youngsters were useful in in— creasing understanding and acceptance. Parents of hearing children often as— sisted the classroom teachers in taking the children on field trips. In this way, they learned about and appreciated the mainstreaming program and become more aware of the capabilities of the hearing—impaired students. Mainstream— ing for lunch and recess facilitated in— teraction between the students during these nonacademic portions of the day. The regional program for the hearing impaired was so well thought of that several parents and families had moved into the area so their children could be involved in the program. Some of these families came from out of state. Parents with children in the program 24 reported that their children felt very good mentally and emotionally about their involvement in the program and were not made to feel different. Many reported that the interactions in school carried over into the neighborhood. Several parents saw mainstreaming as a spur to self—initiation among their hearing-impaired children since it placed more responsibility upon them. After school, recreation and scouting programs were available to hearing— irnpaired and hearing students. Through these programs, children overcame fears of getting involved in these types of extracurricular activities. The hearing—impaired students were able to have rewarding interactions with their hearing friends through these activities. One parent mentioned her son's par- ticipation in an aluminum recycling project that involved the whole school; her son was awarded a prize along with two hearing students for their suc— cessful efforts. There was much parent involvement in the IEP process. Activities such as mothers' coffees and grandparents' day were conducted to facilitate and main— tain parents' involvement and partic— ipation. Through joint fund—raising activities between the parents of hearing—impaired and hearing children, school materials were purchased to be used with both groups. Learning—disabled students at Mill— ridge were also significantly involved in mainstreaming. Learning—disabled stu— dents among the 340—student population were served through resource room programs, with one each at the primary and intermediate levels. Special edu- cation resource teachers worked in the regular classroom directly with stu- dents, in a consulting role, and in team—teaching situations. The school psychologist, principal, and speech therapist provided the backup support for the special education and regular classroom teachers and helped coordi- nate their efforts. Learning-disabled students involved in the mainstreaming process were assigned to a regular grade homeroom. Teachers reported there was a nor- mal blending of students and that reg— ular students did not see the hearing— impaired or learning—disabled students as "different." Regular classroom teachers found it reinforcing to see the growth in language and social behavior that handicapped students were able to achieve in the mainstream setting. Regular classroom teachers' strategies were to make themselves accessible to the hearing—impaired and learning- disabled students, to maintain close contact and communication with spe— cial education teachers and other sup- port personnel, to treat all students fairly, and to model respectful behavior toward all students. They tried not to cluster three or four hearing—impaired students in one class. At Lander Elementary School the special programs included a resource program, a cross—categorical/multi- handicapped program, and a diagnostic kindergarten classroom. The resource program provided for extensive main— streaming for approximately 15 stu— dents aged 7 through 12. The program was designed to reduce the negative effects of labeling, provide opportu— nities for independence and responsi- bility in a normal classroom, and in— crease student achievement academi— cally and socially. The program's ap— proach, which was being used in 6 of the 12 resource programs at the ele— mentary level, provided for the special education teacher to spend part of each day in the regular classroom as well as in the resource room. This type of program provided an opportunity for the regular educator and special edu— cation teacher to function as a team and for the regular classroom teacher to learn how to meet the needs of learning—disabled and behaviorally dis- ordered students better. Further, this approach provided a smooth and effec— tive transition for the handicapped stu— dents as they moved from the resource 25 classroom into the regular classroom setting. Staff response to this program was one of overwhelming support. Statements by regular classroom teach—- ers bore this out: "I don't feel like I'm in this all alone." "I learned better management skills." "I feel the learn— ing—disabled teacher understands the child's regular classroom problems better." This program also enhanced the feelings of handicapped children as they participated in the regular classroom setting. Students' evaluative comments on the program were as follows: "Helps me manage my behavior." "I like my friends to know the LD teacher as their teacher, too." "If I get stuck, I know I can get help." "Gives me confidence to figure it out for myself." "Helps me keep my desk clean and find my sup— plies." Parents were very satisfied with the approach. Their children were able to spend more time with their peers in the regular classroom without labeling, while still receiving the remedial help and assistance they needed. The cross—categorical/multi-handi— capped program at Lander Elementary School provided services to students with moderate, mild, and severe mental retardation and severe learning disabil- ities and behavioral disorders, often in addition to other handicapping condi— tions. The Mayfield City School District Board of Education elected to place these programs in the regular school to facilitate contact with the normal stu‘ dent population. This program for 41 students between the ages of 5 through 13 was staffed by 5 special education teachers, a half—time occupational therapist, and a full—time speech therapist. Students who were mainstreamed received hand—in—hand support similar to that described for the resource room program. The degree of mainstreaming in academic settings varied from zero to moderate. with 45 percent of the students involved in some mainstream— ing activities. The students participated in assemblies, lunch periods, and recess, and had access to areas where informal student interaction occurred. The program used special groupings in the areas of language arts, math, and reading and developed large group ac- tivities in vocational and daily living skills. Other components of this pro— gram were adaptive physical education and field trips into the community for the development of life skills. The Middle School At the middle school, the handicapped student population included hearing— impaired, vision—impaired, learning— disabled and behaviorally disordered, educable and trainable mentally re- tarded, and multiply handicapped stu— dents. The Mayfield Middle School en— rolled about 900 students. The special education staff consisted of two leam- ing disabilities teachers, four part—time learning disabilities tutors, two teach- ers for the hearing—impaired, and three teachers and aides for the mentally re— tarded and multihandicapped programs. In addition, guidance and counseling and psychological services were extensively involved. Guidance and counseling staff, for example, were routinely assigned spe— cial education students in their case— loads. They had responsibility for mon— itoring all the special education stu» dents' programs, participating in their IEP meetings, and facilitating the transition of students from elementary into middle school and from middle school into high school. The support of transitional activities involved meet— ings with parents and teachers and with handicapped youngsters themselves. The psychological services were pro— vided by three psychologists. each of whom provided services 1 day per week in the school. Through the guidance and counseling 26 and psychological services, specific mental health needs of handicapped students were met. For example, one of the psychologists conducted weekly meetings with students in the mentally retarded and multihandicapped pro— gram. In these classroom meetings, students had an opportunity to discuss adjustment problems in the school and develop problem—solving skills for the future. A constantly repeated theme in these classroom meetings was what the students would do when they left school. This theme was designed to help students maintain a future orientation toward their educational programs. Team teaching and joint curriculum development activities were indicative of the level of cooperation between the special and regular education faculty members. Team teaching occurred in the eighth grade science and social studies programs. One science teacher involved in team teaching modified his curriculum program to meet the needs of mainstreamed learning—disabled students better. Modifications included development of clearer expectations, use of more repetition and reinforce- ment, use of more hands—on activities, and support of the learning disabilities teacher in the classroom. These modi— fications were beneficial to regular students in the classroom as well. Many students who had not been successful in the science curriculum before were achieving A and B grades. lnservice training provided by special education faculty members helped to address and alleviate the concerns of many middle school faculty members. Many regular teachers had not had di— rect experience with different types of handicapped youngsters and were not sure how to relate to them. Initially, there was some feeling among the regular faculty that less would be ex— pected of the handicapped students. Just the opposite was the case. This training established a schoolwide ex- pectation that handicapped students were to be treated no differently from their nonhandicapped peers. For ex— ample, they were to be disciplined for disruptive behavior in the halls, or for failure to have a hall pass when moving through the building. When a physically handicapped student was given an award at a school assembly and re— ceived the longest ovation from the student body, the principal was quick to point out that this recognition was based on the student's hard work to become as independent as possible and to meet the same expectations as every other student in the school. A great deal of emphasis was placed on communication between special education and regular education faculty members. The director of special serv- ices emphasized the responsibility of the special education teachers involved in mainstreaming to develop plans for communication with regular education faculty members and monitored the special education faculty to see that such plans were developed and imple— mented. The EMR and TMR/multihandicapped programs, staffed by 3 teachers and 2 aides, served 26 students. Over the past 3 years, this program had moved from a traditional self—contained program into extensive mainstreaming activities. Students in TMR/multihandicapped pro— grams were mainstreamed during lunch; had their music, art, and physical edu— cation classes with regular instructors; and participated in school assemblies. The multihandicapped, low—functioning students were integrated in the building as cafeteria workers and custodial staff. The work was related to their vo— cational training program and provided on—the— job instruction. Teacher— and psychologist—led discussions and talks in the regular classrooms promoted ac- ceptance of these work roles among the student body. Additional support was provided by the school psychologist, who met with the multihandicapped students to deal with any problems or concerns they were having related to school life. For example, although peer 27 acceptance had been very good at Mayfield Middle School, some instances of teasing and harrassment had oc— curred. Weekly counseling sessions addressed how teasing made the stu- dents feel and how they should respond to it. One activity that helped minimize the teasing and harrassment, and im— prove acceptance and understanding, was the use of regular students as role models and peer tutors in the multi— handicapped classrooms. These students helped to "spread the word" about the special students throughout the rest of the school population. Many big— brother/big—sister relationships devel— oped naturally from this peer—tutoring program. The mainstreaming experience for the mildly mentally retarded students was more extensive. For example, of eight students enrolled in one of the EMR classes, three were mainstreamed into the regular education program 70 percent of the time, two were main- streamed 50 percent of the time, and three were mainstreamed for 45 min— utes a day in academic areas. Again, communication between special and regular education teachers was impor— tant. Emphasis was placed on a personal level of communication and a high frequency of contacts. Daily contact was provided as needed and, at a mini- mum, teachers met once per week if there was no problem in the main— streaming arrangement. The special education teachers took the responsi— bility for mainstreaming success and were willing to take a child back into the special education program if prob— lems did arise. This strategy worked well, and regular education teachers supported the mainstreaming imple— mentation. In addition to closely communicating with regular education teachers, the special education faculty maintained close contact with parents. The ef— fectiveness of the communication with parents was demonstrated by ex— tensive parental involvement in plan— ning for transition from the middle school to the senior high school and by parents' high degree of involvement in the IEP process. Parents and teachers cooperated for the end—of—year recog— nition banquet for approximately 300 "friends," including board members, special education teachers, mainstream teachers, bus drivers, volunteers, and business leaders—all persons who helped the program achieve its goals. Secondary Hearing Impaired Program (SHIP) Complementing the Millridge Center for the Hearing Impaired in providing a comprehensive range of services for hearing—impaired students, the Sec— ondary Hearing Impaired Program (SHIP) provided special services to hearing—impaired students in the middle school and the senior high school. Stu— dent enrollment in this program during school year 1980-81 was 63 students—- 12 in middle school and 51 in high school. The program was staffed by 2 teachers at the middle school. At the high school, the program was staffed by 8 full—time and one part—time teachers and one full—time and one part—time educational aides. The program shared services in audiology, psychology, speech therapy, and physical therapy with the school system. In addition, there was a coordinator for the SHIP program who worked with both the middle school and the senior high school. Ancillary services and resources were available within the region, the State, and the nation; such resources included home school district coun— selors, the Ohio State School for the Deaf, Gallaudet College, and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf in Rochester, New York. The SHIP students were involved in 28 51 different regular education courses at the middle and high school levels. In addition, some students participat— ed in on—the—job training programs at 1 of 24 locations within the Mayfield community. For each student, an individual schedule was developed and coordinated with the school's master schedule. An attempt was made in the mainstream— ing program at the high school not to overburden teachers. In those class— rooms with a significant number of handicapped students (more than five), additional support and instructional as- sistance were provided to the regular classroom teacher. SHIP staff members had responsibil— ity for six to nine students each and provided liaison for these students be— tween home and school. They also worked with students directly in the regular classrooms and provided con- sultation and technical assistance to regular classroom teachers. Assistance was provided through mo— bile teachers and aides, National Tech- nical Institute for the Deaf notebooks for student note takers, and tape re— corders. School announcements were typed and distributed to the hearing— impaired students. This kept them ap— prised of activities going on in school and facilitated their involvement. A system was established to monitor progress of the students. The system involved a monthly checksheet, an as— sessment that was made 3 weeks into each grading period, and school prog— ress cards and report cards. A master schedule board maintained in the SHIP coordinator's office permitted the staff to identify, at any particular time during the day, exactly where a par— ticular student was, the level of as— sistance the student was receiving in that setting, who was providing the assistance, and the form in which the assistance was being given. This ex— tensive, effective organization told the regular classroom teachers, and the students as well, that they were going to receive the assistance they needed when they needed it. The SHIP program had also compiled a set of materials on mainstreaming for regular classroom teachers. This ma— terial included, for example, instruc— tions on how to work with the deaf student in the classroom, how to select and train note takers, and how to use the National Technical Institute for the Deaf notebooks. It also discussed gen— eral considerations for working with the hearing—impaired student in the regular classroom. Specific suggestions on how to accept the student and promote the student's acceptance by classmates were included. Inservice training, both formal and informal, for regular classroom teachers and staff was also provided. Comments from several teachers. a student, and a guidance counselor in— volved in the SHIP program provided some interesting perspectives on how the program was being implemented and what it meant to each of them. The teacher in the fine arts program found that some of the hearing—impaired children were his best students. Many of them found the course easy because much of the teaching was done through demonstration. He felt that the hearing-impaired children did not feel out of place. The home economics teacher re— ported receiving good support from the resource teachers and aides. Communi— cation on a weekly basis had been very beneficial. Two students in her class were hearing impaired and were re— ceiving As. She found the regular stu— dents very willing to help in note taking and other ways: they were not at all uncomfortable with having handicapped students in their classes. As a parent of hearing children who attended Millridge Elementary School, she saw many ben- efits in the program for all children. An 11th grade hearing—impaired student spoke specifically about an English class in which she had gotten to know the hearing students very well. 29 This was due in large part to the teacher's use of class discussions to tie together literature or poetry readings with students' lives. These types of classroom discussions promoted much interaction between students, and an opportunity for developing under— standing and broadening perspectives resulted. A guidance counselor reported that her services were available to all handicapped students and that the regular counseling staff worked with hearing—impaired students in the school. She indicated that they coor— dinated their counseling with the SHIP staff to ensure that there was adequate coordination between the school and the home. She reported that because Mayfield had a history of mainstream— ing hearing-impaired students, many of the problems one might anticipate dur- ing the adolescent period had not developed. The problems that hearing— impaired students had were not signifi- cantly different from the problems any high school student would have during these critical developmental years. One of the resource teachers worked with hearing—impaired students enrolled in regular vocational education classes. In this capacity, she reviewed mate— rials, made contacts with teachers, provided cross-training between the special education and vocational edu— cation teachers, and helped students involved in cooperative education pro— grams and vocational education clubs and organizations. She took an auto mechanics course so she could work more effectively with the students as well as the instructor in that program. She found that handouts she prepared for hearingimpaired students were used by instructors with all students in their classes. The participation of hearing— impaired students in the vocational education clubs and organizations provided many growth opporumities; for example, a hearing—impaired girl introduced her boss at an appreciation luncheon at the end of the school year. The High School In addition to the hearing—impaired students in the SHIP program, handi- capped student groups served at the high school level included the learning- disabled, behaviorally disordered, de- velopmentally handicapped, educable mentally retarded, and multiply handi— capped. The degree of academic main— streaming varied among these groups. For the learning—disabled population, the degree of mainstreaming was ex~ tensive; for the behaviorally disordered, moderate; and for the developmentally handicapped and educable mentally retarded, minimal. For the multiply handicapped student population, there was no academic mainstreaming. All these student groups participated in assembly programs, ate in the regular school lunchroom, and so forth, so all these programs were part of the high school. Developmentally handicapped or edu— cable mentally retarded students were spending 85 to 100 percent of their academic instructional time in special education. These students had a se— quential vocational curriculum program that included inschool or supervised community employment. Severely behaviorally disordered students spent 50 percent of their academic instruc— tional time in regular educational set—- tings. The program for these students had a vocational emphasis similar to that of the program for developmen— tally handicapped students. The most extensive mainstreaming occurred with the learning—disabled population. A minimal amount of the time, 10 to 25 percent, was spent with the special education teacher; the ma- jority of their time was spent in the regular educational programs. The learning disabilities program was staffed by three full-time and one part—time resource classroom teachers. Eighty—four students were involved in the learning disabilities resource pro- gram, receiving a minimum of 40 min— 30 utes of specialized resource instruction per day. Within the high school structure, the special education program had depart— mental status. This facilitated commu- nication and interaction between the special education teachers and the reg—- ular education faculty. School policy and program decisions were made with input from the special education pro- gram. Further, the assistant principal for curriculum was a former special education teacher, particularly as it in— volved mainstreaming of handicapped students into regular education classes. One of the factors that contributed to the success of mainstreaming was the coordination and communication between regular education and special education, facilitated and supported by the school psychologist. At no level was this more important than at the high school level. The Mayfield City School District mainstreaming program em— phasized the responsibility of the spe— cial education teacher to ensure that an adequate communication system had been established and was being main» tained. For example, the learning dis— abilities program obtained a weekly assignment sheet for each student in»- dicating specific assignments students were going to be given as well as quizzes or tests that were coming up. This provided an opportunity for the resource teachers to help students maintain progress in their classes and perform their best on tests. The regular classroom teacher had an opportunity to attach special notes at the bottom of the form to alert the resource teacher to particular progress the student had made or to identify potential problem areas that needed to be addressed. Another form used for communication and for motivating student performance was a daily accomplishment sheet. Students were awarded a certain num— ber of points by subject area teachers based on their performance. The form was easy for the regular classroom teachers to complete, and this simple system provided motivation for stu- dents. In addition to the weekly and daily accomplishment sheets. progress checklists were completed two times each semester. Two other features of the program at the high school level were noteworthy. One dealt with the difficult process of transition from middle school to senior high school. Making this transition is difficult for any student, but it may be especially so for the handicapped stu— dent. Too often teachers receive stu— dents they know nothing about, students without services they need for several weeks into a new semester, and so forth. These problems were addressed by the Mayfield School District, after their analysis of the transition process. As for the transition to middle school, detailed procedures were articulated for transition of students from middle school to the high school. This transi— tional program involved. in addition to the special education teachers, school psychologists and counselors. The transitional program recognized de— mands placed on students and provided the type of planning that leads to pre— vention of problems as well as to early recognition of problems should they occur. A real effort was made by the special education teachers to get themselves involved in the mainstream of activities at Mayfield High School. This type of involvement and commitment did not go unnoticed. Teachers in the hearing— impaired program were involved in such schoolwide activities as the cheer— leading program, the principal's advis— ory committee, the American Friends Service, and grant writing for math and social studies projects. Several advan- tages accrued to the special education program as a result of faculty involve— ment in school activities. Nonhandi— capped students got to know the special education faculty and, through informal exchanges, began to develop a better understanding of the special education program in the high school. Also, it was 31 easier for handicapped students to be— come involved in extracurricular activities. Other results of this involvement were team teaching and joint efforts in curriculum development projects. An adjusted English curriculum course for 11th grade students focused on basic skill development and representative selections from American literature. The course was team—taught by a reg— ular English teacher and a learning disability, special education teacher. The teachers developed the course as a curriculum development project sup- ported by the board of education. Ad— justments involved reducing the amount of course content and individualizing the instruction, without changing the objectives of the course. Teachers re— ported that students enjoyed the course and felt it was like the English courses other 11th grade students took. Peer interaction was supported in other ways as well. An example was the tutor—friend program, in which students served as tutors or special friends to handicapped students as part of their psychology course requirements. Special Education Parent- Teacher Group Another key aspect of the Mayfield City School District's mainstreaming program was the extensive involvement with parents and community agencies. These relationships were promoted and fostered through the Mayfield Special Education Parent—Teacher group, an organization designed to promote par— ental involvement in special education programs. A 16-member board com— posed of both parents and professionals (the majority of whom are also parents) guided the activities of the group. In addition to serving as a support group for parents through both formal and informal means, the parent—teacher group was involved in conducting training sessions for parents in the community. One such session was on language development. A panel dis— cussion, "Parents for Parents," involved six parents of children in the hearing— impaired program. Plans were under— way to develop a training session on sexuality. The cooperation between parents and teachers resulted in constructive com— munication in parent—teacher confer— ences. Parents felt that school support was present and that there was a com— mitment to normalization in the com— munity, with support from community organizations and agencies. One parent noted that there had been increased expectations for their chil— dren in the mainstream setting, which had been good, even when it meant that the handicapped students had to learn how to deal with the "flak" they some— times got from other students. They now had an opportunity to participate in a large part of school life. According to the parents, this association with normal students was very important to their children's development. When questioned on feelings about being the parent of a handicapped child in the Mayfield school system, one parent cemented on not being made to feel guilty, another commented on having been treated like a human being, and said that program issues were treated realistically. Program Evaluation It was a policy of the school board and a standard practice for the admin— istrative staff to evaluate the effec— tiveness of programs within the school district. Program assessment and evaluation were designed to determine if programs should be continued, modi- fied, or expanded. This policy was im— plemented with respect to the main— streaming program as well. From school year 1974—75 through school year l979~80, the effectiveness of the resource/tutorial program for 32 leaming—disabled and behaviorally dis— ordered students was assessed. Reading, math, and social—emotional areas have been assessed. Assessments of students' performance in these areas before and after program participation were used to determine students' gain scores. Two types of evaluations were em— ployed in assessing the SHIP program. One was the analysis of SAT scores in reading comprehension and math com-— putation of graduating seniors. Another was analysis of a survey questionnaire for 68 high school and 47 middle school personnel. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information about the level of students' adaptability to inte— gration, social as well as academic. The survey assessed such areas as degree of contact; students' ability to express their needs, understand instruction, and communicate; extent of students' use of communication modes other than speech; and amount of social inter— action with hearing peers. More than 66 percent of the high school teachers and almost 95 percent of the middle school teachers had had contact with hearing— impaired students. On the average, most teachers had worked with about six hearing—impaired students in their classes. The majority of teachers rated the students as having no problem ex— pressing needs or understanding verbal instruction; they indicated that stu— dents had to use other modes of com— munication during speech or writing only occasionally. Interestingly, 41 per— cent of the high school teachers and 38 percent of the middle school teachers reported extensive interaction between the hearing impaired students and their hearing peers. Occasional interaction was reported by 37 percent of the high school personnel and 40 percent of the middle school personnel. Nineteen per— cent of the high school personnel and 15 percent of the middle school personnel indicated that the hearing—impaired students had infrequent or no contact with their hearing peers. In addition to these types of formal program evaluations, each individual student's educational program was assessed and evaluated periodically through the IEP process, annual IEP review, and the continuous assessment and evaluation conducted by the special education and regular classroom teachers. The emphasis on evaluation was critical; and Mayfield's activities in this regard reflected its concern to ensure that mainstreaming was bene— ficial to students' social and academic growth and development. Key Factors for Successful Mainstreaming One key factor related to the pro~ gram's success is the stability in lead— ership committed to mainstreaming. Many of the key people in the school system, including school board mem— bers, the superintendent, program co— ordinators, directors, and principals, had been in the system for a number of years. They had played integral parts in the mainstreaming history of Mayfield. For example, the superintendent and key program directors had been in— volved in the system for about 10 years. Stability in leadership from the board down to the program directors helped to maintain a long—term understanding and commitment to mainstreaming ac— tivities. Related to this is staff stability. The Mayfield City School District had ex— perienced very little staff turnover. Personnel working within the schools knew each other, understood their specific roles and responsibilities, and, over time, had developed effective working relationships. This stability was borne out at Millridge Elementary School and Millridge Center for the Hearing Impaired, as well as at Lander Elementary School, where the regular and special education teachers had es- tablished a history of working together. Another key factor was the obvious community support for and commit— 33 ment to education in general, and spe— cial education programs in particular. All faculty and administrators inter— viewed during the site visits continually stressed community support for the program and cited a number of specific examples. Field trips for students learning daily living skills, on—the—job training locations in the community, and participation of parents in fund— raising activities for handicapped pro— grams were some examples of com— munity support and commitment. A fourth factor was administrative support. Teachers, counselors, and psy— chologists had one common theme— pointing to administrative personnel at the schools and central office for pro— viding them with the type of support that allowed them to conduct their programs creatively and innovatively. Administrators were viewed as re— sources in dealing with student and program problems. A fifth factor was the lack of fiscal problems in the district. To a large ex— tent, of course, this was due to the economic base of the community. But more than this, many felt that May— field's excellent fiscal status was due to the special skills of its superin— tendent, Dr. Robert Stabile. One school board member noted that Dr. Stabile was the author of the book What Every Ohio Citizen Should Know About School Finance, a basic resource guide for su— perintendents and school board mem— bers on financial management of public school systems. Another important factor was the strong parent—teacher group that in— volved parents, administrators, and teachers. The parent-teacher group provided a way to monitor the program continuously, ensure that the needs of parents were being addressed, and maintained a collaborative working relationship between parents and the schools. A seventh factor, somewhat difficult to describe, was the consistent level of expectation for normal behavior among the handicapped students mainstreamed in the school system's programs. This expectation was evident at the ele— mentary. middle, and senior high school levels and was voiced by teachers, counselors, principals, and parents. The message being communicated was, "We accept you as an integral part of the school, and we expect you to behave and perform in a manner that reflects this." Establishing and maintaing this philosophy required the continued at— tention of the special education faculty and the school psychologists. It was reflected in the school manuals and was reiterated by administrators at faculty inservice training sessions. A special emphasis on the mental health needs and concerns of parents, teachers, and students involved in mainstreaming was provided by the psychological services and counseling staff. Their support for teachers and parents and discussion groups and transitional services for students were important to the success of Mayfield's program. Finally. a factor that appeared most critical was communication-commu— nication between the superintendent and the board, between the superin— tendent and the administrative staff, and on down the line. One of the poli— cies of the Mayfield City School District's mainstreaming program placed the primary responsibility for communication on each special educa— tion teacher. Often, this idea is given only lipservice. In Mayfield, it received a special emphasis. As noted in the mainstreaming guidebook prepared by the Mayfield City School District, "Two way communication is essential be— tween regular and special education teachers. However, the main responsi— bility for regular communication rests with the special education teacher. The special education teacher shall set up a plan of communication with the receiv— ing teacher. This plan will be docu- mented, regularly reviewed and maintained as part of the record." Commitment and communication were two key ingredients in Mayfield's successful mainstreaming program. They go hand in hand. Tacoma, Washington: Progressive Inclusion Your child is a young, responsive, growing individual, with human needs to live, play, and make friends—mot a composite of diag— nosed needs. . . . Each youngster should have the chance to join the mainstream and to become part of the fun activities at his/her school. Parents' Guide to Special Education Introduction An article in the Tacoma Education News about education for handicapped children in the Tacoma School District described the following episode. At Henry Foss High School there are a few steps that bring wheelchair 34 in the Tacoma Public Schools students to a quick stop. That hap— pened to a young man the other day while some visitors watched the scene from a distance. A student who was reading inside the resource cen— ter glanced through the door. He saw the problem. He got up from his ta— ble, went outside, pulled the wheel— chair up the steps, went back to his book. No one said a word. No one looked to see who was watching. It was no big deal (January 1977, p. 8). This vignette tells the story, in a sense, of progressive inclusion, the main~ streaming or integration of handicapped students into the regular school pro— gram in Tacoma. After 20 years of im— plementation, progressive inclusion in Tacoma has become "no big dea ." One of the few school systems in the country whose general information package for parents includes instruc— tions on what to do in the event of vol— canic eruptions, the Tacoma school sys— tem had an enrollment of more than 27,000 students. The school district, the largest of 15 school districts in Pierce County, had 42 elementary schools, 10 junior high schools, 5 senior high schools, a vocational—technical insti— tute, and 4 special learning centers lo— cated in juvenile detention facilities. The city, located on the southern end of Puget Sound, with Mt. Rainier in the background, is an active area for ship— ping and the wood production industry. In addition, there are several military installations in the area, and military personnel from throughout the country who have handicapped children may request transfer to the Tacoma area. Tacoma is the only compassionate transfer point so recognized in the United States. In addition to the special education programs in the public schools, special medical programs and facilities have contributed to this designation. History In school year 1958—59, a study group was formed at Tacoma School District to look at the problem of educating ex— ceptional children. The study group produced a document entitled "Design for the Education of Exceptional Children," which was presented to the 35 school board. The report pointed out that the education of exceptional chil— dren should be an integral part of the total public education program, and that the program should emphasize the similarities of exceptional children to other children and the importance of the development of self—concept in this regard. The study group recommended the following: "Provision for exception— al children should be made in the public schools. Exceptional children need to live and learn with others; separate facilities make this difficult. Our edu— cational philosophy, psychology and practice are calling for an education together rather than apart." The school board adopted the recom— mendation for progressive inclusion and the use of decentralized facilities for handicapped children; it began to make educational decisions oriented toward integration rather than continued seg— regation of handicapped children. The implementation of the concept has in— volved a tremendous emphasis on atti— tude as well as process. The change in attitude began to take shape in very vis- ible ways. Construction of new build— ings and remodeling of old ones empha- sized the need for barrier—free