Archived Information

III\. SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

######### Paraprofessionals in the Education Workforce

Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

######## School Discipline and Students with Disabilities

######### Preparing Teachers To Serve Students with Visual Impairments

Paraprofessionals in the Education Workforce[^1]

# Framing the Issues

Amendments contained in the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) address issues connected with the
growing reliance on paraprofessionals with greater emphasis on their
instructional and learner support roles in the delivery of special
education and related services for children and youths with
disabilities. State education agencies (SEAs) must now provide
leadership in the development of standards to ensure that *all*
personnel, including paraprofessionals, are adequately and appropriately
prepared. Standards developed in accordance with State law, regulations,
or written policy allow *appropriately trained and supervised*
paraprofessionals and assistants to assist in the provision of special
education and related services.

The roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals have evolved
steadily since they were introduced into classrooms as teacher aides
more than 40 years ago. "Paraprofessionals have become technicians who
are more appropriately described as paraeducators, just as their
counterparts in law and medicine are designated as paralegals and
paramedics" (Pickett, 1989, p. 1).

Paraeducator, paraprofessional, teacher aide/assistant, education
technician, transition trainer, job coach, home visitor\--these are just
a few of the titles that school districts and other education provider
systems have assigned to employees who: (1) provide instructional and
other direct services to children, youths, and/or their parents or
caregivers and (2) are supervised by teachers or other certified/\
licensed professionals who are responsible for diagnosing learner needs;
planning, implementing, and evaluating programs to achieve learner
needs; and assessing learner progress and program outcomes (adapted from
Pickett, 1989).

The following scenarios describe situations that occur daily in
classrooms nationwide. They highlight the evolving roles of both
paraeducators and the teachers who supervise them.

1.  Greta, a first-year teacher, is working in an inclusive middle
    school science program. Susan, an instructional assistant with 20
    years' experience in working with students with disabilities, and
    who is old enough to be Greta's mother, has been assigned to her
    classroom. Greta feels confident that she has the skills that she
    needs to plan for and teach the students. But because she was not
    prepared at either the undergraduate or the graduate level to plan
    for and direct the work of paraeducators, she is uncertain about how
    to integrate Susan into curriculum and other classroom activities.
    Susan is becoming increasingly unhappy because she feels that Greta
    does not appreciate the skills that she has developed over the past
    two decades.

2.  For the first time in her 10-year career as a teacher, Meredith is
    working with a teacher assistant. She is pleased that Rosita has
    been added to the team because many of the students have limited
    English abilities. Meredith feels strongly that it is her
    responsibility as the teacher to take the lead in sharing
    information with parents. But she has noticed that many parents seem
    to feel more comfortable speaking with Rosita about their children
    than to her; she is also becoming aware that Rosita seems to
    encourage the parents to speak with her, and this concerns Meredith
    a great deal.

3.  Henry is a paraeducator who was hired to facilitate the inclusion of
    students with disabilities into general education programs. He works
    with several teachers, each of whom has different expectations about
    what he should do in "their" classrooms. His duties vary from full
    responsibility for teaching "the special ed kids" in one class to,
    in another classroom, working with all the students who the teacher
    feels will benefit from personalized attention, escorting "his
    students" to yet another class, and, in the fourth classroom,
    sitting in the back of the classroom doing nothing. Henry is
    confused about his roles and responsibilities, and when he mentions
    this to the teachers, they too seem confused. Henry is also
    concerned that he lacks the training necessary to work effectively
    with such a varied group of students. He has asked other
    paraeducators about job descriptions and training opportunities and
    has been told that there are none. And he is uncertain about whom he
    should speak to about his concerns.

4.  Frances is an administrator responsible for her school district's
    staff development. A survey of personnel indicated a strong need to
    enhance the capacity of teachers and paraeducators to work as
    effective teams. She requested training resources on this topic from
    her State department of education's comprehensive system of
    personnel development and discovered that there are no statewide
    guidelines for the employment, placement, and supervision of
    paraeducators. Neither are there standards for competency-based
    training for paraeducators or for preparing teachers to work with
    them.

These case studies illustrate some of the issues examined in this module
on paraprofessionals in the education workforce. The module is divided
into three parts. Part I sets the stage with a brief review of the
historical and contemporary factors that have led to increased
paraeducator utilization in more demanding roles. Part II centers on
critical policy questions and systemic issues requiring the attention of
personnel in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities for
ensuring the availability of an effectively supervised, highly skilled
paraeducator workforce. Part III highlights promising practices and
strategies for developing standards and systems to prepare teachers and
paraeducators for their roles as members of program implementation
teams.

# Historical Perspective: A Legacy of Problems and Promise 

Many of the current concerns about professional development practices
and regulatory/administrative systems that have an impact on
paraeducator performance, supervision, and preparation have their roots
in policy decisions and events that took place four decades ago.

In the mid-1950s, a need to alleviate post-World War II shortages of
licensed educators and the fledging efforts of parents of children with
disabilities to develop alternatives to institutionalization stimulated
interest in the employment of teacher aides. Two significant research
projects were undertaken to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness
of teacher aides as one way to enable teachers to spend more time in
planning and implementing instructional activities. The first, sponsored
by the Ford Foundation, took place in Bay City, Michigan. College
educated, but unlicensed, teacher aides were recruited and trained to
perform clerical, monitoring, and other routine classroom tasks.
Acceptance was not automatic. Critics were concerned that teachers would
be replaced with unqualified "cheap labor." In general, however, the
reaction was cautiously optimistic, and the concept was adopted by other
districts. At about the same time, Cruickshank and Herring (1957)
documented the results of a project at Syracuse University designed to
demonstrate the efficacy of teacher aides in special education. Although
the results, like those in Bay City, were positive, it would be almost
10 years before the benefits of paraprofessionals would be more fully
tested and realized (Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1961;
Gartner, 1971, Kaplan, 1977).

The late 1960s and early 1970s wrought social and organizational changes
that had a profound impact on America's schools. Through the efforts of
educators and advocacy groups, Federal legislative actions established
programs such as Title I and Head Start to meet the needs of growing
numbers of children and youth from economically and educationally
disadvantaged family backgrounds. In 1975, parents and other advocates
for the rights of children and youth with disabilities also achieved
their goal of passing P.L. 94-142, the landmark Education for all
Handicapped Children Act, which later became the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Each of these legislative actions
recognized the value of learner centered, personalized education and
services for children and youth with diverse ability levels, learning
styles, and other education needs (although only P.L. 94-142 mandated
individualized education plans).

During this period, to provide teachers in both general and special
education with the assistance they required in order to develop and
provide learner-centered and individualized programs, the employment of
paraprofessionals gained momentum, and significant changes began to
occur in their roles and specialties. While they still performed routine
monitoring, clerical, and housekeeping tasks, paraprofessionals also
reviewed and reinforced lessons and assisted students with other
learning activities initiated by teachers (Fafard, 1974; Gartner, 1971;
Pickett, 1989). In urban centers in particular, paraprofessionals who
shared the culture and traditions of children and youth of diverse
backgrounds served as liaisons between schools and families as a way to
counter an emerging lack of confidence between the two (Gartner &
Riessman, 1974).

At the same time that paraprofessional utilization expanded, there was
also a growing awareness of the need to find ways to reduce barriers
that prevented people from ethnic, cultural, and language minorities
from entering the professional ranks. Then as now, paraprofessionals
were primarily women who were (re)entering the workforce and were also
generally representative of the cultural, ethnic, and language minority
groups in their communities (Pearl & Riessman, 1965). Throughout the
1960s and 1970s, Federal legislation, particularly the Economic
Opportunities Act of 1964 and the Education Professions Development Act
of 1967, played key roles in supporting and providing access to teacher
education for paraprofessionals. One of the most effective and
comprehensive personnel preparation initiatives was the Career
Opportunities Program (COP).

In *From Aide to Teacher: The Story of the Career Opportunities
Program*, Kaplan (1977) recorded the goals, models, and results of COP.
Developed by the U.S. Office of Education, the mission of COP was to
provide opportunities for "indigenous community residents, working as
paraprofessionals in the nation's low-income urban and rural areas to
advance within the education professions and ultimately to improve the
learning of children and youth in these schools" (p. 2).

The COP design for teacher recruitment and preparation represented a
sharp break from teacher education practices. COP grants went to school
systems that set priorities to meet local needs. Partnerships with
schools of education in the form of subcontracts were established. Local
education agencies (LEAs) selected candidates from their
paraprofessional workforce who they determined could best serve their
students and identified the skills that would prepare them to be
effective teachers. Institutions of higher education (IHEs) scheduled
required courses to accommodate worker-student needs, tutored candidates
for high school equivalency tests, conducted study groups to reinforce
learning, and conducted classes off campus near students' homes.