design and removal of architectural barriers. School principals began to grapple with the many practical problems of pro— gressive inclusion. Recruitment proce- dures emphasized the philosophy of the school district; new staff coming into the system were made aware of the new policy. All programs were affected by the policy of progressive inclusion. Leadership pressure was exerted con— tinuously. and time became an impor— tant ally in bringing about the neces— sary attitudinal changes, commitment, and support. Over time, teachers and citizens began to take pride in the spe— cial education programs and facilities. Building designs won architectural awards, and regular and special educa— tion teachers began to use the term "progressive inclusion" routinely in their planning and planning meetings. Community Support Since its inception and implementa— tion, progressive inclusion has received widespread community support. In school year 1970-71, the district con— ducted a survey of community opinion about the Tacoma public schools. In that survey, which occurred about 10 years after the initial implementation of progressive inclusion, 86 percent of the individuals surveyed either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the Tacoma public schools should provide special services for meeting the needs of physi— cally, mentally, and emotionally handi— capped students. In comparison with 57 other items included in the survey, spe— cial services for handicapped students ranked fourth, with a mean rating of 4.12 on a scale of 1 to 5. Among those items ranked as "liked most about the Tacoma public schools," specialists working with handicapped students ranked fifth in terms of highest fre— quency. In another community survey done in 1976, the response to special education as part of the school pro— grams was also positive; 79.5 percent of the respondents indicated that special education was "of the highest priority/ essential" or "very important and should be provided if at all possible." The 1976 program priority survey indicated con— tinued community support for special education in the Tacoma public schools and was interpreted as a continuing en- dorsement of the progressive inclusion philosophy. An important source of support for progressive inclusion has been the Tacoma Board of Education Directors. It was this body that adopted the rec— ommendations of the study group in 1959 and that has continued to support implementation. When members have talked about their experience on the school board and the accomplishments they have seen, they have often cited programs for handicapped youngsters. For example, a lawyer who had been on the school board for more than 15 years 36 praised the decisions made to establish programs like those for gifted and handicapped youngsters. Another board member with over 26 years of service and eight terms as president of the board pointed to three areas with special pride——integration, vocational training, and the handicapped program. Current Programs and Services Extensive implementation of the pro— gressive inclusion program can be seen in the distribution of special education classes throughout the school system. At the time of the site visit, each of the five high schools had at least two types of special education programs. All 10 junior high schools had at least one type of special education program, and 8 of the 10 had three or more. Among the elementary schools, 35 of the 42 had at least one type of special education class. Decentralized special education services made it possible for most parents of handicapped students to have their children educated in neighborhood schools. The blind and visually impaired pro— gram students were served at two loca— tions. as well as in their home schools with itinerant services. Hearing—im— paired students were served at five school locations as well as by itinerant services provided in their home schools. Orthopedic and health—impaired young— sters were served in four schools throughout the district, as well as in their home schools with itinerant serv— ices. Students referred to as develop— mentally handicapped, which included the moderately and severely retarded, were served at 8 school locations throughout the school district; and stu— dents served in the adjustment/preva- cational program for the mildly men— tally retarded were served through pro— grams located in 21 schools located throughout the district. Students iden— tified as behaviorally disordered or dis— abled were served at 18 school loca— tions. Learning—disabled students were served at 16 locations, and multiply handicapped youngsters were served at 6 school locations throughout the dis— trict. Special programs for nonverbal children were located at three schools, and a preschool program for language— impaired youngsters was located at two schools. In addition to special classroom programs and itinerant support services for special groups, an extensive system of 46 resource room programs served 1,200 mildly handicapped students at 35 schools. The resource room programs were cross—categorical in function and pro— vided various kinds of services to handicapped students and regular classroom teachers. The majority of students served in the resource room programs were learning disabled, be— haviorally disabled, or mildly mentally retarded; others were blind, hard of hearing, orthopedically handicapped, or health impaired. The services provided included tutorial assistance, specialized curriculum programs, and consultative itinerant help with regular education teachers. Resource room teachers mon- itored closely the handicapped students who spend their day in the regular classrooms. Students in the resource room programs spent between 5 and 10 hours per week in the resource rooms. At the time of the site visit, the Tacoma public school system was pro— viding special education and related services for about 15 percent of its stu— dent population. Of a total district en— rollment of 28,157 students in school year 1980—81, 3,283 students were in special education classroom programs or therapy, and 923 more were receiv— ing services for communication disor— ders only. The total of 4,206 students represented 14.9 percent of the school district's student population. An addi— tional 229 students were from other school districts. The staff serving handicapped chil— dren in the school district included su~ 37 pervisory personnel, teachers, commu— nication disorders specialists, hearing therapists, audiologists, psychologists, social workers, physical therapists, oc— cupational therapists, paraprofession— als, and clerical staff , amounting to 467 full-time equivalent positions. The an— nual operating budget was slightly over $12 million. Specific services included self—contained classroom placement, with or without support services; self— contained classroom placement accom— panied by placement in regular educa— tion classes; resource room and regular classroom placement; regular classroom placement with support services; home instruction; and, in some instances. placement in nonschool settings. In addition to the classroom pro— grams, a number of support services were available. These included adaptive physical education; audiological serv— ices; child find; staff development; child study or psychological services; services for the health impaired; home— bound instruction; language, speech, and hearing services; occupational and physical therapy; a program for deinsti— tutionalized children; the school social work program; and transportation. Other special school programs included an array of services for adjudicated de- linquents, a special diagnostic center for preschool and early elementary age children, prevocational programs, sepa— rate workshop training programs, and an alternative high school located on the campus of the community college. Progressive Inclusion and the Mental Health Perspective The concept of progressive inclusion is based on a number of basic mental health principles related to the nature of children, the way they learn, and their need for positive peer interac— tions. Further, the concept emphasizes communication, coordination, and ac— ceptance—not only among children and youth but also among teachers and administrators and other school personnel. From the child's perspective, the concept of progressive inclusion holds that learning is basic. Although there are differences in learning styles and variation in student products, each child does learn. Variability is recog— nized as a symptom of a healthy human being. School systems have the re— sponsibility to respond to this charac— teristic of children and youth. As the child changes, the task of education is to seek continuous discovery of that child. From the teacher's perspective, progressive inclusion recognizes reac- tions ranging from avid acceptance to f ear— and thus the need for highly in— tensified staff development activities. Providing a multiple array of staff development options, progressive in— clusion seeks to help teachers move from fear to comfort, from rejection to acceptance, and from hesitation to en— thusiasm for working with all children. Two specific services within the Tacoma public schools helped give progressive inclusion a special mental health orientation. These were psy— chological services and school social work services. Psychological Services. Psychologi— cal services were referred to in the Tacoma public schools as child study services. They had the responsibility to assess and reassess students for handi—- capping or suspected handicapping con— ditions. Twenty—seven psychologists were employed by the Tacoma public school system to carry out this pro— gram. Psychologists were assigned to each of the schools for a designated number of days per week. The work of the psychologists in the school system was exclusively related to assessment of handicapped and sus— pected handicapped students. Funding for their positions necessitated this ex— clusive assignment. In working with 38 handicapped students, the psychologists had a unique role. They provided an ob— jective person who could have a posi- tive relationship with the parents and the building staff. In this capacity, they provided support to classroom teach— ers, special education teachers, and parents as well as students as they be- came involved in special education programming. School Social Work Services. School social work services have been in the school system in Tacoma since 1947. While the services of the school social work staff were available to all stu— dents, in the past 8 years they have been focused on the handicapped stu— dent population, behaviorally disabled classrooms, and parental involvement. The social work staff was assigned from one to three schools. They worked with behaviorally disabled students who re- mained in regular classes with the sup— port of resource room programs, behav— iorally disabled students in self—con- tained classrooms, and students in the adjustment/prevocational and learning— disabled programs. The school social worker's chief responsibility was to work with classroom teachers and with families to ensure consistency across all parties for a strong educational program. The social work program was ori— ented toward an education model, the emphasis of the program for the past 5 years. The services provided by social work staff included individual casework, group work, and teaching social skills. They bridged the gap between school and home, made referrals to other community resources, and coordinated with other agencies and organizations. Certain social work staff members had special training in areas of exceptional— ity such as the hearing—impaired and the physically handicapped. The social work program provided a key support to the implementation of progressive inclusion. Social workers shared with teachers and others the responsibility for helping children realize their potential for success in learning and social relationships. The social workers and the teachers were involved in fostering growth and matu— rity in children and had the same goal —-well—adjusted children performing satisfactorily in school and having a positive experience in life. In providing social work services in the schools, the social worker functioned as a member of a team that ordinarily included the counselor, psychologist, nurse, and speech therapist, as well as the regular and special education teachers. The social worker initiated and maintained contact with the parents for approval and active participation in the treat— ment plans. Behaviorally Disabled Students — A Special Target Group Social work services were very im- portant in providing emotional support to students and their families as well as to teachers of handicapped students involved in progressive inclusion. The services provided by the social work staff were particularly important, how— ever, with respect to implementing progressive inclusion programs for be— haviorally disabled students. The pro— gram at Mason Junior High School illustrates the type of cooperation that occurred between the social worker, the teacher, and the behaviorally dis— abled students in providing comprehen— sive services for this population, which is mainstreamed with great difficulty. At Mason Junior High School the be— haviorally disabled unit was staffed by a special education teacher, a class-- room aide, and a school social worker who worked with the program 2 days a week. The classroom served seventh through ninth grade students, typically 12 students at any one time and about 18 students Over the course of a school year. Students in the behaviorally disabled class were mainstreamed for part of 467—500 0 - 85 - 4 : QL 3 39 their school day. A seventh grade boy was mainstreamed into regular art and physical education classes and received his English, geography, math, and sci— ence in the special education class— room. He had been in the program for 3 months, after having been kicked out of a class in the junior high school, in which he had been enrolled. Since he had entered the behaviorally disabled classroom, his attitude had changed. He was able to make progress, he felt, be- cause he received more immediate at— tention and help when he needed it and was able to meet with his social worker and discuss problems such as temper control and developing a more positive attitude toward school. An eighth grade girl who had been placed in the program because of extreme truancy problems and learning difficulties had been in the classroom since the middle of the year, having transferred from another junior high school. She was doing well aca— demically and was maintaining a good record of attendance. She had made sufficient progress to be considered ready for mainstreaming about 50 percent of the time in the next school year. . The social worker worked with the mental health center, the child guid— ance clinic, juvenile court, and other agencies with which the students and their families were involved. The social worker also reinforced the involvement and support of the parents, using hand~ written notes and phone calls to main—- tain communication. She had instituted a parent education group and reported this program had helped parents move beyond the negative self—talk in which they typically engaged. She instructed students in social skills and provided group counseling for support. In the progressive inclusion model, the social work program provided a key link between the home and school, maintaining trust and ensuring commu— nication where fragile relationships often exist. This support system for mainstreaming was an inschool mental health program that reflected an eco— logical or systems perspective. Main— taining communication between the student, the home, the school, and the community and getting each of these elements to support the others is a challenging task. The unique role of the social worker in progressive inclusion emphasized the whole system and the total lifespace of the child. Activities Illustrative of the Positive Mental Health Emphasis Activities between students, between teachers and students, and between teachers in the implementation of progressive inclusion illustrated the positive mental health emphasis of this program. Students at North Tacoma High School took an elective course on sign language that enabled them to commu— nicate with their deaf classmates. Cooks in the school cafeteria learned sign language so they could communi— cate with deaf students in the serving line. One student learned to sign so well that he became an interpreter for the junior varsity basketball coach, who had a hearing—impaired student on the team. One teacher of the hearing im— paired noted that "hearing students have learned to communicate in the language that the deaf at our school can understand, and many friendships have developed." Special education programs for mul— tihandicapped students were located in regular public school buildings. Handi— caps included various combinations of severe retardation, cerebral palsy, quadriplegia, deafness, and blindness. The mainstreaming program imple— mented for these students was referred to as "reverse inclusion." Nonhandi— capped students came into the multi— handicapped classrooms and worked for school credit as volunteer assistants. At one junior high school, students in an art class decorated the classroom with 40 a mural, to the delight of the children. At Lincoln High School, a develop— mental class for moderately and se— verely mentally retarded students was initiated. There were many parental concerns. For example, would this new program be as good as the program students had been in previously? What about the quality of the teachers and the quality of the program? Would students be accepted in the new school situation? Would the principal provide support for the program? Would the emphasis be on academics or vocations, and how would these be mixed togeth— er? Recognizing that there were a number of parent concerns, staff con— ducted a series of parent meetings prior to the program's move and during the school year. Some of these meetings were held in the parents' homes. As initial concerns were addressed, the parent group began to focus more on issues such as group home placement, guardianship placement, supplemental security income, and so forth. The program at Lincoln used student assistants who received course credit for their participation. These assistants provided an informal information net— work about the new program in the high school and helped to spread factual information about the students in the program through the student body. At the spring assembly, the special class members were recognized by the other students for the special adjustment they had made. Many students noted that pupil acceptance helped encourage teacher acceptance. Seward Elementary School is one of several elementary schools whose bar— rier—free design won a special archi— tectural award. It was built in 1962 and was specifically designed for imple— mentation of the inclusion model. The special education program provided one of its teaching positions to the general education faculty, thus reducing the teacher—student ratio by three students for the 1980—81 academic year. This visible gesture gave formal recognition to what regular education faculty had been doing and proved a successful strategy for mainstreaming. The prin— cipal was very supportive of main— streaming under his leadership, for ex— ample, a faculty meeting room for special education teachers was closed to facilitate interaction between spe— cial and regular education faculty. Teacher planning sessions for main— streaming implementation were fa— cilitated by the provision of substitute teachers. A faculty committee on mainstreaming was established to re— view and develop policies for the school as well as to coordinate inservice training programs. The principal at Seward supported an active parent group that met monthly, and there was extensive use of parent volunteers in the school. Topics the parent group dealt with in its meetings included developmental disabilities, factors in selecting toys for children, and functions of the brain. The prin— cipal reported that parents of non— handicapped children were very proud of the program for the handicapped, and would often bring relatives or friends to visit. A combination (grades 3 and 4) classroom teacher who had been at Seward for 12 years involved handi— capped students in her classroom pro— gram for social as well as academic reasons. She included eight handicapped students for storytime 4 days a week and four students for science 5 days a week. She also had four to eight stu- dents come in for different types of fun programs and discussion groups, such as 2—hour activity programs based on Sprint magazine. She indicated that the principal's support had increased her acceptance of the program and made her feel more comfortable in participating. Another teacher took her regular students to the exceptional wing for a 45-minute period on Friday. During this time her students participated in peer tutoring and socialization activities 41 including art, music, and singing. One of the advantages for her students was that they did not have an art class per se, so this gave them an opportunity for an art experience. The parent reaction was very positive, and the teacher said the reverse inclusion had been very beneficial to the regular pupils. The students involved indicated that it was a terrific experience for them. "You learn how it feels to be handicapped," said one. At Foss Senior High School, a phys— ically handicapped student, who was above average in intelligence and used a communication board was enrolled in a math lab, took English and history, was involved in swimming and therapy, and served on the yearbook staff with the aid of a student assistant. Other students in the Foss program partici- pated totally independently in the reg— ular education program, with the ex— ception of meetings with the special education teacher and the special re— quests they had. Foss Senior High School is another building that won an architectural award for its barrier—free design. The team leader of the special edu— cation program at Foss Senior High noted that the regular students ac— cepted the handicapped students be— cause the handicapped had always been involved with the regular educational programs. The regular students had begun to learn about handicapping conditions when they were in elemen— tary school! Foss is a continuous progress high school, which means that students may complete more than one credit per semester in their courses. This type of arrangement places more responsibility on the student to map out and complete the high school program. An adviser- advisee program was used to help stu— dents plan and carry out programs of study for their 3 high school years. Consistent with this philosophy, the special education faculty put much em- phasis on developing responsibility among the special education students. Mainstreaming was part of each hearing—impaired student's educational program at Jason Lee Junior High School. Courses for mainstreaming were selected carefully, and an inter— preter went into the regular classroom with the hearing—impaired students. Students were mainstreamed in nonac— ademic subjects, such as shop, physical education, art, and sports. In academic areas, coteaching arrangements were used for integrating students into such areas as science, photography, marine biology, and home economics. The hearing—impaired students reported very good feelings about their partic— ipation in the regular program and felt it had been helpful to their self-con— cept. For example, one hearing—im— paired student was president of the Pep Club; another was president of the seventh grade class. Eight hearing— impaired boys were on the wrestling team. Throughout the school about 350 students had learned to use some sign language. Two Tacoma public school programs had specific involvement with the Community Mental Health Center and Child Guidance Clinic. The Pre—School Day Treatment Program for Emotional— ly/Behaviorally Disturbed Students is the result of a combined effort by the Tacoma public schools and the Child Study and Guidance Clinic. The pro— gram served 23 children who qualified for special education services. The Gray Learning Center program served about 30 behaviorally disabled students at the junior high school level. Responding to the Needs of Parents The Pupil Personnel Services Advi— sory Council was composed of 35 rep- resentatives from the community and school system. The council was formed to review policies, programs, and pro— cedures; to advise and make recom— 42 mendations concerning policy matters; and to coordinate improved commu— nication. The membership included par— ents, school personnel, and representa— tives from community agencies and organizations—all of whose primary interest was students served by pupil personnel services. Parent representa— tion on the council was extensive, and parents of children with all handicap— ping conditions were included. Parents had opportunities to get clarification and information on a variety of serv— ices, to review policy and procedural options, and to make recommendations on issues under consideration. "WOW" awards were given periodically to rec— ognize parents, school personnel, or community members who had made significant contributions to the educa— tion of handicapped children. The council was an active, effective advocacy group promoting the financial support of the special education pro— grams. Through the interactions of the council, parents developed real confi— dence in the special education program administration. Open discussion and communication about programs was helpful in this regard. The pupil per— sonnel services program invited and encouraged parent participation and involvement. As a result, parents ex— pressed much support for the program. The advisory council conducted parent education programs—e.g., to inform parents of their rights in the educational process and to increase their involvement in their children's education. The council sponsored a tour of the special education programs by a group of state legislators. This provided an opportunity for lawmakers to ob— serve exemplary practices. visit suc— cessful programs, and hear of program needs and parent concerns. Pupil services were regarded very highly by the parents on the advisory council. One key reason for this seemed to be the responsiveness of the program to expressed parental concerns and needs. The following excerpt from a letter written by a parent to the schools is illustrative (Teacher Educa— tion News, Summer 1979, p. 13): Jim started kindergarten this year. God, what a disaster. He cried every single day that he had to go to school. Finally, after a few months of this I could not take any more. I called the school and told Mrs. Poole, the school secretary, that I was going to take my son out of school. I ex- plained what was happening. Mrs. Poole said she would call back in a bit. She did call and had arranged a meeting between the school psychol— ogist, the social worker and myself. After talking over the problem to— gether we decided to give it another try. Since this time all of these people, the school nurse, the psy— chologist, teacher and social worker have been working. What can I say? My son is still in school and enjoying it very much; I am becoming a better mother as well as a person; my husband is becoming a better father and a better person. In general my family has improved as a result of being in the Tacoma Pub—- lic School District and being helped by the people in the schools themselves. What can I say? I can say thank you Tacoma Public Schools. The Tacoma public schools partici— pated in a regional home—based pro— gram for parents. The program trained parents in specific skills to work di— rectly with their own handicapped children. Another program, called the "Bug—in—the—Ear" program, helped par— ents develop positive relationships with their youngsters. In this program, staff directed instructions to parents using a wireless hearing aid speaker, as the parents played with and instructed their children. 43 Responding to the Needs of Teachers Staff development activities were important in implementing progressive inclusion. Such activities have taken many forms. Some school buildings, such as Se— ward Elementary School, developed mainstreaming inclusion committees to survey faculty needs and establish in— service training programs. Ministaff development activities have often been conducted on a building—by—building ba— sis. Program managers for the different exceptionality areas have conducted staff development activities. One par— ticular TV program, 'Feeling Free,‘ was used to improve attitudes of students and teachers toward the progressive in— clusion of handicapped students. Every elementary school in the district participated. Past staff development workshops signified both the comprehensiveness and the depth of the training to im— prove special education and regular education teachers' skills in working with handicapped students. These work-— shops included, for example, "Child Find," the early identification of chil— dren with special needs; "Carkhuff‘s Human Skills Training"; "Art Therapy for Children With Behavioral Disabili— ties"; "P.L. 94—142 and Its Success in Regular Education"; "The Learning Dis— abled Students in the Mainstream"; "Social Survival Skills and the Educa— tionally Handicapped"; "The Behavior— ally Disabled Child in the Mainstream"; "Plain Talk," a series of six workshops for parents of handicapped children; "Stress in the Family and the Role of the Counselor"; "Affective Intervention With Families"; "Behavior Manage~ men "; "Integrating the Physically Handicapped Child in the Mainstream"; "Parents as Partners and Not Adversaries"; "Legal Issues and the School Administrator"; "Barrier—Free Schools"; "Progressive Inclusion for Handicapped Preschool Children"; and "Special and Regular Education Responding Together." Special staff development activities included the microcollege, a program whereby school personnel could receive professional credit for courses, which also lead to salary increments. For 3 years, The University Council for Edu— cational Administration held a work— shop for special and general education involving administrators and teachers. This workshop was important because progressive inclusion and staff devel— opment activities were conducted on a building—by—building basis. Factors Contributing to Success When reviewing a program like pro- gressive inclusion, there appear to be many critical factors leading to its success. In conversations with the as— sistant superintendent for pupil per— sonnel services and the administrative assistant for special education pro— grams, a number of key factors that related directly to the success of the progressive inclusion program emerged. These are briefly discussed next. 1. A major factor, of course, was the adoption of the decentrali— zation of special education serv— ices and the progressive inclu— sion philosophy by the school district's board of directors and their continuing commitment to this policy. This policy adoption led to a number of other decisions that helped develop the momen— tum for progressive inclusion. Also, the school district has been ready and able to use State spe— cial education funds that became available in the late 19605 and early 19705. This was at a time when such funds were not being used throughout the State. As a result, Tacoma has developed more special education services 44 . The Pupil and programs than any other school district in the State of Washington, including Seattle. The role of the social work serv— ices in the school system has been a key to providing the mental health perspective to main— streaming implementation in the Tacoma public schools. Social work services served as a cata~ lytic agent, bringing parents and teachers together, an important aspect of successful main— streaming. Progressive inclusion has been implemented on a building—by— building basis, with much de— pending on the school principal as the key administrator. An informal elementary principals' group was started in the mid— 1960s and has continued to meet monthly. All elementary school principals who, at one time or another, have had major programs for the handicapped in their buildings participate in this group. The meetings were designed pri— marily to provide an opportunity to discuss issues on a practical level. Through the group, prin— cipals had the opportunity to hash out the practical problems of progressive inclusion implemen— tation. Attitudes changed, and support for the implementation of progressive inclusion grew out of this special group's experience. Personnel Services Advisory Council, which included parents representing all the various exceptionalities, provided a mechanism for communication between the administration and each parent organization. . In the resource room program, students spent no more than 2 hours, but not less than 1/2 hour in order to qualify for special education services and funding. This program was one of the key vehicles for implementing pro— gressive inclusion. In this pro-- gram, the students received the special education services they need while maximizing their in- volvement in the mainstream of educational programs. . The extent to which the commu— nity has supported progressive inclusion and the special educa- tion programs in the Tacoma public schools was evident by the successful passage of bond issues involving construction or remod— eling of special education f acili— ties. For example, in 1981, 3 high schools, 2 junior high schools, and 11 elementary schools had planned to complete building modification contracts to bring them into compliance with Sec— tion 504 at a cost of $600,000. The architectural emphasis on school building design has been a public symbol of the community's commitment to progressive in—- clusion. Another indication of the interest of the general communi— ty in the progressive inclusion program was that the Junior Women's Club of Tacoma planned to purchase "The Kids on the Block" materials and train volun— teers to use them in the elemen- tary schools (see appendix B). In 1979—80 the negotiated con— tract with the teacher association included extensive staff develop— ment time for regular teachers working with handicapped young— sters. The contract also provided that special mental health pro- grams for teachers would be pro— vided anonymously. This was designed to help meet teachers' needs related to stress, overwork, and so forth. Mental health pro— 45 grams were open to any public school teacher who had signed a contract with the school board. 8. A major effort was made to main—tain liaison relationships with school and local newspapers to disseminate information to the general public as well as to parents. All publications of the Tacoma public schools, such as Parent 's Guides, Tacoma Educa— tion News, Home and School Working Together, and Student Life, Responsibilities and Regula~ tions, have included information about special education and progressive inclusion. 9. The school system has had a rather extensive involvement in mental health programs. A num— ber of mental health agencies and organizations are located in the Tacoma- Pierce County, Washing» ton, area. Through collaborative agreements with these agencies, the school district established several programs and services that effectively meet identified priority needs of students and their families. Implications for Replication Dr. Henry Bertness, director of pupil personnel services, identified several criteria related to successful replica— tion of the system of progressive in— clusion. First, the system (beliefs and practices) of progressive inclusion must be adopted by the school board. Second, all policy statements should have a clear focus placed on learning. Third, recruitment practices should represent a good fit between the philosophy of the school system and the candidates being recruited. Fourth, there must be a commitment to staff development. Fifth, all facilities must be available to handicapped children; the needs of handicapped children must be accom— modated in new construction and remodeling. Sixth, there must be indi— vidual staffing of the students who need differentiated programs. This process of individual program review of student progress will eventually involve all staff members in a school building. Through this process everyone learns and gains improved understanding of and skill in working with all children. All administrators should send to personnel a clear, uniform, and posi— tive message about the implemen— tation of progressive inclusion. Essen— tially, a positive message is one that indicates a solution exists for every problem. Administrators must demon— strate and believe in a team attitude that recognizes that "together we might succeed, but individually we fall far short of what we might do." Admin— istrator expectations should be sprin— kled with a generous dose of realism. Finally, administrators must deeply respect the importance of time. Change occurs over time, not overnight. But time must be seen as an ally that can be used to plan wisely and to reflect on achievements. Uncertain Future Despite the tremendous growth of the progressive inclusion model in the past 20 years, problems persisted and concerns about where special education and progressive inclusion were going were abundant at the time of the site visit. The State of Washington had 46 initiated a move to a program empha— sizing basic education and to a system of full—state funding that would place school systems like the Tacoma public schools in a precarious position. In ef— fect, school systems that were more progressive and had developed highly sophisticated service arrangements were likely to suffer. The full—state funding program fund the minimal level of services rather than the maximum level of services. Dr. Bertness viewed the situation as retrenchment in the area of special education, a backlash that was going to have implications for continuing special education programs. Another potentially damaging funding decision was block grant funding that would lump behaviorally disabled, learning—disabled, and speech— and language—impaired students with gifted, bilingual, and disadvantaged students. It was unlikely that handicapped children would be able to continue to receive the same level of funding under the block grant arrangement as they had under the categorical arrangement. Tacoma's better—than—average staff— ing pattern, developed over time, would be vulnerable to resulting budget cuts. The most likely areas to be hit initially would be the support services functions, such as psychological services and school social work services. These were the services that the Tacoma public school system has come to realize were essential if the concept of progressive inclusion is to be implemented satis— factorily. How these issues would be resolved and what the impact will be for future programs remained in doubt. Despite the funding cutbacks and changes in funding formulas, Dr. Bert— ness continued to be optimistic. Montgomery County, Maryland: An Emphasis on lnservice We try to offer a few rocks so that teachers won't have to walk on water to do what is expected of them. Stan Fagen, Supervisor for In—Service Training, Office of Special and Alternative Education, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland The Challenge of Perceived Discrepancy Located north—northwest of , and ad— jacent to, the District of Columbia, Montgomery County, Maryland, is a large and diverse area. Within the county are located some of the most affluent suburban areas in the country as well as rural farmlands. The school system is large and predominantly suburban. It is considered one of the wealthiest in the country, according to per capita income and other economic indicators. At the time of the site visit, the annual school budget was in excess of $330 million. The population served by the school system was mixed cul— turally, socially, and racially. The school system employed more than 6,000 instructional and educational support personnel and operates 162 regular elementary, middle, junior high, and senior high schools, plus several special program schools. More than 10,500 of the school system's 98,000 students were identified and served as handicapped. Table 1 shows the dis— tribution of students served by level of service and program area and indicates the extent of mainstreaming within the school system. One of the biggest threats to the mental health of teachers involved in mainstreaming is the perceived dis— crepancy between aspirations and real limitations—that is. between the ambitions and beliefs embodied in legal mandates and the resources needed to fulfill those ambitions. The Mont— gomery County public schools (MCPS), 47 like other school systems across the country, had experienced budget cur— tailments and staffing decreases. Ef— forts were to conserve and to maintain, given annual budget projections. Thus, a major objective of inservice training was to help teachers see how what needs to be done and what can be done can be brought closer together. The lnservice Training Program The quality of inservice training ac— tivities for teachers in Montgomery County made these activities a truly powerful mental health support for teachers and staff. The approach taken by the inservice training staff empha— sized empathy for persons concerned about the complex practice of mainstreaming and its many impli— cations. To illustrate, one training strategy used very early in inservice exercises sought to legitimize the pros and cons of mainstreaming. Teachers were allowed to ventilate their feelings and spend time role—playing so that they began to look at mainstreaming from different perspectives-those of parents of nonhandicapped students, parents of handicapped students, hand— icapped and nonhandicapped students, principals, regular and special educa— tion teachers, and so on. Teachers thus recognized both the advantages and the disadvantages of mainstreaming, pro— viding self—acceptance in the face of an exceedingly demanding job. A key guiding principle was to let people know they are doing well in the face of difficulties and that there is Table 1. Number of handicapped students by level of service and program area—~Montgomery County public schools Level of service Special education program area 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alternative centers Alternative centers for moderately, severely. and profoundly retarded and multiply handicapped 529 Secondary learning centers (learning disabled) 320 Elementary learning centers (multihandicapped) 218 Mark Twain Center (emotionally impaired) 425 Bridge School (emotionally impaired) 40 Regional Institute for Children and Adolescents 50 56 Early Childhood Handicapped Children's Program Auditory programs 125 28 79 Speech and language programs 3,600 99 104 Vision programs 170 39 Physically handicapped programs 100 School—based special education programs (elementary and secondary resource rooms and special classes for emotionally impaired, learning—disabled, ’___&___\ and mentally retarded students) 5,095 1,995 NOTE: The six levels of educational services are as follows: 1. Regular classroom, consultant services 4. Full—time special class, regular school 2. Special services up to 1 hour/day 5. Special center, facility, or building wing 3. Special services up to 3 hours/day 6. Residential program. 