The COP project lasted for 7 years. It proved to be a viable approach
that enabled more than 20,000 nontraditional students from
underrepresented groups to enter education professions. Indeed, many of
the lessons learned through COP serve as a foundation for contemporary
teacher preparation programs that recognize paraeducators as valuable
recruitment resources (Haselkorn & Fideler, 1996).

While local school systems and higher education agencies were actively
engaged in developing flexible degree programs for paraprofessionals, 10
State education agencies (SEAs) established credentialing and other
regulatory procedures that set guidelines for paraprofessional
employment and preparation. Some of these systems included criteria for
training and career advancement; most did not. Rather than develop
regulatory procedures, the vast majority of the States chose to
establish non-binding administrative guidelines that outlined
appropriate duties for paraprofessionals and in some rare cases
delineated supervisory responsibility. To an even more limited extent,
LEAs began to develop job descriptions and personnel practices that
included career ladders and training programs for those whose career
choice was to remain a paraprofessional (Pickett, 1994).

With the decline of Federal fiscal support and leadership for
paraprofessional employment and education in the 1980s, interest in
developing standards and programs for improving paraprofessional
performance and providing opportunities for career development all but
evaporated. In fact, "they became the forgotten members of education
teams" (Pickett, 1994, p. 2), even though their roles and
responsibilities continued to expand. As the years passed, policies and
systems concerned with paraprofessional employment, roles, and
preparation became more and more unstructured (Pickett, 1989; 1994;
1996). Moreover, with the exception of Nebraska, no SEAs or IHEs were
addressing issues of paraeducator supervision and its impact on teacher
roles and responsibilities (Vasa & Steckelberg, 1987; Vasa, Steckelberg,
& Ulrich-Ronning, 1983). As a result in most States, standards for
paraprofessional roles and responsibilities and professional development
systems are almost nonexistent (Pickett, 1989; 1996).

# The Present: Issues and Concerns

A review of recent literature reveals that several factors and trends
have converged to rekindle interest among policy makers, SEA and LEA
administrators, and personnel developers in paraeducator roles,
supervision, and preparation. First and foremost are the mandates in
IDEA and State legislative actions that stress the need for
individualized instruction and support services for children and youth
with developmental, learning, physical, and sensory disabilities. Second
are the provisions in IDEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1994, and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 that target the
need to ensure that all personnel are adequately prepared for their
roles and responsibilities. As noted earlier, IDEA requires States to
establish standards to ensure that paraprofessionals are appropriately
trained and supervised. States must also incorporate these training
standards into their Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development
(§635(a)). Other significant factors include:

-   Continuing initiatives to restructure education systems and
    practices to more effectively serve children and youth with
    disabilities and other special needs in inclusive general education
    programs (Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, & McFarland, 1997; Mueller,
    1997; Pickett, 1996; Safarik, 1997).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increasing numbers of English-language learners enrolled in school
    systems nationwide. Paraprofessionals can provide familiarity with
    differing cultures and languages (Haselkorn & Fideler, 1996; Macias
    & Kelly, 1996; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; National Center for Education
    Statistics, 1995; Pickett, 1995; Recruiting New Teachers, 1997).

-   Continuing and growing shortages of teachers in all programmatic
    areas (American Association for Employment in Education, 1998;
    Genzuk, Lavendez, & Krashen, 1994; Haselkorn & Fideler, 1996;
    Recruiting New Teachers, 1997).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Changing and expanding roles of teachers as classroom and program
    managers and leaders of program implementation teams (French, 1997;
    Vasa & Steckelberg, 1997).

How many paraprofessionals currently provide special education and
related services to children with disabilities? Data on
paraprofessionals are generally drawn from two sources. OSEP does not
collect data on paraprofessionals as a separate category of service
providers. Instead, States report the number of teachers, teacher aides,
and related services personnel employed in their States.
Paraprofessionals may be reported in either of the two latter
categories. The number of teacher aides providing services to children
with disabilities has grown significantly in recent years; this growth
likely reflects the increasing use of paraeducators in special
education.

In 1996-97, the number of teacher aides reported to be providing
services to children and youths ages 3 through 21 was 237,206. This
figure, which does not include paraprofessionals who were reported in
the category of related services personnel, may be compared with the
357,082 teachers who provided services to these children in 1996-97. In
the Part C program, 3,307 paraprofessionals provided services to
children ages birth through 2 in 1996-97. Those paraprofessionals made
up nearly 11 percent of the workforce providing early intervention
services to infants and toddlers with disabilities.

The results of a survey of chief state school officers conducted in 1996
by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and
Related Services (NRCP) also provide data on the number of
paraprofessionals in the special education workforce. Those results
suggest that there are approximately 500,000 full-time equivalency
paraeducator positions in general, special, compensatory, and English as
a Second Language (ESL)/bilingual programs administered by our nation's
schools (up from 400,000 reported in a similar 1990 survey). Of that
number, a minimum of 280,000 work in inclusive general, resource, and
self-contained special education classrooms and vocational/transitional
and early childhood programs serving children and youths ages 3 through
21 with disabilities. Another 100,000-plus are assigned to
ESL/bilingual, Title I, and other compensatory (remedial) programs. The
remainder work primarily in elementary classrooms, libraries, computer
labs, and other learning environments, including early intervention
services (Pickett, 1996). Ongoing work of the NRCP and the
investigations of several other researchers indicate that expanded
employment of paraeducators will continue into the foreseeable future
(Genzuk et al., 1994; Macias & Kelly, 1996; NCES, 1995; Recruiting New
Teachers, 1997).

It is important to note that current data are incomplete and thus do not
provide a completely accurate picture of paraeducator employment. There
are several reasons for this:

-   Of the SEAs that do gather information and maintain databases about
    paraeducator employment, their concerns usually center on
    identifying paraeducators employed in federally funded or
    State-mandated programs. Therefore, in many States, instructional
    paraeducators or related-services paraprofessional staff supported
    by local tax levy funds are not always included or are underreported
    in SEA figures.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Records maintained by most SEAs do not always indicate the
    programmatic areas or grade levels to which paraeducators are
    assigned. Thus, it is not easy to know how they are deployed and how
    many work in: (1) preschool, elementary, middle/junior high schools,
    or secondary education; (2) Title I or other compensatory
    programs; (3) bilingual/\
    multilingual or ESL programs; (4) inclusive general education, or
    more traditional self-contained classrooms, or other special
    education programs and related services (such as
    vocational/transitional programs, occupational/physical therapy or
    speech/language pathology, and early childhood programs).

-   And finally, data collected by SEAs rarely include information about
    paraeducator employment in Head Start and other early childhood
    education programs or early intervention home- and center-based
    programs administered by other agencies serving infants and toddlers
    with disabilities and other special needs that place them at risk.

This lack of accurate data adversely affects the capacity of SEAs and
LEAs to plan and implement policies and systems to improve the quality
of paraeducator performance and to develop comprehensive cost-effective
education programs for their paraeducator workforce that recognize the
similarities in the skills required by all paraeducators.

While each of the factors cited earlier has contributed to increased
employment of paraeducators over the past decade, probably the most
significant are the initiatives to reshape and redefine teacher roles.
No matter whether they work in center- or home-based early childhood
settings, in elementary, middle or high schools, or in general,
compensatory, or special education programs, teacher roles and
responsibilities in the instructional process are similar. Teachers are
diagnosticians of learner needs, planners of age- and
ability-appropriate lessons and instructional strategies, facilitators
of learning, and assessors of learner performance. Starting with
*Teachers for the 21st Century,* produced by the Carnegie Forum in
Education and the Economy in 1986, efforts to reform education practices
have added new dimensions to traditionally recognized teacher
responsibilities. Increasingly, teachers participate in school-based
governance and decision making. They help determine how best to allocate
human and fiscal resources to meet learner needs, assist in aligning
curriculum content to meet standards for learners established by SEAs,
and, as members of individualized education and related services
planning teams, collaborate with other school professionals, students,
and parents to establish and implement learner goals and objectives.
They frequently are also the primary liaisons between homes and schools
(Carnegie Forum, 1986; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995; DeBoer, 1995; French & Pickett, 1997; Friend & Cook,
1996; Lieberman, 1995; Villa, Thousand, Nevin & Malgeri, 1996).

To help teachers effectively carry out these new responsibilities,
policy makers have once again turned to paraeducators to support and
expand the program management and administrative functions of teachers
(Genzuk et al., 1994; Lyons, 1995; Miramontes, 1990; Mueller, 1997;
Passaro, Pickett, Latham, & HongBo, 1994; Pickett, 1997; Stahl & Lorenz,
1995). As a result, teachers have also become leaders of program
implementation teams with growing supervisory responsibility for
paraeducators (French, 1997; French & Pickett, 1997; Pickett, 1994; Vasa
& Steckelberg, 1987).