48 help available. A potential danger in inservice training is that special edu— cation staff will approach regular teachers as experts ready to help them, thus emphasizing the inabilities of regular teachers making mainstreaming look like an impossibility. On the con— trary, there must be respect for teach— ers' competence and an assumption that teachers care about students. The in— service trainers in the Montgomery County program respected teachers' basic adequacies and involved teachers in thinking through problems and shar— ing challenges, while emphasizing respect for their ability to help. Responding to the mental health needs of teachers. including both reg— ular education and special education teachers, was one of the major em— phases of the Office of Special and Al— ternative Education's Inservice Training Unit. The comprehensive system for providing inservice training that was developed included: (a) a highly orga— nized central office unit; (b) area—based consulting teacher specialists for mainstreaming; and (0) school inservice coordinators for mainstreaming (SICM) (see figure 1). The inservice training unit managed the inservice training support system, which included, in addition to person— nel, an inservice educational center and three area inservice labs that maintain course materials, inservice training materials. and other resources for in— service activities. The school system was divided into three areas for ad— ministrative purposes, and area in— service labs for mainstreaming were located in designated schools within each area. The area—based consulting teacher specialists for mainstreaming provided training and support to the SICMs and worked in close cooperation with school principals in identifying staff to serve as SICMs. The teacher specialists also helped the SICMs develop inservice plans to support school mainstreaming objectives and provided ongoing as— 49 sistance to coordinators and school in—- serv1ce comrmttees 1n assessmg, plan-- ning, and carrying out inservice pro— grams within the schools. The comprehensiveness of this sys— tem was reflected in the large number of schools that had SICMs and inservice committees: 119 of the 169 schools (70 percent). The school coordinator work— ed closely with the school principal; generally chaired the school's inservice committee; and assumed responsibility for planning, implementing, and eval— uating school—based inservice for mainstreaming programs and activities. This person also participated in in— service coordinators' meetings, which were held at least once per semester on an areawide basis for information sharing and training. The SICM role was vital to the effectiveness of the in— service training program, so the indi— vidual selected generally must be highly recommended by the principal and re— spected by the school faculty; he or she must have demonstrated leadership for inservice training abilities and be a tenured member of the staff with at least a 1—year future commitment to the school. It was desirable, although not required, that the person also have at least a year of past service to the school and some successful experience in mainstreaming handicapped children. Types of Inservice Training. Through this organizational arrangement. a variety of types of special education inservice training were made available to teachers and staff. A high degree of flexibility existed for teachers to re— ceive further training, either within their current work assignments or out— side those assignments. The options included (a) consultations; (b) inschool and interschool workshops or informal study labs; (c) formal inschool courses, seminars, or individual study; (d) area and county workshops or special State and local workshops; (e) short—term intensive training; (f) Montgomery County Public Schools' Special Educa- OS Inservice Training Unit — Management — Inservice center — Resource materials assessment Needs Area Consulting Teacher Specialist for Mainstreaming — Area 1 Inservice Lab Area Consulting Teacher Specialist for Mainstreaming — Area 2 Inservice Lab School Inservice Coordinators for Mainstreaming — School inservice committees Elementary schools Training/support/ Expressed needs School Inservice Coordinators for Mainstreaming — School inservice committees Middle and junior high schools Figure 1. Structure of the inservice training program Area Consulting Teacher Specialist for Mainstreaming —- Area 3 Inservice Lab School Inservice Coordinators for Mainstreaming — School inservice committees Senior high schools tion competency courses; (g) university or private courses or institutes; and (h) long—term intensive training requiring academic leave. Supplementary education inservice courses, formally developed by the Of— fice of Special and Alternative Educa— tion and directly related to main— streaming implementation, included such courses as "Teaching Children with Special Needs," "Mainstreaming and Individualized Education Programs," "Issues in Mainstreaming Seminar," "Mainstreaming Students with Visual, Auditory, Speech/Language, and Phys— ical Handicaps," and "Individualized Study in Mainstreaming." Inservice training staff also provided workshops to meet the needs of a par— ticular school, a group of schools, or a specific group of personnel, such as total faculty, resource room teachers, or aides. The 130 workshops conducted during school year 1980-81 included "Administrators' and Supervisors' Con— f erence on Enhancing Local School Mainstreaming." "Understanding Chil— dren with Learning Disabilities," and "Building Helpful Behavior Among Children." Another type of available inservice training involved an intensive practi— cum and coursework in the teacher internship program. Through this pro- gram, special education teachers gained experience in regular classroom set- tings. and regular classroom teachers gained experience in special education environments. For example, a third grade teacher might have worked at a special learning center; an industrial arts teacher at a senior high school might have worked at a special center for emotionally disturbed students. A newly developed dimension of the Montgomery County inservice training program was the use of demonstration training classrooms. Through this ap— proach, teachers had the opportunity to visit peers with strong programs rep— resenting different levels of service to handicapped students. Demonstration 51 training classrooms included regular classrooms with successful main— streaming practices. Using local per— sonnel and classrooms was one way of pointing out the system's strengths and emphasizing that regular education and special education teachers had abilities that can be shared. The demonstration classrooms had been selected from nominations made by supervisors. staff, and principals. A special focus area for inservice training was the volunteer training program for children with special needs. In conilmction with the coor— dinator of volunteer services in the Office of the Deputy Superintendent, the inservice training unit had devel— oped and conducted training sessions for volunteers who worked in the schools with children having special needs. The volunteers trained through this program provided additional sup— port to regular and special education teachers involved in mainstreaming. The inservice training program is coordinated with PTA special needs Chairpersons. This coordination had been facilitated by open houses at area inservice labs for mainstreaming, joint meetings, presentations with area of— fice leadership staff , and orientation for SICMs. The latter orientations had included panel presentations on under— standing parental concerns and re— sources. Through this coordination, parents had participated in local school workshops as participants and pre- senters, and coordinators had done the same at PTA and other meetings par— ents attended. The monitoring and evaluation team of the Special Education Division of the Maryland State Department of Educa— tion commended the Montgomery County public school system for the leadership role it had taken in the development and implementation of personnel development programs. Spe— cifically cited in this commendation were the teacher internship program, the inservice trainer development pro— gram, the inservice labels for main— streaming, the inservice courses, and the intensive surmner workshops for special education teachers and SICMs. School Inservice Coordinators for Mainstreaming. SICMs operating at the building level were major keys to the success of mainstreaming. In planning and implementing school—based inserv— ice programs, coordinators were in— volved in assessing staff inservice needs and interests, arranging for appropriate inservice trainers and consultants, pre— paring and disseminating information about school inservice programs and opportunities, and assisting in the design and instruction of planned inservice programs. The types of specific strategies and activities in which coordinators became involved to support mainstreaming were wide ranging. A list of examples illus— trated the variety of approaches used and various aspects of the position that had been most helpful. 0 One coordinator has used "Walk in Another Pair of Shoes," an audio— cassette/filmstrip about learning disabilities, and "The Kids on the Block" to increase understanding and acceptance of handicapped students among their peers. 0 Mainstreaming aides were used to substitute for regular class teach- ers, freeing them to attend IEP meetings and parent conferences. 0 Lack of awareness about learning disabilities, a major obstacle to mainstreaming with high school teachers, was addressed by use of the series of simulation exercises contained in the "What If You Couldn't?" curriculum. 0 One coordinator helped sensitize parents of nonhandicapped students to the emotional needs of handi— capped children through a PTA 52 presentation involving the special education teacher and the parent of a handicapped child. One coordinator facilitated a sem— inar on human relations and used the film "Cipher in the Snow." At one school, behavior adjustment teams were set up as a followup to an inservice course on behavior management. In some junior and senior high schools, a communications course on sign language had been included in the curriculum; through this, a peer tutoring/signing program had been implemented. One coordinator conducted work— shops on teacher stress and con— flict resolution and had been in- volved in teaching a combined special education and regular third grade class in art and social studies. One coordinator conducted in— service training using peer ac— ceptance and emotional growth programs such as "Hello, Every— body" and "For Handicapped Kids About Handicapped Kids." In one school, special education and regular students were involved in a teacher advisory program. They also participated in all camp— ing and field trips together. At a junior high school, the prin— cipal developed a packet on main— streaming and presented this to other junior high schools in the system. At a secondary school, inservice sessions had been held on the needs of, characteristics of , and programs for hearing—impaired students. 0 A learning disabilities teacher at the high school level had imple— mented a learning facilitator mod- el in conjunction with team teaching in math, English, and science. 0 In a school that used cued speech with the hearing impaired, a Cued Speech Club had been established; classroom teachers had set up cued speech centers in their classrooms. Individual teachers served as coor— dinators (SlCMs) for a nominal supple— ment to their regular salaries. The role provided them an opportunity to have an impact on their schools and to actualize their interest in pursuing their training experiences. Typically, these teachers were highly motivated and respected by their principals and fellow teachers. Their work was sup- ported by the area consulting teacher specialists for mainstreaming and by the inservice training unit. This support provided access to people, materials, and other helpful resources. Special Education Inservice Training Unit and Area Teacher Specialists. The nucleus for inservice training activity was composed of the inservice training unit staff and area—based consulting teacher specialists. This group met weekly to stay abreast of developments in the program, share materials and practices, and provide mutual support. Emphasis was placed on coordinated planning, maintaining a high expecta— tion for competence and cooperation, and an openness and willingness to ask for help when needed. The group was obviously optimistic about the potential for success in mainstreaming. The consulting teacher specialist for mainstreaming may have responsibility for an area within the Montgomery County public schools that had more than 70 percent of the school districts in the United States. For example, one consulting teacher specialist was re— 53 sponsible for about 40 schools and worked with the SICM for each of these schools. Within each area, the consulting teacher specialist for mainstreaming, in addition to providing individual support, consultation, and technical assistance, conducted group meetings with SICMs at least once a semester. These meet— ings allowed for discussion of common concerns and experiences, as well as specific programs and issues at indi— vidual schools. The real mission of the inservice training unit for mainstreaming was to offer skills, knowledge, and emotional support to special and regular education teachers involved in mainstreaming. Dr. Stanley Fagen, supervisor for inservice training, who directed the inservice training unit, succinctly stated that the mission was "to offer a few rocks so that teachers won't have to walk on water to do what is expected of them." The success achieved had been evident in the teachers' ratings of inservice training activities. Evaluation scores for usefulness, value, and effectiveness had consistently averaged between 4.2 and 4.4 on a 5.0 scale. Special Education Programs and Services Like the inservice training unit for mainstreaming, special education pro— grams were located in the Office of Special and Alternative Education. Special education programs and serv— ices were provided through the De— partment of Multifacility Programs/ Alternative Centers and the Division of Special Education in the Department of School Based Programs. The Division of Special Education provided special programs and services for students who had speech, hearing, vision, or physical handicaps through the Division of Speech and Language Programs, Auditory Programs, Vision Programs, and Physically Handicapped Programs. Their primary mission was to provide appropriate IEPs for students whose needs were more severe and complex than could be met with area resources. The Division of Special Edu— cation also had countywide responsi—- bility for planning, developing, and co— ordinating programs and services for emotionally impaired, learning—dis— abled, and mentally retarded students. Six levels of service of special educa— tion were provided to handicapped students in the school system. As shown in table 1, most mainstreaming occur— red in levels 1 through 4 at regular schools. The mental health needs of students, teachers, and parents were promoted primarily through the work of special education resource teachers who served as consultants. Much of their work in— volved inclass support, because there was an emphasis on inclass work rather than resource help in levels 1 through 3 at the elementary level. At the secondary level, the emphasis was placed on cross—categorical classes. It was recognized that main— streaming is more difficult at the secondary level, especially when it in— volved curriculum adaptations and the like. Many alternative models existed for resource teacher programs in terms of roles and responsibilities at the sec— ondary level. Special education teach— ers, for example, may teach different curriculum areas, or they may team— teach with regular classroom teachers. Staff saw the vocational assessment center as an important mental health support for students because it gave students an opportunity to see their own potentials for work and occupa— tional experiences. Another support program was the Mainstreaming Sup— port Team, which coordinated the re— integration into the school system of students who had been involved in in— stitutional/residential programs. The real success of mainstreaming was reflected in the impact it has had on students. Some examples of indi— vidual student successes follow. 0 A lively eighth grader confined to a wheelchair by muscular dys— trophy was able to establish neighborhood friendships after at— tending and being mainstreamed into the junior high school located close to her home, where she par— ticipated in her classes just like anybody else. 0 Tyrone was a 12—year—old boy with average ability who had been hav— ing severe behavior problems in school since third grade. He was enrolled in an inner—city school where many students in the sixth grade had fewer academic skills than he did. The sixth grade teacher worked with Tyrone be— cause she felt it was important for him to be part of the mainstream. She was a very firm teacher, but also took a personal interest in her students. A program of daily mon— itoring and tutoring helped to bring about improvement in Tyrone's behavior and class participation, and he participated in the school chorus. It was, in his mother's words, the best year Tyrone had had in a long time. 0 John, an 18—year—old with cerebral palsy, had limited speech and was totally confined to an electric wheelchair. Fine motor coordina— tion problems made it impossible for him to write. Through support services provided by a special ed— ucation aide, the use of peer note takers and a tape recorder, and counseling with regular teachers about possible problems, John graduated from high school and enrolled at a local community college. Implementation in the Schools In a system as large as that of Mont— gomery County, variability in the de— gree and quality of implementation of any educational program initiative, such as mainstreaming, was to be ex— pected. Variance in quality and extent of mainstreaming from school to school may be due to a number of factors. Lack of an SICM, an inadequately skilled or uncommitted SICM, lack of principal leadership and support, and poor attitudes of the teaching faculty and community are examples of factors that can reduce the success of main* streaming or cause outright failure. The Montgomery County public school program was selected as an ex— emplary program primarily because of the quality and comprehensiveness of the system's inservice training program for mainstreaming. In conducting the site visit, project staff were specifi— cally interested in gaining information about the impact of the inservice training program at the building level in schools where mainstreaming was being conducted with success. The schools visited and reported on there, then, should not be considered representative of mainstreaming in Montgomery County. More appropriately, they should be viewed as examples of some "best practice" situations. Kensington Elementary School. Kensington Elementary School was a small school with a student population of 225 children involved in Headstart programs through grade 5. To accom— modate mainstream programming for students, a special schedule that had all students involved in reading at the same time (so that all would move at the same time into their respective reading groups) was worked out with involvement by the principal, the SICM, the faculty, and the area consulting teacher specialist. The schedule al— lowed teachers to have common plan- ning periods and provided an opportuni— ty for teacher conferences. Moderately retarded students were mainstreamed in the specialty classes 467—500 0 - 85 - 5 : QL 3 SS —~-art, physical education, and music. This program was planned with much involvement from the parents and fac— ulty. Planning and implementation ac— tivities included meetings with the PTA Executive Committee, peer acceptance and information programs using the "Kids on the Block" program and books provided by the Montgomery County Association for Retarded Citizens as well as videotapes of the moderately retarded students for faculty orienta— tion, and a speech a mother of one of the moderately retarded children pre— sented to each class in the school. A team—teaching approach, requiring a great deal of cooperation and flexi— bility by special education teachers and regular classroom teachers, was used with learning—disabled students to fa— cilitate their integration. Each teacher had combined groups for homeroom and team teaching in social studies, sci— ence, and the other nonacademic por— tions of the day. Teachers used the cooperative learning approach as a strategy to facilitate mainstreaming in the team—teaching situations. The administrative reorganization and cooperative efforts of the teachers had led to a successful mainstreaming program with many benefits. These benefits included an increased learning rate for learning—disabled children, im— proved social relationships among peers, greater class participation, de— velopment of responsible behavior within the group. development of helping roles among regular students, and peer teaching by both the regular and learning—disabled students. All students had shown improved positive oral expression, carryover of positive behavior and task orientation into other parts of the day, pride in improved report card grades, and increased readiness for the transition to middle school. A large group of the teachers at Kensington Elementary School were interviewed and asked to identify fac— tors that seemed to contribute to the success of the mainstreaming program. The factors they identified were (a) the size of the school, (b) a willingness to mainstream a student into a lower grade, (0) constant communication with parents, ((1) the suppport and compe— tence of the principal, (e) the main- streaming inservice education courses and personnel, (f) the available planning time with common planning periods, (g) peer tutoring, (h) curriculum adapta— tion, (i) the cooperative learning ap- proach in team—teaching situations, and (j) the curriculum for individualizing instruction. Du Fief Elementary School. The Du Fief Elementary School had two teach— ers who served as co—coordinators for inservice training for mainstreaming. One was a regular fifth grade classroom teacher, and the other was a primary level reading teacher. In this school, the principal had set the tone for mainstreaming. His hu— manistic approach to education was evident in the policies and practices he had promoted and established. The principal and other members of the school's mainstreaming committee es— tablished a seven—step procedure and a timeframe for mainstreaming. Timely sharing of information was an impor— tant step in this key decision—making process. Continuous monitoring of student placement was facilitated by the maintenance of a daily main— streaming report for each student that included social behavior and academic performance. Several aspects of the school's op— eration facilitated mainstreaming: (a) team structure was used in faculty or— ganization, (b) a 2—year curriculum plan allowed for multiage and multigrade grouping, (c) open physical space of the building made student movement be— tween groups easy to accomplish, and (d) faculty had 2 1/2 inservice training days devoted to mainstreaming imple— mentation during the school year. Specific, individualized preparation 56 was made when a handicapped student was newly mainstreamed into a regular classroom. Specific strategies helped promote a climate of acceptance among the students. For one student, the strategy may have involved use of a filmstrip or film. For another. it may have required setting up a buddy sys— tem. Or nothing may have been re— quired for a smooth integration. The general humanistic approach of the principal helped maintain a positive mental health climate in the school as well, which benefited students and faculty. When more specific/intensive mental health intervention services were needed, the school had established liaison with the county public health nurse for mental health counseling and access to psychiatric services and con— sultation on a special basis, as needed. The principal's practice was to use these mental health resources for meeting faculty as well as student needs. The leadership and support of the principal were illustrated by his re— sponse to a learning-disabled boy who was very disruptive in the regular class when the group was studying geometric shapes. The boy just could not under— stand the work and became very frus— trated. The resource teacher removed the student from the room and had him go to the office for a "cooling—off" period. The principal listened to the boy and sensed his extreme frustration. When the boy regained composure, the principal began teaching him to identify geometric shapes by using various ob— jects in his office. Before long, the student had "caught on" and was on his way back to the regular class to display his new knowledge and skills to the teacher. Diamond Elementary School. The SICM and the mainstreaming commit— tee had been involved in needs assess— ment surveys and had been conducting an initial introductory course on main— streaming. Of the school's 30 faculty members, 20 were involved, including the principal, and 10 faculty members contracted for individual study projects. Schedule provisions were made to allow the resource teachers and regular classroom teachers to meet and coor— dinate their instructional programs. EMR students had been mainsteamed into physical education and into science classes for selected activities such as film programs and lab experiments. For academic mainstreaming, EMR students had been placed with younger students in lower grades when appropriate. An— other area of involvement for Diamond Elementary has been with parents. A special program for the PTA on chil— dren with special needs was conducted. Although there was a low turnout, the program was well received. Newport Middle School. The New— port Middle School is a school that had "gotten it together" for mainstreaming implementation. For example, every Friday the staff had breakfast together, a practice that started after a number of complaints from staff that they nev— er got to see each other. The assistant principal coordinated the educational management team meetings and worked closely with the SICM. One of the things that facilitated mainstreaming at Newport Middle School was extensive team teaching throughout the faculty. Staff had al— ways been very cooperative in the teaming procedures, so it was not a "big deal" for regular teachers to team with special education teachers and begin to take handicapped students into their classrooms. For example, visually im—- paired and learning—disabled students were involved in an integrated class— room project on silk screening that was team—taught by industrial arts and art teachers. Communication between special ed— ucation teachers and regular classroom teachers had been a major focus of at— tention. Special education teachers made a half—day presentation to the 57 faculty on the feelings and needs of handicapped students; they discussed techniques and strategies for the mainstreamed classroom and included a simulation of various handicapping conditions. Learning—disabled students were mainstreamed for science and social studies. The special education learning disabilities teacher met with the regu— lar social studies and science teachers to discuss children's needs, classroom adaptations, and so forth. Social studies and science teachers were receptive to mainstreaming learning—disabled stu— dents and were able to accommodate students satisfactorily. Curriculum modifications made for handicapped students were often beneficial to other students in the class who were not handicapped. In the social studies classes, there was emphasis on social and life skills; affective educational objectives were incorporated into the students' individual plans as well. Counselors were another source of support. They worked with students by grade level and included special edu— cation students among those they served. Counselors were also available for referral from special education and regular classroom teachers to work with students individually. Students participated in the Mont— gomery County public schools' outdoor education program for sixth graders. This provided an opportunity for stu— dents to spend 1 week at camp, where there is a special focus on science ac— tivities although instruction in other subject areas is also included. The school had worked to include special education students in this activity. For example, the school provided the funds for a special education teacher to go to camp. The special education teacher provided support to the regular teach— ers and group instruction to regular education students as well as special education students. Because of this, the special education students were able to participate more fully and more comfortably. Pyle Junior High School. Pyle Junior High School was an academically ori— ented school. It had the distinction of having its students attain some of the highest achievement scores in the State. At Pyle there were two cross— categorical programs serving learning— disabled, emotionally disturbed, and mildly mentally retarded students. Instructional aides were used to work with mainstreamed students and ac— companied them into the regular edu— cation classes. Forrns were used to assist with communication between special education and regular education teachers, thus maintaining a constant flow of information on the students. In addition to the instructional aides, parents of nonhandicapped students served as aides and tutors and worked with the handicapped students. The basic thrust of this effort was reading. Rap groups for students were staffed by alternative program teachers in the school. This program operated in a way similar to a resource room model but served both regular and special edu— cation students and dealt with such areas as sexual identity, peer ac— ceptance, and other issues of concern to adolescents. Inservice training activities included a workshop on handicapped students' experiences and involved simulation exercises. During another workshop session, the parent of a handicapped child talked to the teachers and shared a parent's perspective. An effective strategy designed to prevent teacher burnout was referred to as the instructional—related activity hour. Each teacher had 1 preparation hour and 1 instructional—related activ- ity hour during each full day. In addi— tion, teachers received 2 half—days of released time yearly to deal with hu— man relations issues. At Pyle Junior High School the ad— ministrative staff had taken responsi— bility for mainstreaming. For example, 58 the assistant principal chaired the educational management team (EMT) meetings and served as the SICM. Inschool mental health services were provided by the counseling staff, which supported special education students and worked with the regular and special education teachers. Issues dealt with were related to sexuality, hurt feelings, unrealistic expectations, and so forth. Counselors were also involved in se— lecting teachers to be involved in mainstreaming. From the experiences at Pyle Junior High School, several factors were identified that had contributed to the success of mainstreaming. These in— cluded (a) preplanning and special training opportunities, (b) the commit— ment and support of the administration, (0) considering time as an ally, and (d) involving teachers who were leaders in their respective departments. Bethesda—Chevy Chase High School. The head of the Department of Special Education at Bethesda—Chevy Chase High School served as the SICM. Most inservice training had been provided through one—to—one consultations on individual students or through review of particular materials. Through this proc— ess. the special education program de— veloped good working relationships with regular classroom teachers. Procedures for weekly progress reports on students' performance were established. Special education teachers worked with small groups of teachers, particularly in the subject area departmental teams, and especially around lessons and materials. They had worked in regular classes, and with regular students, in addition to handicapped students. It had been im— portant to highlight the regular class— room teachers' competence in this type of arrangement. When special education began at the high school, it was a new concept and the idea of mainstreaming was even more foreign. It had taken much work with staff to develop an understanding and acceptance of both special educa— tion and mainstreaming implementa— tion. The head of the special education department reported that her job at first was mostly public relations, working to get the staff to accept her and her students. A strategy that was helpful in integrating herself, as well as the program, into the school was to get herself involved in regular school ac— tivities, such as serving as chaperone for school social functions. The prin— cipal had supported her efforts, had articulated the need for mainstreaming, and had communicated this need as an expectation to staff. The special education department conducted meetings with parent groups and teachers emphasizing such topics as students' learning to handle themselves as persons in the context of their classes. Much work was done with departments to assist teachers in de— veloping techniques that would make them feel comfortable in having handicapped students in their classes. It had been important to give teachers the ability to deal personally with handicapped students. Emphasis had been placed on improving attitudes and awareness through disability simulation activities. The special education department had held evening classes for parents of handicapped students to provide op- portunities for sharing between parents. Special education teachers held class- room groups for parents of withdrawn and acting—out students. There had been programs for parents of regular students as well; for example, main— streaming was the topic at a general Parent — Teacher — Student Association (PTSA) meeting. A key part of the program at Beth— esda—Chevy Chase High School had been the support for special education students provided by peer—tutoring and peer—counseling programs operated by the counseling staff. The peer—coun— seling program, for example, had been in operation for several years. It re— 59 sulted from a recognition that many students turned to one another with their concerns rather than to profes— sionals available in the school. In re— sponse to this, guidance coordinators developed and implemented a peer— counseling training curriculum. This training curriculum was based on the communications model of Dr. Thomas Gordon (Parent Effectiveness Training, 1975a; Teacher Effectiveness Training, 1975b). It also included specific sessions on development of decision—making skills and values clarification. In addition to the special education programs and services at the school, handicapped students had access to extensive vocational education pro— grams. These included the alternative work oriented curriculum program, in which students spent a half—day in school and a half—day at work. A staff person provided related vocational in— struction for counseling. Students were enrolled in a vocational program at one of the Vocational Mini-Centers and received support from the Vocational Services Support (VSS) team. The VSS team worked with handicapped students who were mainstreamed into State— approved vocational programs, and who needed additional assistance to succeed. Mainstreaming implementation in the six schools just described illustrated the role played by the SICM and the critical support of the building principal. The inservice training unit and the con— sulting teacher specialists for main— streaming provide the support, training, and technical assistance that aided im— plementation at the building level. With that inservice training model, as teachers' needs and concerns were ex— pressed and met, they became better able to meet the needs and concerns of students. As these six examples illus- trated, teachers' needs were met in a variety of ways—for example, through inservice training, changing school or— ganization patterns, and utilizing stu— dents as resources in mainstreaming. The key point was recognizing teachers as feeling. thinking, and caring persons who needed support to participate in mainstreaming but who had much to offer as well. Parental Involvement The inservice training unit began to address parents' needs formally by es— tablishing a Staff-Parent Committee for Cooperative In—Service Training. The committee was established to provide an opportunity for parents rep~ resenting various advocacy groups (such as the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) and the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities (ACLD)) and the Montgomery County Council of Parent—Teacher Associations to be involved in planning inservice programs for mainstreaming. Through this committee, the in— service training unit had helped to de— velop mutual support and understanding between staff and parents of different types of handicapped youngsters. Par— ents had learned through this process that it is important to get to know school personnel and not to be afraid to let them know when they had concerns and needed help. In addition. school personnel looked for creativity among parents and recognized that parents could be a helpful resource to the school; for example, parents could re— view compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Amendments. Par— ents interviewed during the site visit expressed very positive feelings about the inservice training program, for mainstreaming, its director, and staff-7 emphasizing the spirit of open communication, trust, and willingness to involve each other in identifying and solving problems. Parent groups had been involved in training other parents in areas of spe— cial education and how to work with the school system and in providing emo— tional support. This had been done by 60 emphasizing one another's strengths rather than trying to go it alone. Such groups had been important in helping parents get a realistic view of the sit— uation for themselves. Parents had been extensively involved with the school system in preparing and disseminating useful information to other parents. Information on sources, whom to call for assistance, and policies and procedures parents need to know in dealing with the school system were examples of such information. The ACLD group was involved in a project to review secondary programs for leaming—disabled students and had been very active in providing an information service that responded to questions of parents on various school matters. The Montgomery County Council of Parent—Teacher Associations had a Special Needs Committee and chair— person on its executive board. The chairperson had helped to raise the consciousness of the PTA board on is— sues related to programs for the hand—7 icapped and mainstreaming. There had been an effort to establish Special Needs Committees within each school's PTA group. Committee members had access to the PTA councils at their schools and were able to provide in— formation through resource teachers to students and to parents of both handi— capped and nonhandicapped students through PTA newsletters. Parents had been involved in presenting workshops to PTA groups and awareness activities to students—for example, when they were first mainstreamed. A specific effort had been made to coordinate, at the level of the individ— ual school building, the activities of the SICM, the School Mainstreaming Committee, and the PTA Special Needs Committee. For example, parents had been involved in inservice training programs for teachers. administrators, and volunteers. They had also partic— ipated in orientation sessions at the area inservice labs. The goal of this approach was to promote the develop— ment of a parent—based network that works in tandem with staff efforts to implement mainstreaming. Summary Mainstreaming in the Montgomery County public schools was greatly fa— cilitated and supported by the Office of Special and Alternative Education's inservice training unit. In describing the unit as a model mental health program for mainstreaming, its organizational structure and activities had been re- viewed. Further, examples of impact at the building level had been noted, and the close involvement with parents' groups and organizations had been addressed. What aspects of this program made it exemplary? To review, the outstanding aspects include 0 a humanistic approach toward teachers involved in mainstreaming O a recognition and concern for the role responsibilities of teachers and principals O a practical, organizational frame— work that allowed the program to function in synchrony with ongoing operations of the schools' programs 0 the comprehensiveness of cover— age, with implementation in ap— proximately 70 percent of the schools in a large suburban district 0 a comprehensive and in—depth support system that included sup— port personnel, extensive materials and related resources; and their ready availability 0 the extremely positive evaluations given to the training and related activities conducted by the in— service training unit 0 extensive collaboration with ad— ministrators, teachers, and parents in planning, developing, and im— plementing programs 0 an optimism reflected in the belief that all school personnel, parents, and students were potential re— sources for effective mainstream— ing implementation. This program had a high potential for replicability. Even though it was a program in a large suburban school district, it could be applied to any size school system. The key ingredients were (a) a coordinating unit, (b) area teacher specialists, (0) school inservice coordinators and committees, and (d) supportive school principals. lnservice education, with particular focus on the mental health concerns and needs of the teacher, could be implemented successfully given these four ingre— dients. Such inservice education must reflect respect for the classroom teacher's concerns, feelings, needs, and abilities and an optimistic attitude that people can work together and, in doing so, can be successful. Mainstreaming in Miami: Dade County Style Mental health is a feeling, an attitude, and it's in this division. Dr. Wylamerle G. Marshall, Executive Director, Introduction The Dade County, Florida, public Exceptional Students' Program school system provided a variety of special education programming to its handicapped student population. with specific emphasis on mainstreaming. The school system had been involved in special education programs since the 19405 and was serving handicapped students 3 to 21 years of age. The Dade County system is one of the most di— verse school systems in the country. It includes a variety of geographical areas, cultural groups, and socioeco— nomic areas within its boundaries. More than 50 different languages, for ex— ample, had been identified. The school system was also one of the largest. It is about 62 miles long, from the southern end to the northern end, and had more than 260 schools and a student popula— tion close to a quarter million. It served a handicapped student population in excess of 23,000 students. The total annual operating budget for special education programs was $44 million; $2.7 million represents Federal funds available through P.L. 94—142. Handicapped students were served by special education staff numbering 1,500 in a school system divided into 4 geo— graphic areas for administrative pur— poses. A director coordinated educa— tional program activity in each of the four geographical areas. Within each area there were eight placement spe— cialists heading a multidisciplinary staffing team. The school system had access to support services such as speech therapists, clinical social work— ers, itinerant personnel for sensory handicapped students, and visiting (school social worker) teachers. There were also consulting teachers who maintain liaison between regular classroom and special education classroom teachers. One of the key program strategies for mainstreaming was through the model of resource room program con— sulting teachers. There were currently 595 resource classroom programs. The majority were for learning—disabled students, but approximately 15 percent were considered cross—categorical programs. 