In today's schools, paraeducators still perform routine clerical and
housekeeping tasks, prepare bulletin boards, duplicate instructional
materials, and monitor playgrounds, study halls, and lunchrooms. There
is, however, greater emphasis on their instructional and learner support
roles. As members of program implementation teams under the supervision
of teachers, they: (1) assist with maintaining supportive, safe, and
healthy learning environments that facilitate inclusion for all children
and youth; (2) observe, document, and report objective data about
learners that enable teachers to plan, modify, and organize curriculum
and learning activities for individuals and groups; (3) engage
individuals and groups in learning experiences developed by teachers;
and (4) assist with learner assessment activities (Giangreco et al.,
1997; Lyons, 1995; Miramontes, 1990; Mueller, 1997; Passaro et al.,
1994; Safarik, 1997; Skelton, 1997; Stahl & Lorenz, 1995).

Increased reliance on paraeducators with greater emphasis on their
instructional and learner support roles has not resulted in the
development of policies and systems to improve their performance,
supervision, and preparation. In many States where they do exist,
policies and infrastructures have not been assessed and revised since
they were established in the 1970s. Thus, these systems do not reflect
the dramatic changes that have occurred in both teacher and paraeducator
roles as the primary members of program implementation teams. The most
critical needs that require the attention of policy makers,
administrators, personnel developers, SEAs, LEAs, and IHEs are
summarized as follows:

-   The majority of paraeducators in our nation's schools spend all or
    part of their time engaged in providing instructional and/or other
    direct services to learners and/or their parents (Giangreco et al.,
    1997; Lyons, 1995; Mueller, 1997; Passaro et al., 1994; Rubin &
    Long, 1994; Safarik, 1997; Stahl & Lorenz, 1995). Over the past
    decade, however, scant attention has been paid to: (1) defining
    paraeducator roles in newly emerging staffing arrangements; (2)
    formulating supervisory responsibility; (3) identifying similarities
    and differences in roles and responsibilities of paraeducators
    assigned to different programs; (4) determining the skills and
    knowledge paraeducators require to carry out new, more complex
    tasks; (5) establishing experience and education qualifications for
    entry-level and more advanced paraeducator positions; and (6)
    setting standards for paraeducator performance (Pickett, 1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Professional development/training for paraeducators, when it is
    available, is usually highly parochial and is rarely part of a
    statewide comprehensive system of professional/career development
    that includes: (1) competency-based, structured inservice programs
    and (2) access to flexible degree programs that enable paraeducators
    to achieve professional certification/\
    licensure while they continue to work (Pickett, 1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   At the present time, fewer than half (24) of the State departments
    of education, including the District of Columbia and the
    territories, have standards or guidelines for employment, roles and
    duties, placement, supervision, and preparation of paraeducators.
    Thirteen of these 24 States have credentialing mechanisms. These
    systems range from multilevel certification/permit systems that
    define roles, training, and career advancement criteria to
    one-dimensional systems that do not specify duties or training
    requirements. Despite the existence of standards and credentialing
    mechanisms in some States, it is likely that exceptions to standards
    occur frequently (Pickett, 1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Contemporary education reform efforts increasingly stress the team
    and management responsibilities of teachers. These efforts have,
    however, overlooked the roles of teachers as leaders of
    instructional teams and supervisors of paraeducators. As a result,
    most teacher education programs have not developed curriculum
    content to prepare teachers to plan for, delegate or assign tasks,
    assess paraeducator skills and performance, and provide on-the-job
    training (French, 1997; French & Pickett, 1997).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The need to recruit and train committed teachers is well documented.
    The need to attract more ethnic, cultural, and language-minority men
    and women into the field is particularly acute (American Association
    for Employment in Education, 1998; Genzuk et al., 1994; Haselkorn &
    Fideler, 1996; Macias & Kelly, 1996; Recruiting New Teachers, 1997).
    Although paraeducator personnel represent high percentages of the
    diverse ethnic, cultural, and language-minority populations in their
    communities, they are frequently overlooked as resources for
    recruitment into teacher education and other professional
    preparation programs (Genzuk et al., 1994; Haselkorn & Fideler,
    1996).