62 Legislation, Funding, and Coordination With the Mental Health System A number of activities had been un— dertaken to facilitate mainstreaming implementation, which were occurring in Dade County prior to the passage of P.L. 94—142. When special education programs were initially developed in the Dade County school system, an em- phasis was made to place exceptional students' education programs in regular school buildings. Every school had at least one class for exceptional chil— drens' programs. Legislation at State and Federal levels set the framework for implementing a mainstreaming ap— proach for handicapped students. The school district's policies supported this approach as well. One of the latest legislative initiatives related to main- streaming was the passage of Senate Bill 687. With this legislation, the State established its intent to ensure that Florida elementary and secondary classroom teachers are capable of identifying, assessing, and prescribing instructions for all exceptional children. Florida maintains a double basic funding formula for handicapped stu— dents placed in the mainstream. Under this plan. students identified as full— time exceptional students who spend all or part of their day in regular educa— tional settings generate funds for both regular education and special educa— tion. This funding provision has helped to make mainstreaming implementation easy to finance, since it does not pe— nalize special education for "giving a student up," nor does it place a demand on regular education without also pro— viding some resources to help meet the needs of mainstreamed students. The funding provision is congruent with the legislative intent to implement main— streaming programs. In addition to legislative and funding provisions, the school district had en— tered into a series of cooperative agreements for providing mental health services under P.L. 94-142 with the mental health and human resource systems. For example, the mental health system has a purchase of serv— ices agreement with the school sys— tem. There was also an interagency council comprised of school personnel, mental health agency personnel, and personnel from other community pro— grams to coordinate the delivery of services, identify gaps in services, and provide new programs where needed. One recently completed council study investigated the need for a residential, clinical program for emotionally hand— icapped students. A joint budget session was held with all mental health related agencies serving school age children. This review of key budget submission documents of other agencies and pro— grams, while they were still in the proposal stage, facilitates coordination. Many school personnel served on the mental health board or committees, and many of the staff personnel involved in mental health programs served on school boards and committees. These crossover appointments had helped co— ordinate school system and mental health program activities and efforts. Public school personnel regularly at— tended biweekly mental health asso— ciation meetings to maintain currency with the activities and programs of the mental health association. Another aspect of mental health and education coordination were coventure agreements to provide programs jointly for children for whom no programs were available. These agreements in— volved both agencies in cost sharing and program administration. The executive director of programs for exceptional children expressed the feeling that the school system had established a good relationship with the mental health system, to the extent that they were able to agree to disagree about dif— f erent programs' aspects and directions. 63 Support Activities for Mainstreaming The Division of Exceptional Student Education viewed P.L. 94-142 as fa— cilitating what the school system should be doing and has been doing. The only new practices due to P.L. 94—142 had been the specific due process proce— dures. Many aspects of the Dade County school system's programs il— lustrated the comprehensive approach to providing support services to f acil— itate mainstreaming. The Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System—South (FDLRS-S) was a special education support system for special educators and other profes— sionals who worked with exceptional children. Operating through the Dade County Exceptional Student Education Program, FDLRS—S served Dade and Monroe counties. It was one of 18 Florida centers coordinated through the Exceptional Student Program of the Florida State Department of Education. Services provided by FDLRS—S to the Dade County public schools were nu— merous, and those that directly support mainstreaming programs include (a) inservice training, (b) an instructional materials center, and (0) special projects. Inservice training related to main— streaming was provided through work— shops and conferences. A 16—hour workshop series on mainstreaming—— designed for all school personnel, from superintendents to bus drivers— included both cognitive and affective components. The workshop used struc— tured simulation exercises, program observations by regular and special education teachers, and practical experiences with handicapped indi— viduals. The workshop series stressed experiential activities that helped par— ticipants examine their own feelings toward the handicapped, become famil— iar with some major handicapping con— ditions, acquaint themselves with the problems many handicapped students faced daily in the classroom, and im— proved their teaching styles and tech-- niques for serving handicapped stu— dents. Participants had worked in teams consisting of both the regular and ex— ceptional student education teachers. The series, which had been adapted for bilingual populations, had been con— ducted for more than 6,000 teachers and related school personnel and with 45 schools in the Dade County system. Participant evaluations had been 96 percent positive. Other workshop series had included "Stress Management for Teachers" and "Legal. Liabilities for Educators." A mainstreaming workshop for administrators was designed to address knowledges and attitudes toward the handicapped and main— streaming. Entitled "Management and Mainstreaming: A Model for Staff De— velopment," it had been conducted for about one—third of the school system's principals. Needs assessments were conducted through surveys included in the FDLRS—S newsletter disseminated monthly throughout the school year. Through the surveys, FDLRS—S staff had been able to monitor the impact of their workshops on mainstreaming over time. A recent needs assessment survey indicated mainstreaming was a stress factor for less than 2 percent of the teachers responding to the survey, in— dicating significant improvement since the mainstreaming workshops were initiated. The FDLRS-S instructional materials center included diagnostic materials, teacher training and professional ma— terials, and child—use instructional me— dia and materials. These were available for preview and load on a short—term basis. Special projects sponsored by FDLRS—S had included the Ounce Project, training school faculties in the use of behavior management tech— niques; Project FASTT, a program pro— moting home—school cooperation for 64 teachers and parents of trainable men—- tally retarded students; and Project SAGE, a program of training for special and general education administrators. Specific activities the school sys— tem had supported, either directly or through FDLRS—S, include the following: 0 A materials van, called the Ed— U—Van, a rolling library circulating materials throughout the school district, was purchased and put into service. The van traveled within Dade and Monroe counties, from North Miami Beach extending south to the Florida Keys, and was a special project of FDLRS—S. 0 The school system had sponsored special conferences for parents on implementation of P.L. 94—142. 0 A workshop for teachers on main— streaming was held using the local educational television station and university personnel from local colleges. Special educators staffed telephones to receive calls and answer questions. Teachers and other school personnel were able to receive credit for their partici— pation in this mainstreaming te1~ evision workshop. 0 Another use of the mass media involved the development of a series of audiocassette tapes on implementation of P.L. 94—142, prepared especially for the Dade County Bar Association. This series was used on a number of radio broadcasts in the school district. 0 One area of inservice training focused on discriminatory testing, enhancing psychologists' skills in testing and evaluating special needs students. As a result of this training, psychologists had been more effective in relieving par— ents' anxieties and concerns re— lated to possible misdiagnosis of children. The inservice training program had provided opportunities for teachers to visit programs within the Dade County public school system and to attend professional conferences. The FDLRS—S budget included provisions to pay substi— tute teachers when these types of inservice alternatives were utilized. The Teacher Education Center (TEC) in Dade County worked closely with FDLRS in facilitating inservice training programs within each of the four administrative areas and at individual schools. The purpose of THC was to meet the needs of teachers as they or administrators see them or as designated by State legislature—- mandated programs (i.e., Senate Bill 687) or local school board policy. The center granted credit toward recertification for course— work. TEC had conducted a study on needs in the county regarding mainstreaming, looking at both training content and methods of delivery, and had developed plans to prepare individual modules for use on television that was to ad—r dress mainstreaming for regular classroom teachers. TEC had pro— vided money for substitute teach— ers so that regular classroom teachers could attend workshops on mainstreaming. The superintendent had established an advisory committee for excep— tional student education programs. The advisory committee included representation from community agencies as well as school personnel. A number of FDLRS—S inservice training activities had involved 65 simulation and role playing. For example, a staffing meeting for a handicapped child might have psychologists and placement spe~ cialists playing the role of parents, enabling them to experience the parents' point of view. The staff learn the importance of using a different level of language in ex— plaining the staffing meeting and the placement process (rather than educational and psychological jargon). An organization for learning—- disabled students (BOLD, Inc.) presented an award for the student of the year, recognizing the special achievements of a learning— disabled student participating in the regular education program. The school system had developed plans to implement a hotline phone—in procedure for parents and special and regular education teachers who had questions, con, cerns, or needs related to main— streaming implementation. A human relations team, originally established to facilitate the im— plementation of mandatory de— segregation, had become involved in mainstreaming implementation and gifted education programs. Members of the team would be placed within a school for a long period of time (perhaps a year) or might be called in on a short—term basis to provide consultation and technical assistance. The inservice training staff had utilized such affective educational programs as "Kids Come in Special Flavors" and "The Kids on the Block" (see appendix B). Inservice training programs, as well as new program initiatives in special education, had involved parents at the early inception of an idea to increase their involvement and support. The introduction of a new curriculum on sex education, for example, was closely coordi— nated with parents of handicapped students. 0 lnservice training programs had been offered to paraprofessionals and volunteers, including bus driv— ers, cafeteria managers and em— ployees, and foster grandparents. 0 Another strategy had been to rec— ognize teachers and administrators involved in successful main— streaming efforts and activities. For example, the local Council for Exceptional Children presented an annual award to the teacher of the year and the administrator of the year for special involvement in mainstreaming implementation. Another award was given for rookie teacher of the year. The variety of activities that had been and were being implemented in the Dade County public schools indi— cated a high degree of acceptance of mainstreaming in the school district. This can be attributed, in part, to the original practice that included partial integration of handicapped students into regular schools. Many people see mainstreaming as nothing new, simply a new name for a long established prac— tice in the Dade County public schools. Further, there was a funding incentive for mainstreaming since double basic funding was brought into play when handicapped students were served in both special education and regular ed— ucation settings. Mainstream Programs in the Schools In specific program descriptions that follow. we looked at the implementa— tion of mainstreaming activities in se- 66 lected schools, including elementary schools, junior high schools, and a vo— cational-technical education program at the senior high school level. These programs were selected by the Division for Exceptional Student Education and the FDLRS-S staff. They were selected because they represent "best practices" of mainstream implementation in the Dade County public schools. The pro— grams represent schools that had his— torically housed exceptional student education centers as well as schools that contained a minimum number of exceptional student education units. One of the programs was a specific illustration of a coventure agreement between the mental health and educa— tion systems. The programs at the vo— cational—technical institute illustrated an area of education that appears to meet many of the critical needs of handicapped students who are going to be involved in mainstream society. Kinloch Park Junior High School. Kinloch Park Junior High School was located in a middle— to lower—middle— class neighborhood with a large per- centage of Hispanic people. It was a stable neighborhood setting. All of the special education students, served by four special education teachers, were mainstreamed into art, home econom— ics, and physical education, and as well as into selected academic classes, as part of their regular schoolday. The handicapped students served at Kinloch included educable mentally retarded, leaming—disabled, and emotionally dis— turbed students. In the past, the school had worked with visually impaired students in the mainstream. At least 90 percent of the faculty of 75 teachers had been in— volved in mainstreaming to some de— gree; that is, they had had at least one handicapped student mainstreamed into one of their classes. Mainstreaming implementation start— ed 2 years ago at Kinloch. Strategies that had been used to facilitate main-— streaming had included working with regular classroom teachers through in— dividual conferences (often informally to deal with questions such as grading and coordination of curriculum objec— tives), team teaching in content areas, and assigning regular homeroom classes to special education teachers. This lat- ter action had facilitated handicapped students' participation in school club activities and student organizations. Teachers modified their instructional strategies to accommodate handicapped students, such as allowing students to use different output modes for class presentations. Curriculum adjustments had been made in the development of multilevel programs in English and math. these being available at each grade level. Students were assigned to these levels based on their instructional reading level. Academic progress rec— ords indicated that handicapped stu— dents in regular classrooms were doing as well as their nonhandicapped peers. Guidance counselors in the school chaired the child study team meetings and conducted parent groups. Their role was recognized as a critical factor in the success of mainstreaming imple— mentation at Kinloch. There was a special emphasis placed on developing human relation skills in special educa-- tion classrooms. Project Pride was a special guidance program for junior high students. At Kinloch, it was re— ferred to as "Rap Shack." Guidance counselors conducted this program, which met once weekly and was inte— grated with handicapped and nonhand— icapped students. The Pride Program provided an opportunity for students to deal with issues related to conflict res— olution. Integration of handicapped students was an issue that was some— times dealt with directly in the program. Another program that helped main— streaming implementation was the hu— man growth and development program, a systemwide curriculum program in Dade County. This program consists of 67 instruction to develop understanding of the physical, mental, emotional, social, psychological phases of human re— lations and emphasizes emotional and social growth and development. The eighth grade curriculum, for example, included units on emotional needs: de— veloping self—confidence and person- ality. emotions and coping mechanisms, problem solving and decision making, and value systems. Byscayne Gardens Elementary School. With a population of 725 stu- dents, this school served as an excep— tional student education center. In ad— dition to having classroom programs and services for children with high in— cidence handicapping conditions (such as the learning disabled, educable mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed), it also housed special pro— grams for lower incidence population groups, such as the visually impaired, hearing impaired, physically handi— capped, autistic, and more severely handicapped students. The school served about 180 exceptional students and had 18 exceptional student educa— tion units and 20 regular education teachers. Other staff included an art teacher, a music teacher, a physical education teacher, an adaptive phys— ical education teacher, two speech therapists, a full—time counselor, 3 bilingual teachers, a librarian, 15 aides, itinerant hearing and vision teachers, 3 half—time occupational therapists, and 4 half—time physical therapists. The degree of mainstreaming was extensive. The school was located in a multi—cultural area, and community acceptance of mainstreaming had been very good. This can be attributed in part to the long history of the program at Biscayne Gardens Elementary School, since special education pro— grams had been located there for a number of years. The school had two assistant prin— cipals, one of whom was an assistant principal for the regular education program; the other was the assistant principal for the exceptional student program. These two administrators de— cided to facilitate mainstreaming by sharing role responsibilities. One of the assistant principals had assumed re— sponsibility for regular education pro— grams in grades K through 3, and for the autistic, physical impairment, com— munication disorders, primary learning disabilities, visually impaired, speech, and adaptive physical education pro—- grams. The other assistant principal had assumed responsibility for the regular education programs in grades 4 through 6 and the special education programs for mental retardation, intermediate learning disabilities, communication disorders, occupational and physical therapy, speech. and adaptive physical education. This administrative role sharing and cooperation were keys to the success of the program. The school used the peer acceptance program "Kids Come in Special Flavors" for presentations in classrooms related to various disabilities. Some of the handicapped students in the school participated in implementing the program. In conjunction with inservice train— ing activities, the school sponsored a turnaround day in which regular education teachers and special educa— tion teachers, as well as some stu— dents, switched roles. This proved to be a very successful activity, receiving very high evaluations from the faculty members. Consultations between regular education and special education teachers occurred frequently and regularly. Special education teachers maintained consultation logs that provided structure for communication and reporting. The special education aides facili— tated mainstreaming by working in regular classrooms not only with the handicapped students but also with nonhandicapped students. The class— 68 room aides provided some feeling of security for the mainstreamed children, and also let the regular classroom teachers know that help with any children in class was available. The aides' time was gradually increased as mainstreaming succeeded and the handicapped students' time in the classrooms increased. Biscayne Gardens Elementary School used the Human Growth and Develop— ment curriculum. This curriculum pro— vided an opportunity for students to focus on understanding self and others. The school was also involved in the Primary Education Program (PREP), a curriculum for grades K through 3, with three levels of student functioning. One of the three levels was designed for exceptional children. This State—leg— islated program mandates continuous monitoring of pupil progress during the early school years. The program was designed to identify children with learning needs and ensure that they were adequately addressed. A special aspect of the PREP program, imple— mented in the Dade County public schools, addressed identification, re— ferral, and mainstreaming procedures for exceptional students. An extensive volunteer program for tutors and aides used university stu— dents and interns as well as community volunteers and parents. There was a special program for volunteers who served as "listeners" and worked indi— vidually with children. This was similar to the Primary Mental Health Project begun in Rochester, New York. Another volunteer program utilized Eastern Air— lines personnel and established a Boy Scout troop for special education stu— dents. The volunteer program was awarded the Golden School House Award, signifying exemplary, extensive volunteer participation in the school. There was extensive use of the peer tutor and buddy system concepts, in which regular students worked with special education students. Other curricular aspects that facil— itated mainstreaming were the indi— vidualized programming in math and reading and volunteer programs. The school received support for its main—- streaming inservice training activities through the Teacher Education Center, which provided release time for teach— ers to participate in inservice training programs. The teachers' union, Ameri— can Federation of Teachers, provided materials on handicapped children to its members and conducted a program called QUEST, Quality Educational Standards in Teaching. which included conferences and discussions on educa— tional issues, including mainstreaming. The counselor at Biscayne Gardens Elementary School played a key role in mainstreaming implementation as well. At the beginning of the school year, for example, she showed filmstrips in regu— lar classes and in handicapped classes before integration. She made available books that teachers read to students to help develop understanding and accept— ance of children with handicaps. She also held group meetings to discuss teacher concerns about mainstreaming. The counselor worked with five handi— capped children on a regular basis in a group education program. She conduct— ed groups for parents of handicapped students and led a group of children of divorced and separated parents that was composed of three learning— disabled students and three regular students. Biscayne Gardens Elementary School demonstrated a number of successful strategies addressing the mental health concerns and needs of students, educa— tors, and parents. The school used a number of affectively oriented pro— grams and activities to help both handi— capped and nonhandicapped students understand. and feel comfortable with, one another. The "Kids Come In Special Flavors" program, peer tutoring, and counseling groups are examples of such efforts. Emphasis was placed on under— standing and communication between regular and special education adminis— 69 trators and teachers. Developing role perspectives through role reversal exercises and role sharing proved very helpful for the staff. The involvement of parents as volunteers, classroom aides, and the like helped to develop a strong base of community support for the school's program of integration of its exceptional student population. Fur— ther, special services, such as the coun— seling support group, were available to parents as well. The Stars and Tops Programs. Coventure agreements between the Dade County Mental Health Board and the Dade County public school system resulted in the development of cooper— ative programs serving the needs of emotionally handicapped students. Two such programs included STARS (Special Teenage Resource Systems) and TOPS (Teaching Outreach Prevention School). The STARS program was conducted as a cooperative program betwen the Dade County public schools and the Bertha Abess Children's Center, a pri- vate nonprofit day treatment program serving severely emotionally disturbed children. The STARS program had classroom programs in three junior high schools and one senior high school. Stu— dents used various resources within the host schools. As youngsters improved, they were mainstreamed into the aca— demic classrooms. The school system provided the students with transporta— tion, the instructional component, and the facility. The mental health center provided consultant diagnostic services, remediation, and community liaison. The clinical social worker and the con— sulting teacher worked directly with parents. (This program was not visited during the site visit.) The TOPS program served elemen— tary age emotionally handicapped chil— dren in a regular elementary school located in a middle—class, suburban area in the south area of the Dade County school system. The program had two classrooms at the project school: one a diagnostic classroom and the other an engineered classroom. The program used regular teachers in music, art. and physical education from the host school. Individualized instructional objectives were correlated with the Dade County basic curriculum program, and thus facilitated the instructional integration of the students into the regular program. When students pro— gressed to the point where they were ready to return to the regular education program, a specific transition process was followed: the receiving teacher visited the TOPS program; the area placement specialist helped identify appropriate classroom situations for returning students; up to 15 followup sessions and therapy were made avail— able; and information on acedemic work materials was exchanged. The project identified a key contact or liaison per— son at the receving school who would take personal interest in the student. The staff psychologist and the class— room teacher provided consultation and technical assistance. Therapy services were available to students and their families on a group or individual basis through a contractual arrangement with Community Mental Health of South Dade. The mental health thera» pists joined the project school staff in weekly meetings to deter— mine mental health needs and to develop effective strategies for meeting them through individual or group counseling and educational intervention. The program worked cooperatively with the community mental health cen-- ter to help provide parent education and support groups. There were three cycles of the parent education and sup— port group during school year 1980—81. The parent group met once per week for 6 weeks, and the participation level was 80 percent. Parents served as members of an advisory board to the project as well. There was followup provided to parents through therapy 70 sessions and counseling to help them deal with the anxiety and concern they generally had about movement of their children from the program back to regular school. The TOPS program received referrals from 43 schools in the Dade County area. There were four cluster schools in this area serving emotionally handi~ capped students, and the TOPS program provided therapy to these schools through the mental health center as well as services of educational and mental health consultation. The pro— gram had been successful in meeting the needs of emotionally disturbed chil— dren and their families through an ef-- fective combination of educational and mental health intervention strategies. Programs such as STARS and TOPS were designed to meet the needs of a group of handicapped students for whom mainstreaming is a real chal— lenge. With emotionally disturbed youngsters. the acceptability of the handicapping condition is low, the con- dition is "invisible," and the students' behavior may be particularly disturbing to the school environment. Further, the dynamics of the family and feelings of the parents may be quite volatile. For these and other reasons, successfully mainstreaming emotionally handicapped students can be difficult. Generally, it requires having an array of backup and support services as well as a continuum of program options that allow students to move from more restrictive to less restrictive settings as they are able to do so, given necessary support services. The TOPS program provided such sup— port and a continuum of services. The collaboration with the mental health system made available supportive serv— ices for the student, his or her teach— ers, and parents and helped to establish and maintain communication through— out the therapeutic process. Robert Morgan Vocational—Technical Institute. One of Dade County's suc— cessful mainstreaming programs at the secondary level was located at Robert Morgan Vocational—Technical Institute. During school year 1980—81, 123 handi— capped students were enrolled in voca—- tional programs ranging from air con— ditioning and refrigeration to welding and auto mechanics to printing. These students were enrolled in 22 vocational programs offered for 11th and 12th grade students. Another 64 students were served in a special Individualized Manpower Train— ing System (IMTS) laboratory program for 10th grade students. The IMTS pro— gram incorporated evaluation and in— struction in basic reading, language, and math skills; training in employ— ability skills; improvement in personal life skills; exposure to all the Robert Morgan Vocational-Technical Institute program areas; and assessment of each student's potential to work. The staff at Robert Morgan included a teacher coordinator, a special educa— tion teacher who directed the IMTS laboratory, a teacher for hearing— impaired students, a vocational coun— selor, seven teacher assistants and aides, and a secretary. The teacher for hearing—impaired students assessed academic needs and supported students in the vocational classes. This person served as a liaison with vocational teachers, staff members. and parents ——both as an interpreter and a teacher. The vocational counselor directed indi— vidual and small group activities in— volving employability skills, life skills, and choice of vocational goals. Teacher assistants and aides supported the ex— ceptional staff, the vocational staff, and students, providing encouragement in helping both mainstreamed and IMTS students with basic education and voca— tional skills. For the 123 students mainstreamed into regular vocational programs, flexi— bility in both course selection and pro— gram was essential. An inservice train— ing program was held the summer be— fore starting the program. The adminis— 467—500 0 — 85 - 6 : QL 3 71 trative support for the program and the good working relationships between the exceptional student staff and voca— tional instructors were keys to the suc— cess of the program. The level and quality of support services were very important as well. The competency— based individualized instruction pro— gram helped to facilitate inclusion in the regular vocational classes. The guidance counselor involved with the program provided coordination between the vocational—technical institute, the student's home school. and the stu— dent's parents. Students were placed into a vocational program initially for a 1—week trial. This allowed for adjust— ments to be made where needed. Ex- pectations for student performance in the program were similar to those for the nonhandicapped students. For ex— ample, 80 percent of the handicapped students enrolled in vocational pro— grams received regular grading proce— dures. The program had a number of specific successes, which served to in— crease its visibility and invited adminis— trative support. For example, one of the hearing—impaired students received a second place award in a competition sponsored by the Vocational Industrial Clubs of America. Vocational education programs are important in education for the handi— capped. The approach taken by the Robert Morgan Vocational-Technical Institute reflected concern for the career maturity needs and self—concept development of its handicapped student population. Specifically, prevocational training and exploratory activities for students and inservice training for teachers aided the program's success. Administrative commitment and sup— port and involvement of the parents and the home schools in vocational planning and preparation for the students were also key program features. Winston Park Elementary School. Winston Park Elementary School had four exceptional student education units, including one teacher for learning disabilities, two teachers for varying exceptionalities, and one teacher for educable mentally retarded students. The programs utilized a resource room approach to mainstreaming. The admin— istration at Winston Park located the resource classrooms in close physical proximity to the regular education classrooms into which the special edu— cation students were mainstreamed. This facilitated informal communi— cation between the special education and the regular education teachers. Approximately 30 of the 37 regular teachers have been involved in main- streaming implementation. The success of the mainstreaming program can be attributed to a combination of factors: inservice programs conducted by the FDLRS—S staff, planned meetings be— tween regular classroom and special education teachers, and the opportunity for regular and special education teachers to observe and visit each other's programs. As there was much movement be— tween the regular classrooms and the resource programs, teachers developed a communication and monitoring proce— dure called the "Passport System." Stu— dents carried checklists with them from one classroom to the next, which were completed by the regular and special education teachers. The "passport documents" had areas for teacher comments on social and academic be— havior of the students, so that teachers would know if and when problems were arising. This improved communication between teachers and motivation of students. McMillan Junior High School. This junior high school had a staff of 5 spe— cial education teachers and 2 aides, a faculty of approximately 60 teachers, and 4 guidance counselors to help meet the needs of the learning—disabled, emo— tionally handicapped, educable mentally retarded, physically handicapped, vi— sion—impaired, and hearing—impaired 72 students. A school psychologist was available 2 days a week for counseling. Implementation of mainstreaming at McMillan reflected a high degree of in— volvement among the guidance counsel— ors, who worked in close cooperation with the special education teachers and regular education faculty members. The counseling staff, for example, played a key role in facilitating the preparation and entry of a class of physically handi— capped students from a school with an exceptional student education center to McMillan Junior High School. This tran— sition demonstrated the important mental health support that guidance counselors can give handicapped stu— dents in mainstreaming. It provided a textbook illustration of how attention to the special concerns of teachers, students, and parents is necessary to make mainstreaming successful. A number of specific preparatory steps were undertaken to facilitate the integration of this class into the school. Specific steps included the following: 1. The physically handicapped stu— dents were invited to McMillan Junior High School for a visit and orientation. They had lunch at the school; met teachers, counselors, and principals; toured the build- ing; and went into various classes. 2. The school administration con-- ducted a minicourse for seventh and eighth grade students council members on relationships with people and specifically stressed how to relate to physically handi— capped students. A nonhandi— capped student introduced the program and explained different types of physical impairments and disabilities. 3. The third step involved an orien-— tation and introduction to the faculty, in which one of the stu— dent council members partici— pated. and the counseling staff used the filmstrip program "Walk in Another Pair of Shoes." 4. The parents of the physically im— paired students visited and toured the school, and discussed their concerns related to transporta— tion, movement in the school building, and other uncertainties. 5. The counseling staff and the faculty developed a philosophy that emphasized the need for the physically handicapped students to circulate among the student body and assume responsibility for themselves, doing as much as they could on their own. 6. A sixth step in this process was a 1—day workshop for all teachers having physically handicapped students enrolled in their classes. Approximately 20 teachers were involved in this workshop. and substitute teachers were provided to cover their classes. The pres— entation included medical person— nel, physical therapists, occupa-- tional therapists, special educa— tion teachers, and physically handicapped students. The well—planned preparation steps for inclusion of the physically handi— capped class were very successful. Since the program had been located at McMillan. physically handicapped stu— dents had been mainstreamed into the regular education programs. Floating mainstreaming aides were available to assist in regular classes at all grade levels. For example, in sci— ence and social studies, some students needed to work with modified equip— ment and materials. The regular teach— ers thus knew they would get support. Regular teachers provided evaluations of students' progress every 2 weeks. There were also student-teacher— parent conferences. 73 The physically handicapped students involved in the program were pleased about their participation. The students believed that the regular program was harder, however, they felt they were learning more and felt good about it. Special education teachers reported that the students seemed to feel older, more mature, and more sophisticated and had developed satisfactory peer re— lationships with regular education stu— dents. Other aspects of the program in— cluded a focus on transition as students moved from full— to part—time special education placement and as they moved from the junior high school to the sen— ior high school. The counseling program had been de— signed so that counselors had the same students from the seventh through the ninth grades. This had helped to estab— lish a contact person for parents, and allowed the counselor time to get to know the students well during their years at McMillan Junior High School. Types of preparation programs sim— ilar to those illustrated here for physically handicapped students had been carried out for other handicapped students. The counseling staff at Mc— Millan Junior High School had played an instrumental role in facilitating main— streaming implementation. The exten— sive preparation program and continu— ing support and monitoring have helped to ensure that the mental health needs of parents, students, and teachers were addressed. Summary: Factors Related to Success As evidenced by the implementation of mainstreaming in the selected schools reviewed, and the large number of activities conducted on a systemwide basis, the Dade County public schools had exemplary mainstreaming programs and practices. Systems as large and diverse as Dade County are often per— ceived or falsely understood to be so chaotic and unmanageable that such excellent programs could not occur. This is far from true in the present ex— ample and is illustrated as well by other major cities' programs highlighted in appendix A. Several factors stand out as prime contributors to the Dade County school system's success in effectively meeting the mental health needs of parents, teachers, and students involved in mainstreaming. Some of these factors are external to the system; others are internal. External factors included State policies, laws, and funding guidelines that facilitate or encourage main- streaming. Mandatory special education legislation, legal requirements related to teacher preparation and competen— cies for serving handicapped children, and double basic funding for main— streamed handicapped children were specific positive influences. Further, State policy regarding interagency agreements and cooperation helped facilitate local cooperation and coor— dination. All these factors, though ex— ternal to the local school situation. provided parents, administrators, and staff with a positive framework and structure for their work. This was posi— tive mental health in that it reinforced participants' beliefs, perceived roles, and shared goals and objectives. Internal factors related to more im— mediate, local resources and strategies. The Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System—South had been an unquestionably valuable resource for mainstreaming implementation. The materials, resources, and staff training capabilities of FDLRS—S were inesti— mable. It was not just the fact that training resources were available; how they were deployed and used was most important. In providing inservice train— ing, concerted efforts had been made to deal with total school training, involv— ing administrators, special education teachers, and regular classroom teach— ers together. There had also been an emphasis on experiential activities so 74 that administrators, teachers, and other school personnel would deal with per- sonal needs and concerns related to mainstreaming, not some vague concept or philosophy or a purely legalistic per— spective. Through these types of ses— sions, conducted over a period of time with fellow colleagues, real attitude change takes place; understanding in—- creases, and people start working together. Another key factor was the coopera— tion and coordination with other service agencies, especially mental health agencies. Through these agreements, more resources and services had been made available and there was better coordination of services. Mainstreaming required additional resources and better coordination of services and resources. Coventure agreements, such as those Dade County had in place, helped to achieve this. Knowing that additional resources were available and having confidence in their being there when needed were key stress—reducing fac— tors for parents, teachers, and students. Dade County schools' history of plac- ing exceptional student education pro— grams in regular school buildings had made mainstreaming easier to imple— ment. The Biscayne Gardens Elemen— tary School illustrated this very well. It should be noted, though, that in schools that did not have such units before mainstreaming implementation, prog— ress had been very good. The Mac- Millan Junior High School program for physically handicapped students and the new Robert Morgan Vocational— Technical Institute's mainstreaming program attest to this. The leadership of the exceptional student education administration and staff of consultants, the support of teacher and parent groups, and the commitment and active support of school building principals, counselors, and other school personnel were key factors as well. It was the combination of all these elements that has helped to make the programs successful. A comment that is often stated by FDLRS-AS staff members illustrates well the tremendous degree of confidence they have in their work: "If we can do it here, you can do it anywhere." The Yale Child Study Center Project in New Haven: School Power The application of social and behavioral science principles to every aspect of the school program will improve the climate of relation— ships among all involved and will facilitate significant academic and social growth of students. Introduction In 1968, conditions in two New Haven. Connecticut inner—city schools were typical of schools serving low— income minority children. Achievement levels (2 to 3 grades below national norms) were the lowest of all New Haven public schools. Serious behavior problems occurred regularly, and stu— dent absenteeism was high. The climate of schools was characterized by frus— tration or apathy, mistrust, and hope— lessness. Conflict, rather than coop- eration, was typical of relationships among adminstration, teachers, stu— dents, and parents. Turnover among school staff was high. These conditions stimulated the development of an in— tervention project undertaken by the New Haven public schools and the Yale Child Study Center, and directed by Dr. James P. Comer. The project's main intervention foci were on school oper— ations, human relationships, and the interaction of school climate and hu— man behavior. The project, which predated P.L. 94—142, was not a mainstreaming proj— ect per se. However, its broad focus on improving all interpersonal relation—- ships in the schools had included de— velopments that have allowed for suc— cessful mainstreaming. Through a par— ticipatory form of school governance, administrators, teachers, and parents 75 Dr. James P. Comer gained experience in collaboratively planning, implementing, and evaluating educational change. As school condi— tions improved, teachers were able to improve their own instructional com— petence and accommodate a wider range of individual student differences in regular classes. Teachers began to favor indirect or consultative special services over pullout services for chi1~ dren with special needs. Parents be— came increasingly involved in special education ref erral, placement, and pro— gram development. More recently, the project had developed special main— streaming activities that had further integrated regular and special educa— tion services and trained teachers to use special curriculum materials and methods for children with learning problems. This program description is organized as follows: The first section presents the history of the project. The second section describes the intervention proc— ess in terms of its major components. The third section describes the project's approach to mainstreaming implementation and the impact of the project on children with special needs. Next, results of project evaluations and benefits reported by participants are presented. The final section presents a summary of the factors seen as contributing to the project's success. Project History and Site Description In September 1968, the Yale Child Study Center team and the New Haven public schools began a 5- year interven— tion project in Baldwin Elementary School and Martin Luther King, J r., Elementary School, funded by the Ford Foundation and Title 1. Baldwin served approximately 320 students in grades K through 6, with 13 regular and 2 special education teachers. King served ap—» proximately 270 students in grades K through 4, with 9 regular teachers and 1 special teacher. Approximately 98 percent of the project schools' student body were black. Family incomes were classified as low middle and low; over 50 percent of the students' families received Aid for Dependent Children funds. Dr. Comer details the project's tu— multous early years in his book, School Power (1980). his account of the theo—- ries, evolution, and outcomes of the intervention project. Change did not come easily or quickly. Early interven— tion efforts focused on developing trust among the Yale Child Study Center Mental Health Team, school staff, parents, and students. Intervention evolved to meet problems and needs as they were identified. The first critical need was to bring order to the schools and reduce student behavior problems. As a climate of stability and trust was achieved, the energies of project participants could be shifted to im— proving children's achievement levels. Progress was uneven for several years for different reasons. The Yale Child Study Center team ended its in— volvement at Baldwin after the original 5—year funding. Despite lack of funding, staff and parents at King School were unwilling to give up the program. The project continued at King with reduced funding provided by the Yale Child Study Center for 2 years. Then in 1975, funding from the NIMH supported con- 76 tinuation of the basic project at King, with a new emphasis on the systematic development and implementation of a "Social Skills Curriculum for Inner—City Children." Project replication began in 1976—77 in Brennan—Rogers Elementary School, a newly consolidated school serving primarily two housing project areas. At that time, Brennan Elementary School and Rogers Elementary School were being consolidated into an elementary school serving children in grades K through 6 with 17 regular and 3 special education teachers. The King school staff and the Yale Child Study Center team facilitated the consolidation process as they served as resources for replicating the project at Brennan— Rogers. The majority of ' students were black and from low—income families in neighborhoods that were highly tran— sient. School conditions were similar to those at King and Baldwin at the begin— ning of the project. More recent expansion efforts have involved consultative assistance to ad— ministrators, staff, and parents at Jackie Robinson Middle School (5th through 8th grades). For the 1980—81 school year, funds were not adequate to allow full program implementation at Jackie Robinson. Planned expansion for the 1981—82 school year, pending funding, will involve three more New Haven public schools and increased ef— forts at Jackie Robinson. Further, a training program for New Haven school principals is being planned to dissemi- nate project development and school governance principles. Program Description: A Process Model "No particular model, technology, method or person is as important to improved student behavior and learning as a process that places highest priority on flexibility, ac— countability, shared expertise, open communication, trust, and respect" (Comer, 1980, pp. 234— 235). The Yale Child Study Center team and the New Haven school personnel had the opportunity to study the prob— lems and resources of project schools and develop a process for change, be— cause this was a research and develop— ment project. In this "process model," interventions were not preconceived and applied to the schools. Rather, de- sired changes were identified by people who would be affected by the change. Planners and project developers used a variety of intervention methods, tech— nologies, and resources. Changes were implemented, and their impact on total school operations was monitored. The principals of project schools provided leadership in the change process, and teachers and parents participated in decision making. The four major ele— ments of the New Haven intervention process— school governance, the men-7 tal health program, the Parent Pro— gram, and the teaching and curriculum program— are described in turn. School Govemance. Initially, a steering committee composed of mem— bers of the Yale team, principals, and representative teachers and parents from the project schools served as the policy—making body, directing and pro— viding overall guidance to the project. The committee was initially directed by Dr. Comer and, after the first year, by a project coordinator. The tasks of the steering committee were to improve relationships among all participants. to improve teaching and curriculum, to select staff, and to evaluate the program. The administrative advisory commit— tee in each school, composed of the principal, teachers, parents, and Yale team consultants, was responsible for directing day—to-day project opera— tions. After the first 5 years of the project, the administrative committee 77 in each school took over the steering committee's functions. The governance bodies were termed the School Advisory Committee at King and the Parent— Teacher Action Group at Brennan. The administrative committee de— veloped patterns of sharing decision— making responsibilities and became the vehicle of change in the schools— planning and directing implementation and evaluating all project interventions. Participatory governance reduced re— sistance to change by allowing people who would be most affected to have input into the change process. Involve— ment in decision making fostered the participants' commitment to and psy— chological ownership of project inter— ventions. Specifically, the school administrative committees had done the following: (a) reviewed and devel— oped written school policies and proce— dures; (b) selected new school staff, including teachers, project consultants, social workers, and the principal of the Brennan—Rogers School; and (c) planned and monitored a variety of projects, including special services for children; training activities for parents, adminis~ trators, and teachers; and curriculum projects. The principle of sharing power and developing leadership potential in school life had also been extended to students. Each year, students had established their own classroom rules. The Mental Health Program. Initial— ly, the Yale Child Study Center Mental Health Team was composed of a child psychiatrist (Dr. Comer), two social workers, two experienced educators, and a school psychologist—program evaluator. Currently the composition of the team remains similar, although personnel and levels of participation have varied. Team members' partici-- pation in school administrative and various planning committees ensured the incorporation of social science and behavioral principles in school opera» tions and program development. The mental health team most direct— ly intervened in the school first through the mental health program by deal— ing with the many behavioral problems that plagued Baldwin and King. Behav— ioral disorder negatively influenced all aspects of school life, particularly relationships between teachers and students and between the school and parents. This intervention established the team's credibility as being willing and able to help. Using a case con— f erence model, the mental health team established the Pupil Personnel Team, which met weekly for teachers to present problems with particular students or general behavior manage— ment problems. Teachers helped the team understand the child's school behavior, social history, and edu— cational needs. The team discussed case—relevant social—emotional devel— opmental issues and behavioral prin— ciples, helping teachers formulate specific management plans. Inter— ventions involved both child—change strategies and changes in the school environment or operation. In School Power, Dr. Comer offered an example of how the Pupil Personnel Team worked. A student, sent to live with relatives in the North, arrived at King to receive what his family hoped would be a better education than was available in the rural South. His new teacher had not been informed of his arrival and had just received several other transfer students and was un— derstandably less than enthusiastic to see him. The student, noting her ex— pression, kicked her and ran from the school. The mental health team helped teachers understand the student's classic fight—flight reaction to being thrust into stressful circumstances. The school changed procedures for accept— ing transfer students so that teachers were now informed of their arrival in time to prepare the class. Students were oriented to the school and as— signed a buddy to help them through the 78 first few days. They were greeted with welcome signs and allowed to introduce themselves to their new classmates. These practices say to the child, "We know these are new and perhaps frightening changes for you, but we are glad you're here and will help you get adjusted." As the mental health team helped teachers resolve behavioral problems, more teachers were willing to join in the developing climate of trust, learn— ing, and growth. The case conference evolved into a teachers' seminar. Ac— ceptance and understanding replaced the arbitrary, punitive responses to stu— dent behavior typical of schools in con— flict. The mental health team also of— f cred the staff workshops, faculty pres— entations, and informal conferences. Innovations for the mental health of students included the establishment of the Discovery Room Program, the Crisis Program, and the Two Years with the Same Teacher Program. The Dis- covery Room, staffed by the mental health team, offered play therapy and counseling to children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. The social workers helped children understand their experiences, verbalize emotional upsets, and gain control of behavior. The Crisis Program was established to break the regressive cycle of the "bad day," on which a student arrived at school unhappy, angry, or unable to function at his or her usual level. Pro— gressively, the student's frustration tolerance would decrease, and his or her behavior would deteriorate until some upset resulted in the eruption of aggressive or otherwise inappropriate behavior. School staff members were trained to recognize the beginnings of such a cycle and intervene before major upsets occurred. A student who was unable to deal with the classroom en— vironment was sent to work quietly under the supervision of an adult. As the student gained composure, the adult would talk through problems with the student and help him or her prepare to return to class. The message was sim— ple: "We care about you and will help you get yourself together so that you can have a good day." Over the years, administrators, secretaries, teachers, parents, and even maintenance per— sonnel have gained experience as crisis managers. The mental health program recog— nized that young children from troubled environments were just beginning to profit from constructive relationships with their teachers at the end of 1 school year. By keeping a class with the same teacher for 2 years, begin— ning— and end—of—the—year behavior problems were greatly reduced. Often. students who had made poor academic gains during the first year would ac— celerate their rates of achievement during the second year. The mental health program, inte— grated with all other aspects of the project, contributed to development of a healthy school climate. Perceptions of the "bad" student who required pun— ishment were replaced by recognition of the troubled child whose inappro— priate behavior could be managed through a "help and support" approach. As school climate improved, most children were able to function ade— quately, and the number of behavioral problems decreased. Staff and energy were then available to help the more troubled children in need of special education services. Involvement of the Yale Child Study Center personnel had been gradually phased out as school personnel had be— come skilled and able to assume various functions. The Pupil Personnel Team utilized the New Haven school system social worker and psychologist. The Yale team social worker trained King school teachers to integrate discovery centers into their classes and utilize them to help all children explore their feelings. ideas, and interests. The Discovery Room resource service at King was soon available only 1 day a week instead of on a full—time basis. 79 The Yale Child Study Center team eventually offered consultation on request and participated in special training or program activities. It should be noted that there had been only two new teachers hired at King in 12 years, so staff experience had accumulated. The Parent Program. Parent partici— pation in all aspects of school life were seen as a critical element of improving school climate and school-community relationships. Dr. Comer believed that the need for parent participation was especially important in lower income minority communities where alienation and cultural difference generate con—- flicting values and expectations for children. With a history of school— community conflict, the Parent Pro— gram of the New Haven project had trouble beginning to include parents in daily school operations. However, parental involvement had increased over the years. and school—community relations had improved. Parents' presence in the schools had increased the schools' accountability and re— sponsiveness to the values and needs of the community. Parental involvement in governance had increased their commitment to the overall project and their understanding of School operations. Three levels of parental participation had evolved. At the highest level, Level I, parents participated directly in school governance and other program committees. In early project years, parent leaders helped staff understand parents' reluctance to participate in school management and curriculum areas where they felt uncomfortable working with the more educated school staff. Parents, the mental health team, and school staff developed training pro— grams to acquaint interested parents with school operations, curriculum de— velopment, and tutoring techniques. Capable parents with experience and an interest in a leadership role were recruited for Level I from Level II functions. Level 11 involved 10 to 25 percent of a school's parents in the "parent assist— ant program“ and in planning and managing special fund—raising and ex-- tracurricular activities. Parent as—-- sistants worked as teacher aides and tutors. Since 1975, 12 to 18 parent as— sistants at both King and Brennan—- Rogers schools have been paid for 45 hours per month but have volunteered many more hours in the schools. Initi— ally, an interested parent volunteers 1 week of time to work with a teacher who had requested an assistant. Prin— cipals and parents reported that this requirement assured that parents who are hired are truly committed and com— patible with the teacher. Training for parent assistants varied with school needs over the year. Typi—- cally, there were monthly training ses— sions run by school staff and occasion- ally by Yale Child Study Center con— sultants on behavior management and tutoring skills in reading and math. Brennan—Rogers parents had weekly "gab sessions," and King parents had in—- formal "parent—only" meetings in which parents share experiences and ideas. The Parent Program included special fund—raising activities and at least three extracurricular school—com— munity activities each year. Level I and Level II parents planned and managed these activities. School staff and men— tal health team personnel had helped parents develop planning, organiza—- tional, and management skills. Level III participation included all other school parents who attended school functions or training activities or who had contact with the school through pupil conferences or parent outreach activities. Afternoon and evening workshops on such topics as sex education, parent self—image, behavior management, and child development were planned by parents, school staff, and consultants and offered every 2 to 3 months during the school year. Par— ents were encouraged to visit schools, 80 observe classes, and talk to principals, teachers, and other parents. To help parents become informed observers in classrooms, King parents and teachers developed the Parents' Guide to Chil— dren's Learning and offered training on observation, using videotapes of class activities and simulations of a school day. To encourage attendance at par- ent—teacher conferences, the school instituted a policy of giving parents the child's first report card during the ini— tial conference. School parents urged others to attend, and attendance ran as high as 97 percent. School parents did much liaison and outreach work with other community parents. They encourage parents to go to the schools with problems or call and talk things over. They frequently ac— companied reluctant parents and of» fered support in school meetings. A parent community worker (a member of the school governance committee) functioned in many respects as a para» professional social worker. This person helped resolve parent—school problems and helped parents utilize other avail— able social services. For example, the parent community worker at King helped parents find funds for upgrading low-income housing through the Federal Homesteading Act. Parent outreach included work with needy or neglectful families. School staff re— ported that pressure from other parents can sometimes help when staff cannot. The Teaching and Curriculum Pro— gram. lmprovement in teaching and curriculum was a goal of the project since its beginning, but little progress was evident until the climate of the school improved. As the number of be— havioral problems was reduced, teach- ers were able to invest themselves in their own learning opportunities and to grow professionally. Participation in case conferences with the mental health team helped teachers learn to use outside consultants—«first for as— sistance in managing student behavior and then for help in trying new teaching and curricular approaches. As teachers realized their abilities were respected, they could better assess their own and their students' learning needs and de— velop methods to meet both. A variety of teacher training models were used. In grade level meetings, oc— casionally assisted by a curriculum con- sultant, teachers clarified goals for students, developed materials, and shared instructional methods, and made evaluation more systematic. For exam— ple, through demonstration teaching and followup consultation provided by an art specialist, teachers learned how to integrate instruction in the basic academic skills with art, music, and dance. The Social Skills Curriculum Project evolved from the earlier curriculum development and teacher training ef— forts. Flamed instruction in social skills was thought to be especially im— portant for low—income minority chil— dren who might not otherwise acquire these skills. Teachers developed our— riculurn units that integrated social and academic skills training in a variety of concrete learning experiences. Cur— riculum unit topics and activities included (a) the whole person—under— standing one's own physical and emo- tional development; (b) banking—the use of an inclass store and bank to un— derstand checking accounts. savings accounts, and basic economic princi— ples; (c) government—learning about city, State, and Federal elections; holding mock elections; and meeting political candidates; and (d) the gospel choir-understanding black heritage and performing for audiences. Social skills curriculum units were developed by teachers and submitted to school governance committees for ap— proval and fundings. Curriculums spe— cialists were available for assistance in planning the units. Dr. Comer and school staff reported that the social skills units had made learning basic 81 skills more meaningful for students and had given teachers a sense of direction and purpose. Mainstreaming Implementation According to principals, mandates for mainstreaming handicapped children did not create disruptive changes in project schools. Since the project's beginning, the schools had operated on the premise that all children "belong" to the school and have similar needs for peer friend— ship and positive relationships with adults, for a variety of educational experiences, and for instruction ap— propriate to their needs and capacities. The project's impact on the schools created conditions that both prevented many children being labeled as handi— capped and supported children with identified special needs in the main— stream of school life. The following sections describe school operations, teacher training, and some of the spe— cial services and activities that serve preventive and supportive functions in the mainstreaming programs. Schools Continuous Education Plan. The Schools Continuous Education Plan was developed during the 1980—81 school year to integrate all school pro— grams and resources and to provide an IEP for each student. A centralized school plan coordinated Title I. Title VII, and special education services for children; reduced duplication of efforts of special personnel; and more effi- ciently utilized available resources. A combination of standardized and school—developed instruments was used for screening and assessing children's achievement levels in the basic skills. When screening indicated potential learning problems. children received in—depth evaluation by the school psy— chologist. The results were evaluated by school staff who develop schedules that allowed delivery of integrated educational services according to the children's needs. Flaming, scheduling, and coordi— nating the school plan was accom— plished by a variety of regularly sched— uled meetings. Each teacher had plan— ning time with special education re- source and support staff. Grade level teachers had their planning periods at the same time. Pupil Personnel Services/Special Edication Referral and Placement Team. Formal integration of the mental health program's Pupil Personnel Services Team and Special Education Referral and Placement Team occurred during the project's fourth year at King and during project implementation at Brennan—Rogers. The school principal, the learning team, and the school system's social worker and psychologist met weekly to solve problems of individual students, process referrals and placements, and plan and monitor the USPS. The process was described by special and regular teachers as proactive, and it includes consideration of the environmental changes that can support a student in the mainstream as well as of the student's needs for special services. Typically, a teacher concerned about a particular student's behavior or aca— demic performance would attend the team meeting to present his or her con— cern and participate in the case review and problem solving. If changes in the child's educational program or the need for special services were probable, parents might attend the meeting. Teacher Training. During the 1977— 78 school year, a consultative teacher training model was developed at King to make the educational mainstream more responsive to the needs of stu— dents with learning problems. A learn— ing disabilities specialist from Yale trained teachers in alternative curric— 82 ulum approaches, instructional tech— niques for handicapped or problem learners, and methods for early identi— fication of learning problems. In 1978— 79 the training program was imple— mented at Brennan—Rogers and maintained at King. Training and con— sultative activities included an alter— native, skill—sequenced linguistic reading program; modifications for children with severe memory problems; techniques for easing the problem learner's transition between kinder— garten and first grade; and skill—se— quenced instructional methods for spelling, writing, and math. Other teacher training activities re— lated to mainstreaming had included the following: (a) teachers participated in the school—system-wide PL. 94—142 inservice training program on handi— capping conditions and instructional methods for handicapped learners; (b) the ongoing case consultation activities served as a resource to teachers of mainstreamed children; (0) special and regular educators met regularly to co— ordinate instruction and to develop and monitor behavioral contracts for stu— dents with behavioral problems. Prevention and Mainstreaming Activ— ities. Several prevention activities or programs had been developed to address student needs. Brennan—Rogers devel— oped a diagnostic placement option for first graders identified as "at risk" for learning problems. These students were able to receive resource services for 1 hour daily for a specified time period, usually 1 month. A teacher at Brennan— Rogers developed and directed a chil— dren's dramatic production about "Feelings Children Keep Inside." The children presented their play in several schools and to a local college. A kindergarten enrichment program was designed at Brennan and replicated by the King kindergarten teacher. Chil— dren identified as "at risk" for school difficulty were provided with individ. ualized enrichment programs to en— courage development in verbal ability, perceptual performance, quantitative ability and motor coordination. Trained parent aides worked closely with stu— dent groups using a learning centers approach. The program had become a model for other New Haven public schools. Special Services and Mainstreaming. At King Elementary School, one generic resource center provided intensive spe— cial education services for children with identified learning handicaps. All students had primary placements in regular classes. At Brennan, a resource program of— f ered special education to children with learning disabilities or behavior prob— lems. Two special classes for mild to moderately retarded students served primary and intermediate grades. Chil— dren in special classes were mainw streamed to the extent appropriate to their educational needs. Mainstreaming for academic instruction had reportedly increased during recent years. Handicapped children were seen by King and Brennan personnel as part of the student body. They participated in all regular and extracurricular school activities. The concrete educational experiences and applied academics of the Social Skills Curriculum were re— ported to be particularly appropriate to the needs of most handicapped learners. Special services for sensory—impaired or severely handicapped students were available in other New Haven public schools, and students were transferred out of project schools for these pro— grams when appropriate. Likewise, children with severe emotional prob— lems and their families were referred for services available from other com— munity mental health agencies. The Project's Impact on Mainstream— ing Implementation. The project's im— pact on children with special needs was most evident at King Elementary 83 School, which had been a part of the project since its beginning. The princi— pal and other New Haven public school administrators reported that the num— ber of King referrals for special serv— ices had greatly decreased. For the past 7 to 8 years, all children attending King had been served in regular classes. In 12 years, only two handicapped children had been transferred out of the school for special services. At Brennan teachers and administrators also re— ported that the total number of ref er-— rals for special services had decreased over the years of the project. At both schools, referrals for behav- ioral problems had decreased, and re— f errals for learning disabilities had pro— portionately increased. Teachers were reportedly more sensitive to the needs of withdrawn and emotionally troubled youngsters who do not act out. The in— tegration of discovery centers into reg— ular classes was, in part, an effort to meet the needs of these children. Teachers' experiences with consul- tation services and a school atmosphere that encouraged teachers to share ex— pertise and utilize available resources had helped develop a preference for in— direct services rather than pullout services for children. Dr. Comer reported that one consultant became very unpopular with teachers because she continued to remove children from regular classes instead of training teachers to provide the special services she offered. The Parent Program was mentioned by principals as being particularly help— ful in involving parents in special edu— cation planning, placement, and evalu— ation. Because community perceptions of the schools were positive, few par— ents were reluctant to attend school meetings. Parent assistants often con— tacted the few reluctant parents and encouraged them to attend special services meetings. In virtually all cases in recent years, parents had attended special education meetings rather than simply sending written approval for testing or program changes. Project Outcomes and Benefits Impact on School Climate. The proj— ect's impact on school climate was measured in terms of student attend— ance, the number of student suspen— sions, and the reasons for student visits to the office. According to project evaluation reports, student absenteeism in project schools had decreased dra— matically over the years of involvement with the project. In recent years both King and Brennan had lower absentee rates than demographically similar New Haven public schools. King had enjoyed the most improvement, ranking either first or second in student attendance of all 43 New Haven public schools since about 1977. There had been no suspensions at King in more than 9 years. At Brennan, there had been no formal suspensions, although a few students had been sent home for part of the schoolday because of behavioral disruptions. During 1977—78 and 1978—79 school years, reasons for student office visits were recorded. At