# The Future: Addressing the Issues and Establishing the Systems

For partnerships to work cooperatively and to find effective solutions
to policy questions and systemic issues, States must have databases that
identify who paraeducators are, where they work, and what they do in
different program areas or educational settings. Once this has been
accomplished, the stakeholders will have access to information that they
can use to:

-   delineate appropriate duties and tasks for paraeducators and the
    nondelegatable responsibilities of school professionals;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   determine similarities and distinctions in the roles and duties of
    paraeducators assigned to different programs;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   identify a common core of skills for all paraeducators, a hierarchy
    of performance skills, and the knowledge base needed by
    paraeducators working in more advanced paraeducator positions;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   set standards for paraeducator training, professional development,
    and education and/or experience qualifications for employment;

-   establish standards for paraeducator supervision and performance
    evaluation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   make recommendations for developing and implementing comprehensive
    systems of staff development and career advancement for
    paraeducators; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   identify the supervisory roles and responsibilities of teachers and
    other school professionals and establish standards for preparing
    them to assume their duties (Pickett, 1997, p. 15).

In addition to addressing these needs, there is a growing awareness
among the various constituencies of the need for credentialing systems
or other regulatory procedures to ensure that paraeducators have the
skills necessary to meet the requirements of their roles. The need for
paraeducator credentialing is not a new idea, but it is highly
controversial. As noted earlier, only 13 States have criteria for
hiring, training, and career advancement for paraeducators that they
regard as credentialing systems. Other States have chosen to develop
administrative guidelines rather than more formal, mandatory
credentialing procedures\--and the majority have not moved to adopt
either system (Pickett, 1996).

Pickett (1986) identified four reasons for developing new credentialing
systems for paraeducators or strengthening current ones:

1.  Setting standards and mandating specified levels of training and
    performance would guarantee that paraeducators have the skills and
    knowledge required to perform their assigned duties.

2.  Effective credentialing procedures would be based on realistic and
    viable opportunities for upward mobility on various levels of a
    paraeducator career ladder and would therefore serve as an incentive
    for retaining skilled paraeducators.

3.  Credentialing would establish clear distinctions in the tasks
    associated with different certificate/licensure levels, matching
    responsibilities with training/education and competency.

4.  Credentialing would serve as a method for providing formal
    recognition of the contributions paraeducators make to the delivery
    of instructional and related services.

# Help in the Development of Policies for the Future

Education policy makers at the Federal, State, and local levels do not
need to start from scratch in addressing the concerns raised in this
report. At the present time, a few States are in the process of
developing and testing strategies and systems for effectively preparing,
supervising, and integrating paraeducators into education teams. While
each State uses a different approach that is designed to meet its
identified needs, States can serve as resources for policy makers in
SEAs and LEAs and personnel developers in IHEs. Minnesota, Utah, Rhode
Island, Iowa, and Washington are implementing new plans, and Colorado is
in the formative stage of developing standards.

At the national level, the NRCP, through a special projects grant from
the Office of Special Education Programs, is developing guidelines for
paraeducator roles and responsibilities as well as model standards for
their training and supervision. Assisted by a broadly representative
task force, the NRCP will issue its recommendations in the fall of 1999
to provide policy makers, educators, personnel developers, unions,
parents, and other stakeholders with resources on which they can build
to establish policies and strengthen partnerships among those concerned
with improving the performance and status of a skilled paraeducator
workforce.

The goals of this national project are to:

1.  develop parameters for scopes of teacher and paraeducator
    responsibilities in learning environments;

2.  identify a common core of skills required by all paraeducators and a
    hierarchy of performance skills and knowledge base for paraeducators
    working at more advanced levels with children and youth who have
    more severe and profound disabilities and other challenging needs;

3.  develop prototypes for articulated systems of training and
    professional development for paraeducators; and

4.  develop components of a model credentialing system that recognizes
    distinctions in roles, skills, and knowledge required for different
    paraeducator positions.

The recommendations of the task force are being reviewed and validated
by a wide range of representatives of provider and administrative
agencies, professional organizations, IHEs, and other constituencies.
While the project is indicative of the growing awareness in the
education community of the need to enhance the status and improve the
performance of paraprofessionals, its work builds upon a wealth of
existing resources, particularly at the State and local levels.