King there were more than six times as many student visits for positive reasons than for dis— ciplinary reasons. In the 1978— 79 school year, Brennan students also visited the office more often for positive reasons than for disciplinary reasons. The opposite was true for the year before. Positive aspects of school climate had been observed. Principals noted that the number of angry phone calls from parents had greatly decreased. Parents were now more likely to ask the schools' help with problems than to assume an adversarial position. A fre— quent comment of teachers, principals, and parents was, "There's a lot of talking going on here." Problems were 84 discussed, plans were made, feelings were verbalized, and ideas were shared. Open communication was seen as a very important and valued part of the school climate. Student Achievements. Project schools had required a number of years to demonstrate significant improve— ment in student achievements. In 1968, students were more than 2 years behind grade level in reading and math skills. After the first 5 project years, there were slight achievement gains, but they were not yet significant. By 1977. stu— dents who had been at King for 4 years scored at grade level in reading and math and King ranked 10th of all New Haven schools, scoring higher than all 13 low—income Title I schools, and higher than 40 percent of the middle— income schools. The Brennan principal reported a steady, 3—year trend toward higher achievement, which was espe— cially evident in the reading scores of children in the linguistic program. Impact on Participants' Attitudes. For a 1978—79 project evaluation, teachers and parents responded to in~ terviews or questionnaires about the project's impact. All teachers at King and 87 percent of the teachers at Bren— nan felt the project was going well. The majority of teachers felt they had suf— ficient input into the decisionmaking process. Teachers saw the Social Skills Curriculum Project and the Parent Program as particularly valuable. Most teachers believed their students would show achievement gains and described the program as very good for the social and emotional development of students. Parent assistants' responses in initial and exit interviews indicated positive changes in their assessments of their own skills and abilities and in their ex~ pectations for their children's educa- tional and occupational futures. Parents indicated they valued their participa— tion in the schools. Benefits Reported by Participants Benefits to students. Teachers and parents reported that students were highly motivated by the educational experiences offered through the proj— ect. Dr. Comer observed, "Parents in the school send clear messages to children that school is friendly turf ." Parents functioning as respected mem— bers of the school staff provided stu- dents with consistency between com~ munity and school expectations. School parents acted as parent surrogates, supporting children whose own parents were unable or unavailable to motivate and reinforce their school accomplish- ments. Parent—planned extracurricular activities had helped establish the schools as gathering places for com— munity social events. Students had benefited from their teachers' understanding of their social and emotional needs. Comer described a transfer student at King deeply troubled by his parents' recent divorce whose upset was compounded by moving to a strange neighborhood and school. The boy reacted by developing a strong attachment to the family dog and refusing to be separated from him at school. Understanding the child's need for security, the teacher allowed him to bring the dog to class and used the dog in a curriculum unit on measurement by measuring the dog's height and length. By accepting the dog, the teacher let the chld know his needs would be re— spected at this new school; the boy was soon able to leave the dog at home. Benefits to parents. Parents re. ported that when they left project schools they took with them the ability to relate more constructively with teachers, school administrators, and their own children. As one parent ex- plained, "I know who is important to contact. I call the teacher and get to know her. I can talk to the principal. I know what I can do in this school and 85 how to help my kids." Parents reported that they had learned from teachers many important skills—how to teach, to discipline, to talk through problems. Informal fol-v lowup contacts indicated that some school parents had gained the confi— dence to return to school themselves, finishing high school or college and getting better jobs. Benefits to principals. The Brennan and King principals reported that al—-~ though sharing school governance was difficult at first, they learned to ap— preciate the benefits of involving teachers and parents. They reported less reluctance to try new activities. Teachers and parents had learned to appreciate the complexities and "red tape" involved in school administration and are more accepting of real limi~ tations. There was more of a cooper— ative spirit and willingness to utilize resources for the school as a whole; staff and parents were less likely to divide into factions competing for re— sources. Principals reported that as others develop leadership skills their job becomes more manageable. Instead of being disciplinarians and crisis managers, they had been more able to be instructional leaders in the schools. Benefits to teachers. As one King teacher said, "People here really care. They aren't all hung up on just doing their job. They work together more. Most go into teaching because they really want to help kids, but if the school isn't supportive of their efforts, they give up. At King the environment is really supportive." Teachers reported that most staff was very cooperative and that consultative services had helped them improve their own skills. Benefits to the school district. Sev— eral project developments had provided models for other New Haven public schools: the continuous education plan, the kindergarten enrichment program, and a principal's training program on planning and school governance. A school system administrator reported that experience with the project schools had helped the system recog— nize the necessity of looking at the impact of any change on total school functioning. For example, when New Haven tried to increase mainstreaming, administrators and teachers were urged to explore how the change would affect school functioning and, conversely, what changes in the whole school would facilitate mainstreaming. In the admin— istrators' opinion, the understanding that any school change requires ad— vance consulting with everyone in— volved was most important. "Schools shouldn't do things to people's children without their consent—~their informed consent." Factors Considered Critical to the Project’s Success Project participants offered their perceptions of factors that most con— tributed to the project's success. Change must be supported on all levels of administration. Project par—- ticipants reported that the principal holds a key role in determining the project's potential for success. His or her ability to encourage the leadership abilities of others and to manage a par— ticipatory form of school governance was seen as most important. The prin— cipal must be intelligent, have adequate management skills, be self—confident, and be open to change. Similarly, the principal must respect the abilities of teachers and parents to acquire new leadership and management skills. The principal. must be flexible and support others during the change process. Principals reported that in order to function effectively, they in turn needed the support and flexibility of school system administrators. 86 The process is developmental. Partic— ipants learned that change takes time and that people must be allowed to de— velop. Dr. Comer and school principals noted that principals were not immedi— ately able to share authority and apply principles of human relations to school operations. Over time, principals devel— oped confidence in their ability to use a more democratic leadership style and. through experience, gained the skills to foster trust and respect among teach— ers, parents, and students. A useful principle that had guided project development had been to "start smal ." Thus, the project began in two schools instead of the entire system. Meaning- ful involvement of a small group of parents encouraged others to partici— pate. Other innovations were also tried on a limited scale first. Change is best accomplished when planned from within. The Yale Child Study Center team found that school personnel and parents became most in— terested in school changes and training activities when they had identified their own needs and contributed to planning and evaluation. A school climate of trust and mutual respect is a prerequisite to other changes. As previously noted, an effec— tive program only became possible after the school climate and rela— tionships among all involved had im— proved. Participants noted that people must be supported in their attempts to change. Resource people to advise. re— inforce, and help solve problems must be available if innovations are to suc— ceed. Dr. Comer warned in his book that any single program or innovation may not be successfully replicated without establishing an appropriate school climate and a coordinated proc— ess of implementation. A Note on Replication School administrators interested in implementing the innovative practices described in this program should consider several points. First, although solid organizational change must be initiated from within. it often needs an outside agent to serve a catalytic role. The Yale Child Study Center team was the catalytic (and supportive) agent in the New Haven school project. External support from persons with expertise 467—5000— 85 — 7 : QL 3 87 in mental health consultation and familiarity with public school programs is an essential ingredient to this type of change. These resources may be found in local community mental health center programs or nearby colleges and universities. The interested administrator should seek them out and enlist their assistance and support. Chapter 3 Analysis and Summary In a study such as this, which focuses on model programs and practices, a major intended benefit is the potential for replication. Indeed, the overriding purpose of this monograph is to stimu— late, educate, and assist others who work in education and mental health in implementing similar programs and practices. Every situation is different to some degree, however; each has its own unique characteristics, set of problems, and available resources. For this reason, program or practice rep— lication in the real world must, of necessity, involve adaptation and ac— commodation. The interested reader (whether school board member, special education director, area mental health director, mental health consultant, school principal, parent, classroom teacher, or whoever) will seek out those program features and practices that are both potentially effective and feasible in the particular situation. The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate this process by identifying factors impor— tant to the successful efforts of these six model programs in preparing parents, teachers, and pupils for main— streaming handicapped students into regular classrooms. In reviewing the 6 model programs, 12 factors were identified as important to program success. Focus on these 12 factors does not deny the importance of other program features, and additional key factors are mentioned in the vari— ous program descriptions. The factors listed next were selected for both their importance and their commonality 88 across programs. 1. Tangible community support. Each program enjoyed identifiable community support that was re— flected in school board policy and actions. 2. A history of mainstreaming. The majority of programs had a his— tory of involvement in main— streaming, with continuity in pol— icy and personnel. 3. An overall approach or design for implementation. Each program had an overall approach or design for implementation that was practical, optimistic, and oriented to promote mental health, with high expectations of students and personnel and an emphasis on change from within. 4. A full array of special service options. Each program developed or had access to a full continuum of special education placement settings. 5. Administrative support for the mainstreaming program and ob— jectives. In each case the admin— istration (superintendent, princi— pals, and so forth) was both knowledgeable and supportive of the program. 6. An emphasis on systematic com— munication. Each program placed 10. heavy emphasis on communica— tion, especially between special and regular education teachers, and developed systematic proce— dures to ensure that communica— tion occurred. Defined mental health roles. In each program designated person— nel had defined mental health roles and responsibilities. Active parental involvement. Each program successfully in— volved parents in a variety of ways. Participation ranged from individual student planning to active involvement in program planning, evaluation, and school governance. Activities to increase understand— ing and acceptance. All the pro- grams used instruction and cur— riculum materials to increase understanding and acceptance of handicapped students among their peers. Strategies included cooper— ative learning, wing affective educational materials, providing experiences to increase awareness and sensitivity, and using special curricula. such as "The Kids on the Block," "Kids Come in Special Flavors," and "What's the Differ— ence?" (Barnes, et a1. 1978). A humanistic approach to provi— sion of support services to teach— ers and students. The provision of inservice training and other sup-— port services to teachers, admin— istrators, and other school per— sonnel was done in a manner that recognized their importance, ac— tively sought their involvement in defining problems and developing solutions and strategies, and shared fully the credit for pro— gram success. In the model pro— grams, personnel were sensitive to students' needs and feelings 89 ——for example, in the transition from one school to another. 11. A favorable financial climate. Most of the programs had ade— quate financial support. Program directors had been successful in obtaining special Federal and prie vate funding and used effectively available Federal, State, and local funds. Given the current national economy, two programs foresaw funding cutbacks having uncertain outcomes on their programs; most were optimistic. Adequate fund~ ing was related to community, school board, and school adminis— tration support. 12. Coordination with the mental health system. Most of the pro— grams developed effective coor— dination with mental health and related community agencies. The degree of coordination and coop— eration ranged from comprehen— sive, integrated involvement to minimal use on an individual re— f erral basis. In the following sections, each of these 12 factors is discussed more fully, and implications for replication are addressed. Community Support Overall, the model programs had widespread community support for their mainstreaming policies and programs. Community support was reflected in the policy and resource allocation de— cisions of the school boards. In Hastings, Minnesota, for example, community support was evident in a survey of citizens conducted by the Curriculum Office in 1980. Similar surveys of the general citizenry in Tacoma, Washington, reflected a long— standing and broad base of support. In Mayfield, Ohio, the board of education, very much "in touch" with community feelings and perceptions, reflected this in its guidance and support of the school system's efforts. Awards pres— entations, civic group projects, use of school board facilities to highlight the importance of inservice training for mainstreaming, and direct involvement in school governance gave evidence of community support. Community support heightened the morale of participants (teachers, stu~ dents, and parents), lifted their expec— tations, and encouraged them to improve their programs. There was a high degree of perceived congruence between their goals and actions on behalf of individual children and the community's educational goals and ob— jectives. Community support resulted from conscientious efforts by school personnel to inform and involve the community as much as possible through newsletters, program brochures, com—- munity newspaper features, TV and radio, and surveys. Replication efforts should use these and similar strategies to relate program goals, activities, and achievements, as well as problems, to the general com— munity. Similarly, regular and frequent communication with the school board, the general community's formal repre— sentatives, can increase understanding of , and support for, the program. The Mayfield, Ohio, administrative staff employed a regular, weekly written communication with their school board and emphasized continuous program evaluation in their reports to the board. History of Mainstreaming An interesting aspect of the model programs was their long histories of involvement with mainstreaming. Be— ginning in the mid—19505, the Dade County schools placed their initial programs for exceptional children in regular public school buildings, which facilitated mainstreaming. The Tacoma 90 schools developed their original design for progressive inclusion in the late 19505, and the Hastings, Minnesota, schools began mainstreaming in the 19605, though being blocked somewhat by changes in State policy. Mayfield, Ohio, initiated its efforts on behalf of hearing—impaired students in the late 1960s, and Montgomery County, Mary— land, designed its "continuum of edu— cation" plan well before passage of Federal legislation. The message seems clear—change in educational practices takes time, and gains from and builds upon a history of implementation. The historical commitment and tradition of service to the handicapped has come to be highly valued by the whole community. All the model programs used time as an ally. Program personnel had not become too frustrated and impatient and, consequently, ineffective. These programs also exhibited continuity in school board and administrative leadership, as in the Tacoma and May— field programs. Administrators and board members who have seen a pro— gram develop are most apt to promote its continued growth and improvement, as well as clarify its value and impor— tance for those with doubts. Continuity in program personnel and leadership may be difficult to establish, but continuity will change "innovative" practices into accepted tradition that is valued in the schools and community. From a mental health perspective, tradition helps to establish psycho— logical anchorings that support and re— inforce teachers', parents', and students' beliefs and behaviors in posi— tive ways. The New Haven program recognized from the outset, for ex— ample, that organizational change is a developmental process. An Overall Approach or Design for Implementation Each model program developed a conceptual plan or approach for main— streaming implementation. The various plans and approaches were documented. In most instances, there were written policy statements, guidebooks, or handbooks. The Mayfield, Ohio, School District developed a brief guide that described its "hand—in-hand" approach to mainstreaming. The Montgomery County public schools developed an ex— tensive handbook for school inservice coordinators as well as numerous sup— plementary materials to support im— plementation of their mainstreaming procedures. The inservice program was well conceived and well designed and included principals' participation, re— spect for teacher competence, parental involvement, and training of volunteers. The philosophy of progressive inclusion, Tacoma's approach to integration of the handicapped, has been articulated and described in a number of school district publications. The approaches were practical. In Tacoma, progressive inclusion meant decentralization of services, emphasis on neighborhood school attendance, and variable implementation strategies at the building level. Mayfield and Hast— ings, school systems with relatively small total student enrollments, em— phasized administrative backup and support services with frequent informal communication. Montgomery County's approach also focused on implementa— tion at the building level, with key in— volvement from principal and faculty and online availability of backup and support services. The New Haven pro— gram used a school consultation/or— ganizational development model that emphasized capacity building and change from within. The approaches were optimistic. All models rested on the assumption that mainstreaming is a positive practice ——that administrators, teachers, par— ents, and students can be involved suc— cessfully; that mainstreaming will have positive outcomes for all; and that trust and mutual concern are essential to all 91 interactions. These are most important points. The philosophy of each program re— flected the beliefs of those who guided the implementation. In many respects, personal philosophy became integrated with program philosophy. Key indi— viduals in each setting helped set the standards, established the tone, and energized others to commitment and action. In Montgomery County, Dr. Stan Fagen was ever optimistic, trusting, and caring and extremely skillful in interpersonal relations. In Mayfield, Ohio, Dr. Robert Battisti was deeply committed and highly personable, and he paid careful attention to individuals' concerns and needs. In Tacoma, Dr. Henry Bertness, always supportive and optimistic, shared with others, being a "knower" and yet a "doer," too. In Dade County, Dr. Wylamerle Marshall and Dr. Eleanor Levine provided program leadership with deep personal commit— ment and a willingness to share pro— gram responsibility and acclaim, and with continuous support. In Hastings, Minnesota, Mr. Loren Gratz, by ex— ample and with modesty, guided the implementation of a very effective program with typical Midwestern matter—of—factness, out of a basic sense of "the right thing to do." And Dr. James Comer of the Yale University Child Study Center in New Haven helped disorganized schools move from chaos to order, from disenfranchise- ment to feelings of ownership, and from poor performance to excellence and quality; his consultation was so skillful that program participants felt the work and results were their own. The issue of leadership as a driving force for a successful mainstreaming program is difficult to address. Indi— viduals cannot be cloned. Skillful leaders can be studied and emulated. Persons with appropriate qualities within a school system can be identi— fied, nurtured, and supported to move toward increasing roles and respon— sibilities. A Continuum of Special Education Services Adequate alternatives to mainstream placement were identified by Deno (1978) as an important condition for successful mainstreaming in programs she studied serving children with emo— tional, learning, and behavioral prob— lems. She observed that "movement toward more mainstreaming was ac— companied by an increase in placement options, not a reduction" (p. 99). Each of the model programs developed or had access to a comprehensive array of special education services and a range of regular classroom and special edu— cation placement options. Most stu— dents were served in the mainstream setting with as much service as could be provided there to make the place— ment successful. Only when this ap— proach proved insufficient were more restrictive or separate service settings employed. Generally, full—time special programs were available in the regular school buildings. The TOPS program in Dade County provides a good example of how more placement options can serve to increase mainstream placements, provided there is ease of movement for children from one level of service to another. Extensive use was made of the re— source room and consulting teacher programs in the Dade County, Tacoma, and Montgomery County school sys— tems. Other special education services and programs included early identifi— cation of and intervention with children "at risk"; such programs were in place, for example, in New Haven and Hast— ings. Management aides, tutors, itin— erant resource teachers, volunteers, and schoolbased referral, assistance, and placement teams were also used to provide a comprehensive array of services and programs. Flaming for successful mainstream— ing should include examination of the school system's existing delivery 92 system to see if a wide array of service settings and placement options are available. Moving a given child to the least restrictive setting may require temporary treatment/educa- tion in a more restrictive setting for skill acquisition and adjustment. An array of service options provide rein—- forcement for improvement toward greater independence and also reassur— ance that, should adjustment not go smoothly, more structured alternatives are available. Administrative Support for Mainstreaming Program and Objectives In the Hastings, Minnesota, program, school administrators and supervisors often substituted for regular and spe— cial classroom teachers. They paid particular attention to scheduling and class loads when assigning handicapped students to regular classrooms and operated on a policy of responding to a teacher's request for assistance within 24 hours. The type of support provided by Hastings' administrators, and the attitude with which it was given, typ— ifies the administrative support found in each of the six model programs. In the Tacoma and Montgomery County programs, the school building principal played a key role. Coordinated support was available from the school psychologist and social worker in Tacoma, and from the inservice co— ordinator for mainstreaming and area consulting teacher specialist in Mont— gomery County. The importance of ad— ministrative support, such as these programs demonstrated, was echoed by teachers and parents interviewed during the site visits. With almost certain regularity, school staffs pointed to their principals, supervisors, consult— ants, or superintendents as keys to the success of their programs. A special group of Tacoma principals have met informally for a number of years to review program implementation, dis— cuss problems on a practical level, and be a support group for one another. In the New Haven program, the principals' ability to implement a participatory form of school governance was critical. The Dade County schools' administra— tion, as well as the State—level admin— istration, provided a coordinated set of relevant policies, laws, and funding guidelines supportive of mainstreaming. In recruiting teachers and other per— sonnel, the Tacoma schools emphasized support of the progressive inclusion approach. New school construction and building renovations were of barrier— free design. A review of current administrative policies and procedures is a good place to start planning to improve main— streaming. A survey of teachers and parents would indicate whether they perceive policies and procedures as being supportive of mainstreaming. The administrator, of course, must be open to suggestions for change coming from such a review. The process can be dif— ficult, but it can enhance program ef— forts and improve teacher and parent morale. An Emphasis on Systematic Communication Communication between teachers and students, regular classroom teach— ers and special education teachers, teachers and parents, teachers and administrators, parents and adminis— trators, administrators and support personnel, and so on is critical to any program's success. Communication is often given only rhetorical attention and, thus, is cited as the reason for program failure. To be effective, communication requires careful and continuous attention and effort, which the model programs displayed. Each program developed systems for com— munication between principal program 93 participants. In Mayfield, Ohio, the special education teachers had primary responsibility for communication. The well— coordinated Mayfield Secondary Hearing Impaired Program provides a good illustration of this. In Montgomery County, Maryland, the inservice pro— gram team met weekly to review planned activities, problems in any areas, and progress in program imple— mentation. Also, an important objective of the meetings was personal rein- f orcement and support. The FDLRS—S staff working with schools in Dade County helped each school develop systematic communica— tion among teachers; one school de— veloped a "passport" system, while another used common planning periods for teacher conferences. For communi— cation with community agencies and other programs, the special education program initiated and established an advisory committee of school personnel and community agency representatives that reviewed programs, policies, eli— gibility criteria, and problems and progress in working together. These are but a few of the examples that illus— trate the model programs' emphasis on, and effective use of, systematic com— munication. The content of communi— cation emphasized by the programs went well beyond typical information, such as student schedules, homework assignments, and progress reports. It also included teachers', administrators', and parents' experiences, perceptions, and feelings. Role playing and role ex— change activities increased under— standing and communication. Interested readers should review the status of communication within and between each level of their programs to determine its adequacy in terms of frequency, regularity, direction flow, target groups, and content relevancy. The model programs provide examples, standards, and strategies for compari— son. Areas of discrepancy that may warrant special attention should be identified. Defined Mental Health Roles of School Personnel In their review of stress—related problems associated with mainstream— ing implementation, Shaw and Bensky (1980) identified lack of clarity in de— fining roles and responsibilities of teachers and other school personnel as a major source of stress. They recom— mended that roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in mainstreaming be clearly defined, documented, shared, and reviewed by all participants to en— sure adequate understanding of roles and to improve role performance. In the six model programs visited in this study. each program had defined mental health responsibilities and as— signed people to them. In Hastings, Minnesota, school social workers at the elementary level and school counselors at the secondary level had primary re— sponsibility for seeing that the mental health needs of mainstreamed handi— capped students were addressed. In the Montgomery County, Maryland, in— service training program, it was the consulting teacher specialists and the school inservice coordinators who had primary responsibility for monitoring and attending to the mental health needs of teachers and, indirectly, of students. The psychological services and guidance counseling staff in May— field, Ohio, functioned as mental health advocates within the system. Their focus was not exclusively on the stu— dent. Rather, they focused on the in—- teraction between teacher—student— parent and other support services to make mainstreaming successful. In Dade County the particular type of personnel who assumed such a mental health role varied from school to school. At Biscayne Gardens Elemen- tary School the assistant principals and counselor played primary mental health roles on behalf of parents, teachers, and students. At McMillan Junior High School, the counseling staff planned and coordinated the extensive preparation 94 activities for physically and other handicapped students being main— streamed into the junior high school. At the Robert Morgan Vocational—Tech~ nical Institute, the special program staff provided support services for students and teachers, and the voca- tional guidance counselors coordinated the overall program between the vo— cational center, the home high school, and the student's parents. The mental health center was directly involved with students and their families through interagency agreements established with the school system. In Tacoma the school social worker provided liaison. support. and direct mental health services to students, teachers, parents, and families. The New Haven program model em— phasized the mental health role of all school personnel, as well as of parents. The emphasis on the development of a positive school climate for mental health required highly coordinated im— plementation that defined everyone's role as that of a mental health pro— moter. Besides those assigned primary responsibility for mental health, class— room teachers, building principals, specialty teachers, librarians, and maintenance and cafeteria workers were involved, too. The purpose of the process was the development of posi— tive relationships between handicapped students, their nonhandicapped peers, and their classroom teachers. The as— signment of key program personnel to have primary responsibility for seeing that mental health needs were identi— fied and addressed established mental health advocates within the system and was a way of assuring that mental health needs would not go unmet. Two general approaches can be identi— fied among the six programs. The "total" approach, in which all school personnel are considered mental health personnel, is found in New Haven. The focus of this program was not mainstreaming per se, but the revitalization of schools through the systematic application of social and psychological behavioral principles. Changes in the schools, in— cluding role definition, through mental health consultation resulted in a school climate that facilitated mainstreaming. The second approach is selective as~ signment of school personnel to primary mental health roles related to main—- streaming—r—school social workers, school psychologists, inservice coordi— nators for mainstreaming, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and so on. This approach was used in four of the model programs: (a) the Tacoma public schools, (b) the Mayfield, Ohio, School District, (0) the Montgomery County public schools, and (d) the Dade County public schools, in a very eclec— tic manner. The Hastings, Minnesota, public schools combined these two approaches. Implementers seeking to address the mental health needs of students, teachers, and parents could select one or a combination of these two ap—~ proaches. Those interested in the total approach are encouraged to review School Power (Comer 1980), and should contact the community mental health center in their area to find out what resources are available. With the second approach, the school system's organizational structure and personnel system should be reviewed. Definition of roles and responsibilities would then need to be made, documented, and shared with other school personnel; primary and secondary assignments would then be made. Following the development of adequate understanding of roles within the schools, program implementation can begin and should be followed with continuous process and progress evaluation. Active Parental Involvement Each of the model programs placed priority on identifying and meeting parent concerns and needs and on in— volving parents actively. The Hastings, 467—500 0 — 85 — 8 : QL 3 95 Minnesota, schools had a very active parent advisory group. The schools conducted a number of activities and provided a number of services to parents, such as conferences, orienta— tion sessions, information nights, and other regular contacts. As a result of these efforts, the schools received a large outpouring of parental and com—- munity support and benefited from an extremely large percentage of parent participation in IEP and related meet-- ings. The Montgomery County public schools established a Staff—Parent Committee for Cooperative In- Service Training. Through this committee, parents have become actively involved in planning and conducting inservice training in the schools. Another aspect of their parental involvement activities has been coordination at the school building level with the PTA Special Needs Committee. The Mayfield, Ohio, school district has an active Special Education ParentTeacher Group that serves as a support group and conducts training sessions for parents of both handicapped and nonhandicapped stu— dents. In Tacoma, parents were mem— bers of the Pupil Personnel Services Advisory Council, which reviewed and monitored the special education pro-- grams. In New Haven, parents partic—- ipated in all levels of decision making, from minimal involvement to partici— pation in school governance and personnel decisions. In addition to the formalized mech-- anisms that each program developed, there were also clear indications of prevailing attitudes of respect for and partnership in working with parents. Project staff who participated in the site visits and talked with parents were told of their appreciation for these at— titudes and outreach efforts; parents felt comfortable and respected, like full partners in their children's educa- tion programs because their input was heard and respected. Many school districts have advisory groups or committees like those in the model programs. Unfortunately, some were reluctantly established after pressure was applied and have a ten— dency to "go through the motions" as far as parental involvement is con— cemed. For parent participation to work and to increase that involvement, school personnel must respect parents; parents are otherwise quickly turned off. Activites To Increase Understanding and Acceptance The model programs used a variety of specific activities to increase under— standing and acceptance of handicapped students among their nonhandicapped peers. These included use of affective education programs and materials (Morse et a1. 1980) as well as specific activities and materials designed to increase understanding and acceptance of handicapped students (Hughes and Lowman 1980). The Hastings schools conducted special awareness activities for nonhandicapped students ("Handi— capped Awareness Week") and inte— grated units into the regular curricu— lum. They also used affective education materials and emphasized the teaching of social skills as part of the curriculum for handicapped students. The Mont— gomery County public schools adopted affective education programs and ma— terials, awareness programs, and co— operative learning (Johnson and Johnson 1980). The Mayfield, Ohio, schools used presentation and demonstrations in the regular classroom (e.g., on the hearing aid) and student tours of the special education programs to facilitate under— standing and acceptance. The Dade County schools used special affective education curricula, assigned special education students to regular home— rooms, involved student leader groups within the schools in promoting under— standing and acceptance, and incor— porated these activities in their guid— ance and counseling activities. The 96 Tacoma schools used peer tutoring and other structured peer interactions. The New Haven program developed, as a part of their project, a social skills cur— riculum that increased understanding and acceptance of others and improved students' social interaction and social behavior. In the model program schools, con— certed efforts were made to have spe— cial education faculty involved in regular school activities, thus facili— tating communication and coordination between special education and regular classroom teachers. The special edu— cation programs and faculties were recognized as integral parts of the schools' programs. This "mainstream the faculty, then mainstream the stu— dents" approach seemed to work well, contributing to an overall climate of acceptance. The model programs did not assume that social acceptance and interaction would occur as a result of the physical and temporal integration of handi— capped students in the regular pro— grams. As has been pointed out by Gresham (1982), to assume that place— ment of handicapped children in regular classrooms will result in increased so— cial interaction and social acceptance is erroneous, based on review of re— search in this area. In a comparison of the social adjustment of mainstreamed physically handicapped high school students with their nonhandicapped classmates, handicapped students re— ceived significantly more positive peer ratings from their nonhandicapped classmates but lower rates of inclusion in group activities (Issacson—Kailes, et a1. 1981). The ambivalent feelings phys— ically handicapped students received from their peers may be reflected in the insecure sense of peer—related self—esteem that was indicated in the study findings. Kailes et al. also noted that the teachers, apparently, were unaware of these complex social inter— action patterns. In an earlier study on peer acceptance by Hughes and Low— man (1980), parents expressed the con— cem that teachers were generally un— aware of social interaction patterns in the classroom. The model programs were proactive in efforts to assure that the intended social benefits of mainstreaming oc— curred. They used specific strategies and activities to promote understanding and acceptance and increase social in- teraction. Further, they were sensitive in monitoring the extent to which this actually occurred and quick to inter— vene when rejection and isolation were found. A good example of this was the integration of physically and other handicapped students into the Mac— Millan Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Not only was there extensive preparation for the integra— tion, but there was also continuous monitoring of the social adjustment process by the guidance counselors, teachers, and parents of the students. The continuous evaluation plan used by the New Haven program is a more systematic way of monitoring each student's performance. Extensive lists of resource materials for promoting understanding and ac— ceptance of handicapped students are available from the Council for Excep— tional Children, the principal author, and the reader's State Department of Special Education. These materials can be replicated at minimal or no cost. A Humanistic Approach to Provision of Support Services to Teachers and Students All the model programs provided in— service training and support services to teachers and some to students as well. One strong point of these training and support services was the manner of presentation and the positive attitude of the providers. They placed emphasis on the importance of recognizing the competence of the regular classroom and special education teachers. They 97 stressed the need for quick and sincere responsiveness to what teachers ex— pressed as their needs and concerns. They viewed the teachers as real col— laborators in the tasks of mainstream— ing implementation and as valuable resources to the process. Inservice training programs were primarily experiential. For example, role—taking exercises helped special education teachers understand regular classroom teachers' concerns and needs. Simulations of handicapping conditions, such as learning disabilities, helped teachers gain a better grasp of what students experience in the learning situation. The content of inservice training was comprehensive, including introductory or basic levels of information, as well as specific instructional strategies and affective education. Staff development programs were often conducted by classroom teachers who had successful experiences with mainstreaming (another specific way of recognizing teacher competence). The inservice training unit of the Montgomery County schools, the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System—South, and the Staff Development Program of the Tacoma public schools developed extensive support systems to aid classroom teachers. Support services were also provided by the programs to meet special needs of handicapped students involved in mainstreaming. These services in— cluded, for example, special counseling groups composed of handicapped stu— dents with similar disabilities and spe— cial services and activities to support students in transition from middle school to high school. The humanistic way in which the model programs provided training and support services to teachers and stu— dents, as contrasted with traditional approaches and those that emphasize only the legal mandates and require— ments, resulted in increased commit— ment and greater participation in the program. In essence, because the in— service training and support services made teachers feel better about them~ selves and optimistic about the tasks needing to be done, the teachers were positive about mainstreaming and how it could benefit everyone. A Favorable Financial Climate Each of the exemplary programs was in a relatively favorable financial sit-- uation for funding programs and support services related to mainstreaming. Reasons for this varied. Three of the school systems had been very successful in securing Federal, State, and founw dation monies. Two of the systems had very stable, local bases of support. One system was able to expand services as needs were identified because the State's structure and policy for funding special education programs and related services. The Montgomery County public schools developed their inservice training unit for mainstreaming through a succession of Federal and State per— sonnel development and demonstration grants, carefully orchestrated and se— quenced so that each grant activity was used to help develop or refine a specific component of the system and to expand the total effort. Over time, and with demonstrated success of the program's activities, pieces of the system were being "picked up" by local funds, thus moving the program from "sof " to "hard" money support. The Tacoma schools benefited fi— nancially from Washington's funding system for special education. Dollars flowed from the State to the local level, where children were being served. Because of progressive inclu— sion, Tacoma was serving handicapped students at a much higher level (e.g., as a percentage of the total school popu— lation) than other school systems in the State. To an already strong local fund— 98 ing base was added an increased flow of State monies, including Federal flow— through dollars for P.L. 94—142. The New Haven schools project was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, NIMH, and other external sources. In addition, parent and com— munity support for the program was important during periods of reduced external support. The Dade County schools benefited in their mainstreaming activities from Florida's double basic funding for hand-- icapped students in regular education classrooms and also from their inter— agency agreements with mental health and other agencies for coordinated de— livery of services. The double basic funding system supports and reinforces both special education and regular education when students are main-~ streamed. It is a good illustration of fiscal policy being consistent with program policy. The Mayfield, Ohio. school district and the Hastings, Minnesota, schools—the two smallest school systems among the six model pro— grams—«had very stable and favorable local bases of funding support. This was attributed to the generally strong eco— nomic climates of their respective areas and to sound financial manage— ment. Mayfield's superintendent, for example, was noted for his financial administration skills. Further, the size of the school systems, their emphasis on informal systems for providing services, and the nature of the support services they provided helped keep costs low. It was expected, for ex— ample, that program directors and principals would be involved in pro— viding both direct and indirect services. In each of the six model programs, the favorable financial climate was the result of planned action rather than mere happenstance. Two of the sys— tems, however, were anticipating re— ductions in financial support that would require some modification in the scope and intensity of their services. In Tacoma, State legislation, lower ap- propriations, and changes in fund al-~ location procedures were causes for concern. In Montgomery County, Mary— land, declining Federal and State sup— port for personnel development and demonstration projects, coupled with increased competition for local dollars amidst a decline in student population, necessitated a reduction in support personnel. Despite the implications for the shortrun, participants in both these systems were optimistic and actively trying to do as much, if not more, with less. Although a healthy financial system in and of itself does not result in ex— emplary mainstreaming programs and practices, it is an essential ingredient that gives good program ideas and strategies a chance to be demonstrated. Coordination With the Mental Health System Coordination with area mental health programs and agencies ranged from extensive to minimal among the six model programs. In three of the pro— grams—-Tacoma, Dade County, and New Haven—mental health and edu— cation personnel actively collaborated in program planning and development. Dade County schools developed co— operative agreements with both public and private mental health agencies. The TOPS program for emotionally dis— turbed children is illustrative of the effective results of these efforts. The Tacoma public schools had similar ar— rangements that materialized in jointly conducted, school—based programs. The most extensive mental health involvement was found in New Haven, 99 where a preventive approach was ap-- plied to a school setting. The program developed from the traditional case conference model to a comprehensive, preventive approach resulting in a "positive school climate." The preven— tive element in the program was the early identification of and intervention with so—called at—risk children. The other three programs were less exten— sively involved with mental health agencies, using them primarily for re— f erral and almost exclusively on an in- dividual case basis; mental health con— sultation in their schools was limited. As noted earlier, all these model programs had defined mental health roles and responsibilities for personnel within their school systems, so mental health consultation and support were provided primarily from within by school psychologists, guidance coun» selors, social workers, and the like. Conclusion In this study, six model programs for mainstreaming were selected on the basis of how they recognized, under— stood, and responded to the mental health needs of parents, teachers, and students involved in mainstreaming. The programs were diverse in terms of school system size, geographical loca» tion, socioeconomic background and cultural heritage. Across the 6 pro— grams, 12 factors were identified and discussed in terms of (a) their contri— bution to program success and (b) their replicability. The programs demon-— strate very vividly the exciting things that can be ' done to improve main— streaming practices. It is hoped that other programs and school systems will imitate these exemplary efforts. Chapter 4 Implementing Mentally Healthy Mainstreaming The purpose of this chapter is to present some specific activities and strategies that can improve main— streaming; they have been gleaned from the literature review and contacts made with programs around the country. The strategies address the needs of students, parents, and teachers involved in mainstreaming. The effec- tiveness of each strategy has been demonstrated by actual program im— plementation, databased evaluations, or both. Eliminating and reducing teasing and name calling. One of the mental health concerns related to mainstreaming is the negative effects of potential teas— ing and name calling by the regular classroom students, which lower self— esteem and create negative self—con— cepts among handicapped students. Some specific suggestions for changing the regular students' attitudes toward handicapped students and reducing such incidents follow (Orlansky 1977). 0 Invite the "troublemakers" into the classroom and arrange for them to share experiences with exceptional. students. 0 Start a tutorial program. 0 Invite students from regular classes to participate in and assist with field trips. 0 Use role playing with handicapped students, and discuss alternate ways to respond to name calling. 100 O Involve the special education teacher in school affairs so that he or she becomes a resource to the school. Teaching social skills and informing exceptional students about their dis- abilities to enhance social integration. A California workshop, "The Handi— capped in Our Society," included inservice education for faculty and a program for regular students to ask questions of a panel of handicapped students. Specific strategies used in conjunction with the workshop were: (a) teaching social skills through role playing and discussions, (b) forming support groups or clubs for high- school-age disabled students, and (c) giving students information about their disabilities so they could better relate their needs to others (Hedford 1979). Increasing social interaction between handicapped and nonhandicapped chil— dren (cross—age grouping). A research study conducted by Cavallaro and Porter (1980) suggests that placing handicapped or at—-risk children with normal children will not automatically lead to increased social interaction between these two groups. This study found that the interactions of at—risk and normally developing children in a preschool classroom were primarily with children from the same group. Physical mainstreaming alone does not ensure social integration between de— layed and normally developing children. The suggested strategy is to place at—risk children with normally develop— ing children who are younger. while providing concurrent interventions that serve to maximize cooperative play. This strategy was used successfully at Kensington Elementary School, Mont— gomery County, Maryland. Using positive teacher response to increase peer acceptance. This strategy seems to point out the obvious, but often it is helpful when research rein— forces what teachers' natural instincts tell them. A research study reported by Foley (1979) confirmed that the way in which the child is responded to by his or her peers is influenced by the way the classroom teacher responds to the handicapped child. Positive teacher behavior leads to greater acceptance. Negative teacher behavior, such as a punitive tone of voice, leads to less acceptance. Teachers need to examine and change, if necessary. their response patterns to students who seem to be socially rejected by their classmates. Assigning positive attributes to in— crease peer acceptance. In relating to the handicapped child in a regular classroom, teachers are often faced with the decision of whether to mini— mize the negative or maximize the positive. A research study by Freeman and Algozzine (1980) indicates that assigning positive attributes helps maintain favorable ratings. Altering or embellishing the characteristics of handicapped children is a productive means of alleviating negative attitudes toward them. Attempts to downplay or alter perceptions of the handicapped students‘ negative behavior is less beneficial than providing positive in— formation about the students. Providing out—oj-school support groups. Students who are mainstreamed need strengthened self—concepts and interpersonal skills. This is particularly true with low—incidence student popu— lation groups. such as hearing—impaired, visually impaired, and physically handi— 101 capped students. The mainstreamed student may be the only blind student in a junior high school or the only wheel— chair user in the senior class. An out— of—school support group for students in these types of situations provides an opportunity to share feelings and problems. A related project trained teachers to assess nonacademic factors such as student interaction, classroom climate, and handicapped student self— concept to promote integration of handicapped students. An out—of—school support group and a special training program for teachers have been used effectively in a Minneapolis, Minnesota, program (Hoben 1980). Improving attitudes of handicapped students toward other handicapped students. The issue of peer acceptance is not restricted to the nonhandicapped student's acceptance of the handi— capped student. Israelson (1980) re— ported on a strategy that was used to modify the negative reactions of hear— ing—impaired students to another deaf child who was physically handicapped. The strategy was a miniunit that in— cluded simulations of handicapping conditions, visits with persons with multiple handicaps, role playing, and group discussion. Emphasizing cooperative learning experiences. Three types of instruc— tional situations may be implemented in the mainstreamed classroom. These include competitive, individualistic, and cooperative learning experiences. Re- search has suggested that competitive and individualistic learning experiences tend to promote rejection and increase or continue negative impressions of handicapped students held by their nonhandicapped peers. Cooperative learning experiences tend to increase acceptance and foster positive atti— tudes toward handicapped children, improving their academic and social integration. According to David and Roger John— son, directors of the Cooperative Learning—Mainstreaming Project, There is considerable evidence from research and practical experience indicating that physical proximity between handicapped and nonhandi— capped students will increase stereo— typing, derogation, stigmatization and hostility unless interaction is structured cooperatively. By placing handicapped and nonhandicapped students in the same cooperative learning group, their social and cog— nitive development, self—esteem and achievement will be maximized. (Johnson and Johnson, 1980, p. 91). A number of research and demon— stration projects by Johnson and J ohn— son (1980) indicated that teachers can structure interactions among students that will encourage an accepting and supportive relationship between non— handicapped and handicapped students. Special education teachers can co— operatively teach lessons with regular teachers. Specific procedures were outlined by the authors. The cooperative learning approach is being demonstrated in a number of school systems around the country. In mainstreaming projects, the purpose is to train collaborative school teams consisting of several regular classroom teachers, one or more special education teachers, and a school administrator. The field demonstration project sites are located in Hopkins, Minnesota; San Diego, California ; Mansfield, Minnew sota; St. Paul, Minnesota; J eff erson County, Colorado; Lincoln, Nebraska; South Royalton, Vermont; South Brunswick, New Jersey; Madison, Wis- consin; and Elgin, Illinois. Using games analysis. A large per— centage of handicapped children are mainstreamed into specialty areas, in» cluding physical education. Too often, special education and regular education teachers assume that since these are 102 nonacademic areas, little or no modi— fication needs to be made to facilitate successful mainstreaming. This is not the case. When mainstreaming students into any regular education area, whether it be academic or specialty, the individual needs of each student must be considered. Games analysis is a process that helps teachers modify a game or design a game that accommo— dates individual motoric differences as well as promoting specific behavioral outcomes, such as cooperation (Marlowe 1980). Using volmteers for special educa— tion. One of the things that leads to distress among educational personnel involved in mainstreaming is the feeling that the demands of the program and the needs of the students are beyond the limits of existing resources. One way to alleviate this distress is to pro— vide additional resources to close the gap. A parent volunteer program at First Ward Elementary School in Morgantown, West Virginia, demon— strated how use of parent volunteers can be helpful to the implementation of a mainstream program for learning— disabled students. A committee, comprised of a special education teacher, two regular class— room teachers, and the school librarian, was established to set up the program, with a parent serving as coordinator. Recruitment of volunteers was carried out through letters to parents, phone calls to the local retired senior volun— teer agency, and a presentation at the PTA meeting. Volunteers were assigned to one of four areas: one—to-one work with students, small group work, cler— ical duties, and activities outside the classroom, such as preparation of spew cial materials. Implementing mainstreaming in re- verse: project special friends. Main— streaming in regular education classrooms is not an appropriate service arrangement for severely retarded students. However, a program that provides for interaction between se— verely retarded and normal students can increase positive social interactions between nonhandicapped and handi~ capped students at school and in the community. Such a program was carried out at Lemont Elementary School. in State College, Pennsylvania (Poorman 1980). Students became more aware of their classmates' problems and more willing to help. An understanding of the feelings of others was more evident. Parents of nonhandicapped and handi—- capped students in the community re- acted favorably to the program. From a practical resource perspective, the teacher received assistance in providing one—to—one instruction for students in the special education class. Student volunteers worked with re— tarded children in free and structured play situations, manipulative activities, gross motor skill activites, self—help skills, auditory and visual training, and sensory stimulation. Student volunteers generally spent 30 minutes per day, 2 or 3 days per week in the special class. Activity books were provided for the students to follow, and the teacher kept records of activities, using them to check on the progress of individual children. Using films to encourage positive attitudes toward handicapped children. Many multimedia materials on the market are designed to introduce hand— icapped children to their nonhandi— capped peers and increase acceptance. Film is used extensively. The effects of a film on nonhandicapped students' at— titudes toward handicapped children, as measured by a social distance ques— tionnaire, indicated that the film may have some immediate positive effects but that these effects were not long lasting (Westervelt and McKinney 1980). The authors suggested that films focusing on similarities of interests of the handicapped child and his or her nonhandicapped peers may be useful to 103 show to children immediately before the entrance of the handicapped child into a class. A film alone does not ap— pear to be sufficient, however, in an— swering all of the questions and doubts that nonhandicapped children have about handicapped children. The authors recommended that film be used in conjunction with other activities. Increasing understanding of the hand— icapped through literature. Books can help both children and adults under— stand and accept the disabled since they "give you and your child pictures to stare at, handicapped people to speak about, uncomfortable feelings to share, and because that is how people, children and adults become easier with what is strange to them" (Engel, 1980, p. 27). According to Engel, books must be evaluated for literary quality, main— streaming goals, and the needs and abilities of young children. Engel in— cluded an annotated bibliography of books about disabilities suitable for young children. Educating nonhandicapped students about their handicapped peers. Re— search has shown that the negative at— titudes of nonhandicapped children toward their handicapped classmates can be changed to be more positive through exposure to educational and enlightening instructional materials and experiences. A variety of materials are available for educating nonhandicapped students about their handicapped peers. Litton, Banbury, and Harris (1980) com— piled an annotated list of mainstream— ing resource materials for teachers, including books about handicapped students and mainstreaming instruc— tional. materials for non-handicapped children. Mainstreaming parents. The in— experience and misconceptions of parents of the nonhandicapped often cause them to resist the enrollment of handicapped children in regular class— rooms. Parents of the handicapped are often anxious that their children will not be able to do the work and may be rejected. These fears and concerns can be addressed by involving parents of the handicapped along with parents of the nonhandicapped in mainstreaming. Kames (1978) discussed attitudes, new knowledge, and specific skills relevant for mainstreaming parents of the hand— icapped. Kames also discussed specific ways for working with parents and specific skills that teachers will need to promote parental involvement successfully. Implementing a weekly share time. Mainstreaming provides an opportunity for the handicapped and nonhandi— capped students to develop a better understanding of themselves and others. In an effort to get a third grade class and an intermediate mental disabilities class to become concerned about each other, the regular education and special education teachers at Orange Ele- mentary School in Waterloo, Iowa, im— plemented a weekly share time. The teachers wanted to promote under— standing through social involvement, and initiated the weekly share time activity as a way for the students to share experiences and personal items of interest. The sessions have now ex— panded into other areas of the curric— ulum and have involved science field trips, development of learning stations for use by small groups, and coopera— tive activities such as cooking lunch together, planning a special Thanks— giving f east, singing Christmas carols together at the school Christmas pro— gram, exchanging valentines, exchang— ing letters, viewing films, playing bingo, and attending a picnic at the end of the school year. Having parents train parents. Pro- viding information, training, and sup— port to parents whose children are involved in mainstreaming is the major purpose of the Pacer Center. The 104 center informs parents of handicapped children about their rights under P.L. 94—142 and State laws. Most of the staff are parents of handicapped chil— dren. Five levels of program activity include public information and educa— tion, workshops for parents of all hand— icapped children, workshops for specific groups, advocacy training, and indi— vidual advocacy assistance. The proj— ect's operational base, Pacer Center, Inc.. which stands for Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights, is located in Minneapolis. Minnesota. Implementing peer—to—peer inservice training activities. Inservice training has been a key for providing support to special and regular education classroom teachers. Cof f ee—Plus became the name associated with the implementation of the inservice training program at the Walnut Street Elementary School, Toms River, New Jersey, that represents a break from traditional approaches. Cof f ee— Plus combines social activities with inservice training. These are vol—v untary programs held before school that address staff concerns about main- streaming. Teachers decide what topics they want addressed, and there is ad— ministrative support and participation. Homegrown talent is used whenever possible, emphasizing special strengths of the staff. Programs are fun, brief, and to the point. Programs have in— cluded "Raisins and Rosa," on the au— ditorally impaired; "Just Desserts in the Resource Room," on visual perception; "Crepes and Control," on classroom management; and "Rappin with Tappan," on questioning techniques. Teachers involved in this inservice training program reported that they had improved their skills in group process and found abilities within themselves that they had not before realized they had. The peer—to—peer inservicing has helped to develop an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual professional respect among staff members. Implementing the floating faculty model. The floating faculty model is a unique teacher—to~teacher staff de— velopment model being implemented in the Prince Georges County public schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. The floating faculty consists of 15 teachers and a principal, centrally based but capable of being deployed to schools identified as needing their service. The strength of the program lies in the fact that it has been designed to be con— ducted by teachers for teachers. Pro- gram elements are related to teacher effectiveness training, assertive dis— cipline, verbal and nonverbal communi— cation skills, student team learning, and multicultural education. The floating faculty provides service in identified schools by pairing a floating faculty teacher with a school—based teacher. The model has had an 86 percent suc— cess rate in meeting its goals. Establishing a parents advisory com- mittee. An effective strategy in meet- ing the mental health needs of parents of handicapped students involved in mainstreaming is the use of a parents advisory committee. The Kennebunk— Kennebunkport School District in Maine formed their Parents Advisory Com— mittee on Special Education in 1968 in order to study the special education programs in the school district and to recommend philosophy and programs as needs arose. Through an advisory com— mittee, parent leaders can have a great influence on the remainder of the com— munity and can be an important force for expanding the program and acquir— ing funds and positions. Parents partic—- ipating in such committees (where their input is totally accepted) feel that they have a say in the programs and that 105 their concerns and needs will be ad— dressed. In addition, specific needs of parents may be addressed through spe— cial courses or programs arranged by the committees. Disseminating information about re— sources. The Boston public schools de—~ veloped a project called the Boston Special Needs Connections Project, established as a short—term program to research, publish, and disseminate in-- formation about services for children with special needs in Boston. This type of project, and the products that result from it, helps address some of the mental health concerns of parents and teachers who ask the questions, "Where do I go? Where should I begin?" Lack of information about available resources, or lack of knowledge as how to access those services, can lead to frustration and despair. The availability of infor— mation helps to reduce this frustration and eliminate the despair that often accompanies it. The project has developed the pub— lication Connections: A Directory of Services for Children with Special Needs in the Boston Public Schools, a Parent—Student Guide and a series of booklets that address such topics as special needs resources and laws, health services, recreation and the arts, child abuse and neglect, and employment, vocational training, and rehabilitation programs. Ready access to information and direction services helps mini— mize the anxiety of parents of handicapped children seeking help. The need for such information and direction service exists whether the system be a large, suburban system, a small suburban one, or a rural school district. References Alexander, D., and Strain, P.S. Review of educator's attitudes toward handw icapped children and the concept of mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools 15(3):390—396, 1978. Barnes, E.; Berrigan, C.; and Biklen, D. What's the Difference: Teaching Positive Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities. Syracuse, N.Y.: Human Policy Press, 1978. Behavior Science Corporation. Evalua- tion of the Impact on Community Mental Health Center Consultation Services on School Systems: A Report Prepared for the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1972. Bensky, J .; Dixon, B; and Shaw, S. Pub— lic Law 94-142 and stress: A problem for educators. Exceptional Children 47(1):24—29, 1980. Casey, K. Semantic differential tech— nique in the examination of teacher attitudes toward handicapped chil— dren. Exceptional Child 25(1):41—52, 1978. Cavallaro, S., and Porter, R. Peer pref—e erences of at—risk and normally de~ veloping children in a preschool mainstream classroom. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 84(4):357—366, 1980. Cohen, S. Fostering positive attitudes toward the handicapped: A new cur— riculum. Today's Children 6(6):7—12, 1977. Comer. J.P. School Power: Implications of an Intervention Project. New York: Free Press, 1980. Deno, E.N. Educating Children With Emotional, Learning, and Behavior Problems. Minneapolis: University of 106 Minnesota, Leadership Training In— stitute/Special Education, 1978. Dunn, L.M. Special education for the mildly retarded— Is much of it jus— tifiable? Exceptional Children 35:15—22, 1968. Dupont, H. Meeting the emotional social needs of students in a main— streamed environment. Counseling and Human Development 10(9):1—11, 1978. Engel, R. Understanding the handi— capped through literature. Young Children, 35(3):27~32, 1980. Foley, J.M. Effect of labeling and teacher behavior on children's atti— tudes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 83(4):380—384, 1979. Freeman, 5., and Algozzine, B. Social acceptability as a function of labels and assigned attributes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 84(6):589—S95, 1980. Gallup, G. Eleventh annual Gallup poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan 61(1):33—46, 1979. Goodman, H.; Gottlieb, J .; and Harri— son, N. Social acceptance of EMRs integrated into a nongraded ele— mentary school. American Journal of Ill/(19e7nztal Deficiency, 76(4):412—417, Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Train ing. New York: New American Li— brary, 1975a. Gordon, T. Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter H. Wyden, 1975b. Gresham, F.M. Misguided mainstream ing: The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Excep— tional Children 48(5):422—433, 1982. Hedford, T. The handicapped in our society. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 1979. Hoben, M. Toward integration in the mainstream. Exceptional Children 47(2):100—105, 1980. Hughes, J ., and Lowman, B. Feasibility Study for a Teacher Training Pro— gram in Techniques for Developing an Awareness adn Acceptance of Indi— viduals With Handicapping Conditions Among Their Peers. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Council on Develop— mental Disabilities, 1980. lsraelson, J. I'm special too-—A class— room program promotes under— standing and acceptance of handi— caps. Teaching Exceptional Children 13(1):35—~37. 1980. lssacson—Kailes, J .; de Apodaca, R.F.; Watson, J .D.; and Mueller, J. A Multidimensional Comparison of the Social Adjustment of Mainstreamed Physically Handicapped High School Students and Non—Handicapped Classmates. Sacramento: Office of Special Education, California State Department of Education, 1981. Johnson, D., and Johnson, R. Integrat— ing handicapped students into the mainstream. Exceptional Children 47(2): 90-98, 1980. Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children. Crisis in Child Mental Health: Challenge for the 1970's. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Kames, M. Mainstreaming parents. In: Hawkins—Shepherd, C., ed. Making It Work: Practical Ideas for Integrating Exceptional Children Into Regular Classrooms. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1978. Kaufman, M.; Gottlieb, J .; Agard, J .; and Kukic. M. Mainstreaming: Toward an explication of the con— struct. In: Meyen, E.L.; Gergalon, G.A.; and Whelan, R.J., eds. Alter— natives for Teaching Exceptional Children. Denver: Love Publishing, 1975. pp. 35-54. Kennon, A.F., and Sandoval, J. Teacher attitudes toward the educable men—- 107 tally retarded. Education and Train— ing of the Mentally Retarded 13(2):139-145, 1978. Kroth, R. Parents—Powerful and necessary allies. Teaching Excep—- tional Children 10(3):88—90, 1978. Litton, F.W.; Banbury, M.M.; and Harris, K. Materials for educating non—handicapped students about their handicapped peers. Teaching Excep— tional Children 13(1):39—43, 1980. Marlowe, M. Games analysis: Designing games for handicapped children. Teaching Exceptional Children 12(2):48--51, 1980. MacMillan, D.L.; Jones, R.L.; and Aloia, 0.1“. The mentally retarded label: A theoretical analysis and re— view of research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 79(3):241-261, 1974. Morse, W.C.; Ardizzone, J .; Mcdonald, C.; and Pasick, P. Affective Educa— tion for Special Education Children and Youth. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1980. Orlansky, M.D. Active learning and student attitudes toward exceptional children. Exceptional Children 46(1): 49—52, 1977. Panda, K., and Bartel, W. Teacher perception of exceptional children. Journal of Special Education 6:261—266, 1972. Paul, J .L., ed. Understanding and Working With Parents of Children With Special Needs. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981. Poorman, C. Mainstreaming in reverse with a special friend. Teaching EX»- ceptional Children 12(4):136—142, 1980. Redl, F., and Wattenberg, W.W. Mental Hygiene in Teaching 2d ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace 8: World, 1959. Reynolds, M.C., ed. Mainstreaming: Origins and Implications. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1976. Reynolds, M.C., and Birch, J .W. Teach-- ing Exceptional Children in All America's Schools. Reston, Va.: Council for 1978. Rucker, C.N. and Gable, R.K. Rucker Gable Educational Programming Scale Manual. Storrs, Conn.: Rucker—Gable Associates, 1974. Salasin, J. et a1. Challenges for Chil— Exceptional Children, dren '3 Mental Health Services. McLean. Va. : MITRE Corporation, 1977. Shaw, RR, and Bensky, J .M. Making in—service training work: A model personnel development program. Education Unlimited 2(2):S—9, 1980. Silberman, C.E. Crisis in the Class- room: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. Todd, K.P. Promoting Mental Health in the Classroom. Rockville, Md.: Na— 108 tional Institute of Mental Health, 1980. U.S. Congress. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. P.L. 93—112. Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. U.S. Congress. Education for All Handi— capped Children Act of 1975. P.L. 94—142. Washington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. U.S. Office of Education and National Institute of Mental Health. Mental Health and Learning. Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1972. Westervelt, V., and McKinney, J. Ef— f ects of a film on non—handicapped children's attitudes toward handi— capped children. Exceptional Chil— dren 47(4): 294—295, 1980. Appendix A Additional Programs This appendix contains brief descriptions of programs that reflect sound main— streaming implementation from a mental health perspective. Descriptions emphasize aspects of each program that address mental health concerns and needs of students, teachers, and parents, although no attempt is made to describe these programs in detail. We hope enough information has been provided to stimulate the reader's in-- terest and direct the reader to sources of additional information about each program. Name 0 Project Monitor 0 Teach Us as We Are 0 The Primary Mental Health Project 0 Project FAST and Project CITES 0 The Special Friends Program 0 Project Stay—School To Aid Youth 0 Learning and Adjustment Program 0 Mainstreaming Program 0 Laboratory Science and Art for the Handicapped Child in a Mainstream Setting 0 Pittsburgh Model Program for Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities Project Monitor. Cambridge School. Department, Bureau of Pupil Services, 159 Klondike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, telephone 617—498—9284/9285. Contact person: Ellen Willard, Generic Specialist, Project Monitor. A key emphasis of Project Monitor Location Cambridge, Massachusetts Spring Branch, Texas Rochester, New York Essexville and Bay City, Michigan Kailua, Hawaii Moore, Oklahoma Norristown, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Washington. D. C. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is to provide support to the regular classroom teacher with additional sup— plemental services to mainstreamed handicapped children through evalua— tion and monitoring of student progress in the mainstream setting. The school district serves a total school population of 8,000--9,000 students in a suburban environment with a multicultural popu. lation. Many objectives of the project reflect its mental health orientation. Objectives include helping students to interact positively with peers in the regular classroom, to develop a positive self—image, to become more independ— ent learners, and to identify themselves as regular class students rather than special needs students. Another goal. is to decrease the stigmatization of stu- dents with special needs in the regular classroom. Three generic specialists and one aide serve three elementary schools and the high school. They provide support, consultation, team teaching, and dem- onstration teaching services for regular classroom teachers. The project is in» volved in instituting schoolwide pro- grams to promote acceptance of dif» ferences among the student population. Student tutors are used in two of the schools. Project Monitor staff have compiled an excellent resource note— book, entitled "Mainstream: A Manual for the Classroom Teacher." The pro— gram has been recognized by the Mas—r sachusetts Department of Education and is the recipient of a Promising Practices Award, which provides funds for dissemination of information about the project to other Massachusetts school districts. Teach Us As We Are. Spring Branch Independent School District, 955 Camp— bell Road, P.O. Box 19432, Houston, TX 77024, telephone 713—464—~-1511. Con— tact person: Mrs. Lucinda Randall, Executive Director, Special Education. The special education program of the Spring Branch Independent School Dis— trict serves a handicapped student pop— ulation of about 3,200 out of a total student population close to 34,000. The school district is primarily suburban, although there is some mix of urban features as the inner—city area expands, with an increasing influx of minority population groups, including Mexican— 110 Americans, blacks, and orientals. For both special education and reg—- ular education teachers, the school district provides services through the Skills Development Center, an exten- sive materials center, and a profes-- sional growth program. Needs assess— ments are conducted with teachers to determine priority training areas. Services to students are extensive. A concentrated effort has been made in the past several years to improve the extent and quality of mainstreaming at the secondary level. A program called Synergistic Education at the secondary level is for learning—disabled students. It includes a high—intensity learning lab, a content mastery program that pro— vides support for mainstreaming, a par— ent training program, and a special af—- f ective education program. The key service provided to special education students in dealing with men-7 tal health concerns related to main— streaming is provided by special educa» tion counselors. Counseling services are provided by certified counselors who help children understand their special needs, train children in psychosocial skills, assist parents in understanding the special needs of their children, and train parents to assist in their chil— dren's intellectual and psychosocial development. The counselors consult with students who are having major behavioral, adjustment, or emotional problems. They work with all handi— capped students and will confer with teachers, principals, and parents to determine the children's needs. They observe classrooms, visit homes, and contact supportive personnel when necessary; counsel children in group or individual sessions; and recommend educational plans to meet the children's needs. In administration of special education programs, special education coordina~ tors are teamed with regular education coordinators so that there is active co— operation and coordination at this level in program implementation. At least once a year a special program is con— ducted for principals. A principal's handbook that outlines policies and pro-» cedures in mainstreaming implementa— tion has been developed. The special education department has produced a number of materials and products, including curriculum, audio— visual and instructional aids, and bro—v- chures. These include: a handbook for mainstreaming entitled "Teach Us As We Are"; Synergistic Education, a brief monograph describing programming for the learning~disabled adolescent; and an IEP parent guide. The Primary Mental Health Project. 