# Summary

Policy makers and administrators in SEAs, LEAs and IHEs are confronted
with many issues and concerns in their efforts to improve the quality of
the education workforce. Because paraeducators are integral members of
program implementation teams, it is of critical importance that the
issues that have an impact on paraeducator performance and career
development not be overlooked. Policies and systems must be put into
place to ensure that paraeducators have the skills and knowledge
necessary to meet the needs of the children and youth they serve.

# References

American Association for Employment in Education. (1998). *Teacher
supply and demand in the United States\--1997: A research report from
AAEE*. Evanston: Author.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986*). A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21^st^ century.* New York: Carnegie Foundation.

Cruickshank, W., & Herring, N. (1957). *Assistants for teachers of
exceptional children*. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). *The current status of teaching and teacher
development in the United States: Background paper prepared for the
National Commission on Teaching in America.* New York: Teachers College,
Columbia.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. *Phi Delta Kappan*, *76*,
597-604.

DeBoer, A. (1995). *Working together: The art of consulting and
communicating.* Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Fafard, M.B. (1974). *The utilization and training of paraprofessionals
in special education*. New York: New Careers Training Laboratory, Queens
College, City University of New York.

French, N.K. (1997). Management of paraeducators. In A.L. Pickett, & K.
Gerlach (Eds.), *Supervising paraeducators in school settings. A team
approach*. Austin: Pro-Ed.

French, N.K., & Pickett, A.L. (1997). Paraprofessionals in special
education: Issues for teacher educators. *Teacher Education, Special
Education, 20*, 61-73.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). *Interactions: Collaboration skills for
school professionals.* White Plains, NY: Longman.

Fund for the Advancement of Education. (1961). *Decade of experiment:
1951-61*. New York: Ford Foundation.

Gartner, A. (1971). *Paraprofessionals and their performance*: *A survey
of education, health and social services programs.* New York: Praeger.

Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1974). The paraprofessional movement in
perspective. *Personnel & Guidance Journal,* *53*, 253-256

Genzuk, M., Lavendez, M., & Krashen, S. (1994). Paraeducators: A source
for remedying the shortages of teachers for limited English proficient
students. *Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students*,
*14*, 211-222.

Giangreco, M.F., Edelman, S.W., Luiselli, T.E., & McFarland, S.Z.
(1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant
proximity on students with disabilities. *Exceptional Children, 64*,
7-18.

Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, L. (1996). *Breaking the class ceiling:
Paraeducator pathways to teaching*. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New
Teachers, Inc.

Kaplan, G.R. (1977). *From aide to teacher: The story of the career
opportunities program.* Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lieberman, A. (1995). *The work of restructuring schools*. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Lyons, D. (1995*).Training for special education funded
paraprofessionals: A report on the education and responsibility study.*
Federal Way, WA: Washington Education Association.

Macias, R.F., & Kelly, C. (1996). *Summary report of the survey of the
states' limited English proficient students and available educational
programs and services,* *1994-95*. Washington, DC: National Clearing
House for Bilingual Education.

McDonnell, L., & Hill, P. (1993). *Newcomers in American schools:
Meeting the needs of immigrant youth.* Santa Monica: RAND.

Miramontes, O.B. (1990). Organizing for effective paraprofessional
services in special education: A multilingual/multiethnic instructional
team mode. *Remedial and Special Education*, *12*, 29-36.

Mueller, P.H. (1997). *A study of the roles, training needs, and support
needs of Vermont's paraeducators.* Unpublished dissertation. University
of Vermont.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). *Projections of
education statistics to 2005.* U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research.

Passaro, P., Pickett, A.L., Latham, G., & HongBo, W. (1994). The
training and support needs of paraprofessionals in rural special
education settings. *Rural Special Education Quarterly,* *13*, 3-9.

Pearl, A., & Riessman, F. (1965). *New careers for the poor: The
non-professional in human services*. New York: Free Press.

Pickett, A.L. (1997). Supervising paraeducators in school settings:
Framing the issues. In A.L. Pickett, & K. Gerlach, (Eds.), *Supervising
paraeducators in school settings: A team approach*. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Pickett, A.L. (1996). *A state of the art report on paraeducators in
education and related services*. New York: National Resource Center for
Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services, Center for Advanced
Study in Education, The Graduate School & University Center, City
University of New York.

Pickett, A.L. (1995). *A training program to prepare teachers to
supervise and work effectively with paraprofessionals. 4^th^ edition.*
New York: National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education
and Related Services, Center for Advanced Study in Education, The
Graduate School & University Center, City University of New York.