575 Mt. Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, telephone 716-275—2547. Con— tact person: Dr. Emory L. Cowen, Director. The Primary Mental Health Project (PMHP) is a program for early detec— tion and prevention of school adjust— ment problems. PMHP started in 1958 as a pilot demonstration project in the Rochester schools. It has now expanded to 25 schools in the City of Rochester and several suburban school districts in a cooperative educational services area. There are about 13,000 children in the 25—p1us schools currently served by PMHP. In each of the past several years, intensive helping services have been brought to 1,100 to 1,200 children, primarily in kindergarten through third grade. The goal of PMHP is to help each child get a good start in school by fostering a healthy self~concept, im— proved social skills, and school per—v f orrnance up to the child's potential. The PMHP process begins with sys— tematic early detection of school ad— justment problems in kindergarten and first grade children, based on screening by the school psychologist, interviews with parents by social workers, and teachers' behavior ratings. Once a child is accepted into the program, goals are established and a carefully selected child aide is assigned to work with the child outside the classroom setting for 467—500 0 — 85 — 9 : QL 3 111 30 to 45 minutes once or twice a week. Aides work with children individually and occasionally in small groups; they are under close professional supervi— sion. Aides are trained, supervised paraprofessionals selected on the basis of personal maturity, experience, and ability to relate to children. The PMHP model represents a mental health approach that facilitates main— streaming of mildly handicapped chil— dren through the mental health support provided to the child and to the par— ents. The PMHP staff has developed a regional and national dissemination program providing workshops, site visits, and internship training opportu~ nities. Replications and adaptations of the program have been implemented in more than 50 school districts and in 300 schools around the country. Project FAST. Essexville Hampton Public Schools, Essexville, MI 48732, telephone 517—893—4533. Contact per— son, Herbert Escott, Director. Project CITES. Bay—Arenac Inter— mediate School District, Bay City, MI 48706, telephone 517—686—6380. Con— tact person: Nelson H. Good, Director. These two programs are presented together because Project CITES is an extension of Project FAST to the sec— ondary level. Project FAST, Functional Analysis Systems Training, serves three elemen— tary schools (grades K through 6) and provides mainstreamed education serv— ices to students with moderate and severe learning problems or disabilities in reading, language, speech, vision, motor coordination, audition, or social/ emotional development. Approximately 175 handicapped students are served, with 90 percent of these students being mainstreamed. The school district population served is primarily suburban and white. The program stresses class— room organization using learning cen— ters, behavior management focused on students' managing their own behavior, assessment of developmental levels, cross—age tutoring. and IEPs. Special support personnel who pro— vide ongoing diagnostic, prescriptive, and evaluative services are available. Inservice training is provided to teach— ers to help them develop nine basic teaching tools leading to the implemen— tation of an ongoing diagnostic—pre— scriptive—evaluative teaching process. There is extensive parental involve— ment reflected in the high percentage of participation in IEP planning meet—- ings, in the development and continua— tion of parent interest groups, and in the number of parent—made educational materials in use in the program. The project has been recognized by the U.S. Office of Education Joint Dissemina— tion and Review Panel as an exemplary project. Project CITES, Comprehensive Interlocking Teams for Educational Support, includes teacher training ac— tivities focusing on communication and relationship skills, diagnostic and pre—- scriptive teaching techniques, and classroom organization. The emphasis on communication and relationship skills is addressed through systematic focus on the problem—solving process and utilization of transactional analysis and teacher effectiveness training. The program has been implemented in three area high schools—one inner— city, one suburban, and one small rural high school. In each of these schools parent groups have been initiated, for both therapeutic and educative pur— poses. Group meetings of parents of CITES students are held regularly for sharing information, communicating feelings, and dealing with organiza— tional issues related to the parent volunteer program. As a result of the program, partici— pating schools have reported less van— dalism, better attendance by teachers and parents, changes in teachers' per— ceptions of problems, greater staff satisfaction, improved grades, less disruption by students, and greater 112 parental participation and satisfaction. Evaluation reports and research studies are available, as well as a variety of training materials and procedural manuals. The Special Friends Program. Kainalu Elementary School and Kailua Inter- mediate School, Windward Oahu School District, Kailua, HI. Contact person: Dr. Luanna M. Voeltz, Assistant Pro- f essor, Department of Special Educa— tion, 1776 University Avenue, UAl—3A, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822. The idea for this program, a coopera— tive effort between the University of Hawaii Department of Special Educa— tion and the State Department of Edu— cation, came from the parent of a non— handicapped child who was working as a volunteer in the elementary school. The program illustrates the potential men— tal health benefits to nonhandicapped students involved in the mainstreaming process. The program consists of sched— uled opportunities for interaction be— tween 3. group of regular education spe- cial friends selected from grades 4 through 7 and their severely handi— capped peers enrolled in self—contained classes. In the program, each nonhandi— capped child spends three weekly recess periods with a handicapped special friend. The nature of the one—to—one interactions between children is struc— tured by the special education teacher and includes activities ranging from peer tutoring to free play. Group dis— cussions with a program trainer/coor— dinator to support sensitivity, aware— ness, and communication skills are held one to three times weekly during recess and involve all the regular education student participants. A survey of at— titudes toward handicapped children showed that the regular education children developed more positive at— titudes toward the special education children. They were more willing to accept handicapped students as fellow friends and students, and, as a result, special education children showed marked improvement in their social skills. Materials on the program are available, including evaluation reports and a f acilitator‘s manual. Project STAY—School to Aid Youth. Moore Public Schools, 400 North Chest— nut, Moore, OK 73160, telephone: 404—794-1874. Contact person: Pat Ross, Director of Guidance. In Project STAY the emphasis is on building positive self—concepts through achievement. Project STAY provides early identification and treatment of children who are usually of average or above average intelligence but who have specific social—emotional and academic needs. Project STAY provides services to students from all 114 ele— mentary schools in Moore, a suburban school district located just outside Norman, Oklahoma. The program, serv— ing 40 to 50 students annually, is now in its 10th year of operation and has been validated at both the national and State levels. Students attend the Project STAY learning center for a half—day and their regular classes for a half-day. This schedule permits two different groups to visit the learning center each day. The project acquaints regular class— room teachers with specific instruc— tional patterns for students with special social. emotional, or academic needs. Information on the student's participa— tion in the project is communicated through the elementary counseling program to parents and teachers. A strong mental health orientation in the project is reflected in its guidance and human relations services. Each stu— dent is involved in group discussions, under the guidance personnel, aimed at problems typical of that student's age group. The program emphasizes the importance of healthy family, school, and neighborhood relationships. Pro— gram strategies and activities include DUSO (Developing Understanding of Self and Others), use of comic strips, 113 body puppets, Magic Circle, pantomime, a project booklet entitled, "Learning about Learning, Me," and TA for Tots. Project STAY was not originally designed or developed as a mainstream- ing project for handicapped children. However, the project has served many students with mild emotional and learning problems who have benefited from early intervention. The organi— zation of the program, its staffing patterns, and its innovative teaching strategies support mainstreaming im- plementation at the primary level. A 30—minute color slide and sound presentation on Project STAY is avail— able, in addition to a number of printed reports and publications. Many innova~ tive teaching techniques have been de— signed and are used by Project STAY staff in academic areas. These have been compiled in a nicely illustrated booklet, "Teaching Ideas That Work in Project STAY." Learning and Adjustment Program. Montgomery County Intermediate Unit, Special Education Center, 1605—8 West Main Street, Norristown, PA 19403, telephone: 215—539—8550. Contact per— son: R. Thomas Marrone, M.D., Chief Child Psychiatrist. The Learning and Adjustment Pro— gram, a comprehensive program for emotionally disturbed children from kindergarten through high school, uses mental health professionals within the school setting who assist in the main— streaming effort. The mental health professionals serve primarily as group leaders and train teachers and aides in group therapy techniques. The process of conducting therapeutic discussion groups in the classroom with teachers and aides as cotherapists with mental health professionals is one of the unique aspects of the program. This process provides an opportunity for the thera— pists to train the teachers and teacher aides in psychotherapeutic techniques and understanding and, at the same time, for the teachers to train the therapists in group educational methods and procedures. The principal developers of this pro- gram, Nancy Anderson, assistant direc— tor of special education, and Thomas Marrone, chief child psychiatrist, iden- tified several benefits to this program model: (a) Groups become an effective vehicle to providing support to teach— ers; (b) groups provide a set time for teachers to listen to children and for children to listen to children; (c) groups provide a time in the curriculum for dealing with the children's affective needs in the areas of understanding self and others; (d) groups enable the mental health professionals to identify ongoing changes and intervene early in cases of potentially severe pathology; (6) groups provide encouragement for improve-1 ment in the student's behavior; (f) groups show a ripple effect of empathy through training children as therapeutic change agents and through the modeling of this behavior by the adults; and (g) the training and psychodynamic under- standings that occur assist teachers in choosing appropriate methods and tech- niques for dealing differentially with the students' behaviors, thus diminish— ing classroom management difficulties. Other key components of the pro-~ gram include social work and parent education. The Learning and Adjust—- ment Program has been documented in a series of five videotapes with related booklets. Each set of videotapes and booklets covers a different aspect of the program. Mainstreaming Program Philadelphia Public Schools. The School District of Philadelphia, Division of Special Educa— tion, Stevens Administrative Center, lst floor, 13th and Spring Garden Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19123. tele— phone 215:351—7221. Contact person: Win L. Tillery, Ph.D., Executive Direc— tor, Special Education. The Philadelphia public schools, with a total student population over 200,000 and approximately 25,000 students in 114 special education and related services programs, serve a large urban school district with a large, diverse minority population that is 60 percent black and 7 percent Hispanic. The school dis-- trict's organization into seven areas overlaps with the organization of men—- tal health programs in the Philadelphia area. There are several programs in-r volving cooperation between the school system and mental health agencies. The education and consultation units of the community mental health center pro—- grams are used on a referral basis for individual cases. Also, mental health professionals provide presentations to faculty and parent groups and make program and class consultations as well. The system uses a wide variety of ap- proaches for preparing teachers and pupils for mainstreaming that have been developed over the past decade. Mainstreaming is accomplished pri— marily through an extensive resource room program, originally only at the secondary level. In establishing the re—~ source room program, staff develop— ment for regular teachers was support— ed by a succession of Federal grants. For example, the Teacher Activity Center was established for regular and special education teachers, parents, and administrators to receive training in the mainstreaming process. Another program developed was the Skills Development Center project. which provided services designed to encourage mainstreaming of mildly handicapped students into secondary school classes. Resource room teachers in participat— ing schools produce instructional mod— ules that are disseminated to and uti—» lized by regular education teachers with mainstreamed students. Resource room teacher training packages, parent training packages, and videotapes are used. A comprehensive series of re— source manuals that clarify roles and responsibilities is available. A video— cassette series on mainstreaming and due process has been developed for in— service training of teachers. A parent training program, initiated in October 1980, involves groups of par— ents from all schools participating in exceptional children's programs. The program is designed to improve parents' attitudes toward the school, dissemi- nate information related to their chi1~ dren's handicaps, develop skills and techniques for use in the home, and develop skills that enable parents to perform school volunteer duties and train other parents. A parent training coalition consisting of parents, repre— sentatives of community service orga—- nizations, teachers, child study evalua— tion team members, and the school counselor and principal provides consul— tative leadership for the parent training program in each school. Peer acceptance and awareness ac— tivities use program such as the "Like You, Like Me" series, the "Zoom" series on special children, and a specially de— veloped comic book series, "Quadrus and Friends." With the exception of special programs for physically handi- capped and blind students, self—con» tained classrooms are located in regular school buildings. Reverse mainstream— ing is used. Higher functioning special education students and regular students work in special classes as tutors and help on field trips into the community. Laboratory Science and Art for the Handicapped Child in a Mainstream Setting. The American University, College of Arts and Sciences, Depart-- ment of Chemistry, Massachusetts and Nebraska Avenues, N.W., Washington, DC 20016, telephone 202-686—2332. Contact person: Doris E. Hadary, Professor of Chemistry and Project Director. One of the more difficult aspects of mainstreaming handicapped children into regular classrooms is planning for appropriate instructional integration. This program represents a highly suc— cessful effort in curriculum modifica— tion and instructional adaptation in the area of science. 115 In the program, science experiments are integrated with art projects that help to develop the children's compe— tencies in asking questions, seeking answers, finding form and order, and discovering new relationships through experiences. Experiments have been adapted from several major science curricula. A number of areas of stu— dents' development are related to men» tal. health objectives and the develop— ment of a positive classroom climate. These include (a) development of val— ues, (b) development of self— esteem, (c) absence of reduced general anxiety, (d) ability to handle stress and frustration with a minimum debilitating effect, (c) shaping a good academic self—concept, and (f) ability to identify a problem. The activities of the program increase students' resourcefulness in dealing with characteristics of themselves and their environments. This model program presently in- volves primary, junior high, and second— ary public schools in Washington, D.C.; Santa Barbara, California; and Milwau— kee, Wisconsin. The handicapped popu— lations include blind, visually impaired, deaf, auditory—impaired, emotionally disturbed, and learning—disabled stu—~ dents, plus children with communica— tion problems. A number of materials and resources, including a book and five films, have been prepared. Pittsburgh Model Program for Sec— ondary Students with Learning Disabi— lities. University of Pittsburgh, Special Education Program, SP22 Forbes Quadrangle, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, telephone 412-624-6163. Contact person: Lorie Buchwach, Field Site Coordinator. This program has been developed and demonstrated over a 3—year period in the Pittsburgh public schools and has been replicated by the Delaware Coun— ty Intermediate Unit in Media, Penn— sylvania (the project coordinator there is Margaret Adelman). In addition to typical referral proce— dures, the program utilizes an often overlooked source of referral, students themselves. The self—referral process begins when program staff meet with students (usually in their English classes) to explain the learning disabil— ities program. Students are encouraged to refer themselves if they feel they might be eligible for services. A major part of this program is the emphasis on the development of appro— priate social skills. Explicit instruction in social perception and social behavior, designed to prepare adolescents to be— come adequately socialized adults, is provided. The program has developed the School Survival Skills Curriculum, for exploring and developing coping 116 skills essential to survival in high school. The curriculum is divided into four strands» behavior control, teach— er—pleasing behavior, study skills, and career awareness. Group interactions provide students with an opportunity to practice the skills being taught and to receive feedback from their peers for successful application of the skills. Videotaping and audiotaping are used to allow students to review their behavior in specific role play situations. Through the weekly group meetings, students are made aware of what behaviors make classroom situations more posi— tive; they learn to recognize the impact of their behavior on teacher and stu— dent attitudes and to modify behavior. Appendix B Resource Materials This appendix contains annotated listings of selected materials for use with stu— dents. parents, and teachers in mainstreaming programs. Materials included represent approaches to mainstreaming that address the mental health needs and concerns of these groups. The materials are categorized under two headings: "For Use With Stu— dents" and "For Use by Parents and Educators." A more extensive listing of resource materials may be obtained by writing directly to the principal investigator. For Use With Students For Use With Students in Kindergarten through Grade 3. Accepting Individual Differences (AID). Developed by Dr. Shirley Cohen, Special Education Development Center, City University, New York; published by Developmental Learning Materials (DLM), 7440 Natchez Avenue, Niles, IL 60648. This multimedia program con— sists of five teacher's guides, four 11— by 14—inch story flip—books, one audiocassette, and one overview guide. The program involves students in se— quential discussions and gamelike ac— tivities; it covers visual impairments, motor impairments, hearing impair— ments, mental retardation, and learn—1 ing disabilities. Teacher's guides pre— sent basic information about each type of disability, offer instructor and stu-» dent activities, and suggest learning experiences. For Use with Students in Preschool Through Grade 9. American Guidance Service instruc- tional programs. Produced by and avail— able from American Guidance Service (AGS), Publishers Building, Circle Pines, MN 55014, telephone 612—786— 117 4343. These multimedia. prograrns are available: Developing Understanding of Self and Others (DUSO) (1970, 1973). DUSO kits (D—1: for use with kindergarten and lower primary children; D—2: for use with upper primary children) are pro— grams of activities and materials de— signed to encourage healthy social and emotional development. My Friends and Me (1977). This pro— gram (for use with preschool children) includes daily group activities and re— lated home activities that emphasize appreciation of personal identity and development of social skills and under— standings; pictures of physically handi- capped children and adults are included in the program. Toward Affective Development. This program (for use With children in grades 3—6) is activity centered and designed to stimulate psychological and affec— tive development; it focuses on stu— dents' real—lif e experiences and on their developing patterns of motiva—- tion, feeling, understanding, and participation. Transition. This program (for use with children in grades 6—9) aims at helping students through the difficult passage from childhood to middle adolescence. For Use with Students in Primary, Intermediate, Middle, Junior High, and High School Grades. Curriculum for Meeting Modern Problems. Developed by Lakewood Board of Education, 1470 Warren Road, Lakewood, OH 44107; available from the Order Department, Educational Research Council of America, Rocke— feller Building, 614 W. Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113. These teachers' and students' manuals provide teachers with an approach for dealing with the causes and consequences of behavior in the classroom. Curricula are available for various grade levels, from elemen~ tary through high school. The materials are as follows: Dealing With Causes of Behavior (elementary curriculum). This manual is available in two editions: one for pri— mary grades (1—3) and the other for intermediate grades (4 and 5). Dealing With Aggressive Behavior (middle school—junior high school cur— riculum). This manual provides students with learning experiences and informa— tion that will enable them to make con— structive decisions when facing situa— tions that could lead to aggressive actions. The New Model Me (high school cur— riculum). This manual takes a positive, preventive approach to the study of behavior and aggression. Self—aware— ness and values clarification play an important part in helping students gain a better understanding of why people do the things they do. For Use With Students in Kindergarten through Grade 12. Educational Television Programs. 118 Produced and distributed by the Agency for Instructional Television, Box A, Bloomington, IN 47401; available through your state education agency. These 15—minute film programs (87 in all) consist of the following: All About You (30 programs). These films (for use with children in kinder- garten—grade 3) help children explore their minds and bodies as they grow physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. Inside Out (30 programs). These films (for use with 8— to 10—year-olds) are designed to help children understand and cope with their emotions. They promote recognition that the way peo— ple live, the kinds of decisions they make, and how they feel are important to well-being. On the Level (12 programs). These films (for use with children in grades 9-12) are aimed at enhancing the per- sonal and social growth of high school students; they dramatize some common problems in the areas of self—concept, physical, health, and interpersonal re—- lationships and discuss emotional and intellectual issues. Self Incorporated (15 programs). These films (for use with children in grades 4—8) attempt, by stimulating reflective thinking and open discussion, to help students deal with some of the pressures of early adolescence-- cliques, dating, physical change, f ail- ure, disappointment, family life, ethnic and racial differences, and male and female identity. For Use by Classroom Teachers and Guidance Counselors with Children in Kindergarten through Grade 6. Focus on Self Development. Pub— lished by Science Research Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, IL 60611. This multimedia program con~ sists of a manual, filmstrips, story rec— ords, pupil activity books, and a hand—— book for counselors. This developmental program is designed to lead children toward an understanding of self, others, and the environment and its effects. For Use with Nonhandicapped Children in Grades 3 Through 9. Kids Come in Special Flavors Class— room Kit. Published by The Kids Come in Special Flavors Co., Box 562, Forest Park Station, Dayton, OH 45405. This multimedia package consists of print materials, a cassette tape and props, and a 7S—page guidebook. The kit in— cludes materials for 16 activities de— signed to simulate the inconvenience of a handicap. It is intended to prepare nonhandicapped students for main»- streaming by helping them understand, through involvement, what it is like to be handicapped by conditions such as blindness, learning disabilities, hearing loss, mental retardation, and orthopedic impairments. For Use with Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Children. The Kids on the Block. Developed by Barbara Aiello (puppets constructed by Ingrid Crepeau); published by The Kids on the Block, Inc., Suite 1040, The Washington Building, Washington, DC 20005. This multimedia package con— sists of 6 puppets, 1 teacher's guide, 5 cassette recordings of 10 full scripts, 1 additional cassette of operation in— structions, various props, 30 Chatabout cards (8— by 10—inch photographs of handicapped people performing a va— riety of tasks in various settings), 30 Braille alphabet cards, and 1 Braille book (with script in both print and Braille). This program uses puppets, cassettes. and various other materials to foster the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children in regular classrooms. The teacher's guide con- 119 tains 10 "classroom—proven" scripts featuring the puppets; suggestions for followup discussions; curriculum ideas for preparing disabled and nondisabled children for mainstreaming; examples of questions children usually ask, as well as suggestions on how they may best be answered; illustrations of the manual and Braille alphabets; and an extensive bibliography of children's literature that educates nonhandi-- capped children about the abilities of the handicapped. For Use with Children in Kindergarten through Primary Grades. Like You. Like Me (Series 3550). Published by the Encyclopaedia Britan— nica Educational Corporation (E.B.E.), 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. This filmstrip series (5-6 minutes each) contains 10 animated films designed for use by teachers who are integrating handicapped children into the regular classroom. The films consist of short stories describing events in the lives of children with various handicaps. The series is de— signed to stimulate discussions about feelings and attitudes that may assist the teacher in promoting an atmosphere of understanding and acceptance of the handicapped. An extended teacher's guide provides solutions to many of the problems teachers may face because of their lack of training and experience in dealing with disabled children. For Use with Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Children in Preschool and Primary Grades. Mister Rogers' Special Education Materials. Written and produced by Fred Rogers; published by Hubbard, P.O. Box 104, Northbrook, IL 60062. This multimedia package consists of 15 audiocassettes (each 12 minutes long) and 5 books (8— by 10—inch paperbacks, with full—color photographs). These materials are intended to help children benefit from exploring their feelings and fears about many things, including handicaps. Although these materials were written with handicapped children in mind, nonhandicapped children may benefit from them as well; they are designed to help all children understand their individual strengths and differ— ences and develop positive feelings about themselves and others. For Use by School Personnel with Children in Grade 5 and Up. People You'd Like to Know. Pub- lished by the Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation (E.B.E.), 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. This film series (10 live—action, color films) is intended to foster under—- standing and acceptance of the handi— capped. The children featured in the films range from 11 to 14 years of age and have various disabilities; they are shown interacting with teachers, fami- ly, and friends. For Use with Nonhandicapped and Handicapped Children in Preschool through Grade 1. Purple Adventures of Lady Elaine Fairchilde. Developed by Family Communications, Inc., Pittsburgh; available from Hubbard, PO. Box 104, Northbrook, IL 60062. This film series consists of five 16—mm films or video~ tapes (24—29 minutes each) and a guide entitled Suggestions for Use. Through filmed episodes, this program presents a fanciful adventure story designed to open discussion about subjects that concern all children---especially those with physical handicaps. For Use by Teachers and Students. Special Children Series ("The Handi— capped," "Teacher Training," 'Values"). Produced by WGBH—-TV (for "Zoom"), 120 Boston; published by Films. Inc., 733 Green Bay Road, Wilmette, IL 60091, telephone 800—323—4222). This film series consists of seven films that cross age barriers to provide positive images of the handicapped. The films are de— signed to allow children to empathize with, and gain an understanding of the problems faced by, their handicapped peers. Teachers are provided an oppor— tunity to observe instructional, psycho—- logical, and parental techniques that will enable them to work more effec— tively with handicapped students. For Use by Parents and Educators For Special Services Administrators. The Administrator's Role in Foster— ing the Mental Health of Special Serv— ices Personnel (1979). Written by Benjamin Dixon, Stan Shaw, and Jeffrey Bensky; available from ERIC Document Reproduction Services, PO. Box 190, Arlington, VA 22210. This paper (19 pages) outlines the role of the admin— istrator in fostering the mental health of special services personnel. This role includes (a) diagnosing environmental conditions, (b) implementing change strategies aimed at eliminating or minimizing stress conditions, and (c) determining the effectiveness of the strategies implemented and the mental health status of the organization or individual. For Parents, Staff Development Specialists, Administrators, Teacher Trainers, and Educators. Getting Schools Involved With Par— ents (1978). Written by Roger Kroth and Geraldine Scholl; published by the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091. This book offers suggestions for ini— tiating parent education programs and for expanding already existing pro—- grams; it covers implementation of service models, parental involvement programs, and how to measure the effectiveness of programs. For Parents of Handicapped Children. Giving Birth and Independence. Pub— lished by Lawren Productions, Inc., PO. Box 666, Mendocino, CA 95460. This multimedia. program consists of 5 Videocassettes or 16—mm films, a manual for workshop leaders, and a primer for parents; it dramatizes prob— lems faced by parents of handicapped children, suggests solutions, and stimu» lates discussion. The following mate— rials are available: Manual (for workshop leaders) Primer for Mothers of Handicapped Infants A Plan for Living (28 1/2 minutes). This segment addresses marital and family strains; it involves genetic counseling. Start by Loving (28 1/2 minutes). A single mother learns how to accept her daughter's handicap and how to show the love she feels. A Very Important Person (28 1/2 minutes). After an accident leaves their son with brain damage, parents need a quick course in which to find help, and in understanding the IEP. Adaptation to the Initial Crisis (10 minutes). For Teachers and AdminiStrators (both regular and special education); all levels. Human Advocacy and P.L. 94—142... The Educator's Role. Edited by Leo F. Buscaglia and Eddie H. Williams; avail— able from The Kids Come in Special Flavors Co., Box 562, Forest Park Station, Dayton, OH 45405. This book (117 pages) is a collection of profes— sional articles covering personnel, as well as legal, viewpoints on the intent 121 and implementation of PL. 94—142; it provides teachers and administrators with several perspectives on how main— streaming will affect them. For School Administrators, Regular and Special Class Teachers. and Paraprofessionals. Mainstreaming—A Handicapped Child Is Coming to Class Program. Published by the Special Learning Corporation, 42 Boston Post Road, Guilford, CT 06437. This multimedia. package consists of 3 books, 3 filmstrips, 3 cassettes, 20 blackline masters, and 1 teacher's guide. The program was developed in cooperation with school disticts with successful mainstreaming programs whose classrooms have included handi— capped children; it provides suggestions for effective means of working with handicapped students and includes pro— grams to develop positive attitudes and proper techniques. For Regular Class Teachers of Children in Grades 1 through 4; for Administrators and Parents. Mainstreaming—What Every Child Needs to Know About Disabilities (The Meeting Street School Curriculum for Grades 1—4). Written by Susan R. Book— binder; available from The Exceptional Parent Bookstore, 296 Boylston Street, Third Floor, Boston, MA 02116. This book provides a practical program de- signed to help nondisabled students understand and welcome their new disabled classmates; materials used in the curriculum are free and readily available. For Elementary and Secondary School, Regular Classroom Teachers Preparing for Mainstreaming; for Parents and Advocacy Groups. Mainstreaming in Action. Developed by Togg Films, New York City; avail— able from Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation, 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. This film (25 minutes, 16 mm. color; User's Guide included) is designed to stimulate regular education teachers to discuss issues and concerns regarding placement of handicapped children in the least restrictive environment. For Parents and Educators of Exceptional Children. More Like Us Than Unlike Us—Par— ent Talks to Educators. Produced and published by the Midwest Area Re— source Center. In this videotape (about 30 minutes long; 3/4—inch), a parent of an exceptional child discusses problems in communicating with special educa— tors and explains her frustration with the education process as a whole. Also discussed are the three stages parents of exceptional children pass through prior to accepting the handicap. Sug— gestions of areas in which special edu» cators can help parents cope are included. For Teachers and Parents of Developmentally Disabled Children. No Two Alike: Helping Children With Special Needs (1980). Developed by Exploring Childhood Program, Educa— tion Development Center. Inc. ; avail-- able from Childhood Programs, EDC School and Society Programs, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02160. This booklet (129 pages) is designed to help readers understand the feelings of children with special developmental needs; it also focuses on ways to support their devel—- opment and discusses how readers may gain insight into their own responses to children with special needs. For Parents and Teachers. 100 Ways to Enhance Self—Concept in the Classroom: A Handbook for Teach- 122 ers and Parents. Written by Jack Can— field and Harold C. Wells; published by Pennant Educational Materials, 8265 Commercial Street, Suite 14—B, La— Mesa, CA 92041. This book (288 pages) is a comprehensive collection of class— room activities for enhancing students‘ self—concepts. For Teachers. The Other Side of the Report Card: A How—To—Do—It Program for Affective Education. Written by Larry Chase; published by Pennant Educational Materials, 8265 Commercial Street, Suite 14—B, LaMesa, CA 92041. This book provides 24 units for a 2- to 4— year affective program; it also includes the "raw stuff" of 1.000 additional ses— sions, a troubleshooting guide to com— mon setbacks, and a guide to "bottom— lining" awareness sessions. For Regular and Special Education Teachers. Teachers and Parents: A Guide to Interaction and Cooperation. Written by Robert B. Rutherford, J r., and Eugene Edgar; published by the Longwood Division, Allyn and Bacon. Inc., Bostom, MA 01432. This book covers such topics as teacher—parent interactions (ex— change of information and cooperation), interventions (problem solving and values clarification, applied behavior analysis, interpersonal communication skills, and assertiveness), and special needs in regular education and special education settings. For Regular Classroom Teachers. What's the Difference? Teaching Positive Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities (1978). Written by Ellen Barnes, Carol Berrigan, and Douglas Biklen; published by Human Policy Press, Syracuse, NY 13210. This book (165 pages) provides activities designed to involve teachers and their students in experiences that will increase their foster contact with, empathy for, and knowledge of the disabled and will responsive behavior toward them. 123 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1985 O - 467-500 : QL 3 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 81 HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Rockville MD 20857 ' Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 THIRD CLASS MAIL POSTAGE AND FEES PAID PHS/ADAMHA PERMIT NO. G-283 NOTICE OF MAILING CHANGE Ll Check here if you wish to discontinue receiving this type of publication. D Check here if your address has changed and you wish to continue receiving this type of publication. (Be sure to furnish your complete address including zip code.) Tear off cover with address label and publication number still affixed and send to: National Institute of Mental Health Science Communication Branch 5600 Fishers Lane (Room 15-99) Rockville, Maryland 20857 DHHS Publication No. (ADM)84-1361 Printed 1984 GENERAL UBBABY-ILC.BERKELEY 'MIIIIIIHIMW I I'hl BUDDHBSBS?