Pickett, A.L. (1994). *Paraprofessionals in the education workforce.*
Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Pickett, A.L. (1994). Serving students with limited English: The need to
prepare paraeducators to meet the challenge. *New Directions,* *15*,
1-2.

Pickett, A.L. (1989). *Restructuring the schools: The role of
paraprofessionals*. National Governors' Association, Center for Policy
Research, Washington, DC.

Pickett, A.L. (1986). Certified partners: Four good reasons for
certification of paraprofessionals. *American Educator,* *10*, 31-34.

Recruiting New Teachers. (1997). *The urban teacher challenge.* Belmont,
MA: Author.

Rubin, P., & Long, R.M. (1994, Spring). Who is teaching our children?
Implications of the use of aides in Chapter 1. *ERS Spectrum*, 28-34,
Education Research Service.

Safarik, L. (1997). Team roles in school settings. In A.L. Pickett, & K.
Gerlach, (Eds.), *Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team
approach.* Austin: Pro-Ed.

Skelton, K.J. (1997). *Paraprofessionals in education*. Albany, NY:
Delmar Publishers.

Stahl, B.J., & Lorenz, G. (1995). *Views on paraprofessionals*. St.
Paul: Minnesota Department of Children and Family Learning.

Vasa, S., & Steckelberg, A.L., (1997). Paraeducators in school settings:
Administrative issues. In A.L. Pickett, & K. Gerlach *(E*ds*.),
Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach.* Austin:
Pro-Ed.

Vasa, S., Steckelberg, A.L., & Ulrich-Ronning, L. (1983*). Guide for the
effective utilization of paraprofessionals in special education*.
Lincoln, NE: Department of Special Education, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.

Vasa, S., & Steckelberg, A.L. (1987, November). *What teachers need to
know about utilizing paraprofessionals: Higher education role.* Paper
presented at the annual conference of National Council of States
Inservice Education, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 293 230)

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Nevin, A.I., & Malgeri, C. (1996).
Instilling collaboration for inclusive school as a way of doing business
in public schools. *Remedial and Special Education*, *17*, 169-181.

Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its
implementing regulations require that "to the maximum extent
appropriate, children with disabilities . . . should be educated with
children who are not disabled; and that . . . removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when
the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily" (34 CFR 300.550). The IDEA regulations
further specify that a continuum of alternative placements must be
available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special
education and related services (34 CFR 300.551). The question of what
constitutes the least restrictive environment is perhaps the most
contentious of all the issues related to educating students with
disabilities. States and districts vary considerably in the percentage
of students with disabilities served in different educational
environments, raising concerns about financial, programmatic, or
policy-related reasons for these differences.

This module summarizes literature on the outcomes of inclusive
educational practices and presents national data on the extent to which
students with disabilities receive services in general education classes
and schools. It addresses a number of issues. How does inclusion in
regular classes affect skill acquisition for students with disabilities?
Are social outcomes for students with disabilities enhanced when they
have more opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers? How does
inclusion affect the performance of students without disabilities? What
percentage of children with disabilities are served in different
educational environments, and how do those percentages vary by age group
and disability?

# Outcomes of Inclusive Schooling Practices[^2]

This section summarizes research that demonstrates the positive impact
of inclusive schooling practices on students. The discussion highlights
themes describing what has been empirically documented to date and what
has been learned about how to maximize positive outcomes.

## *Skill Acquisition for Students with Disabilities*

Dunn (1968) and many others have stressed the availability of
nondisabled students who can serve as role models and initiators of
communication and social interaction as an important reason to place
students with disabilities in general education classrooms. It is not
surprising, therefore, that much of the initial research examining
outcomes for students with disabilities placed in general education
classrooms focused on these skill areas. The themes described below
reflect evidence available to date.

A substantial number of studies have demonstrated that students with and
without disabilities interact more frequently in integrated and
inclusive settings than in self-contained environments (e.g., Brinker,
1985; Brinker & Thorpe, 1986; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995). These results
have been demonstrated for children in preschool (Guralnick & Groom,
1988; Hanline, 1993; Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989), elementary school
(Cole & Meyer, 1991; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995), and secondary settings
(Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; McDonnell, Hardman, Hightower, &
Kiefer-O'Donnell, 1991). Despite the opportunities created by the
presence of students without disabilities in general education settings,
multiple demonstrations suggest that without adult intervention,
students without disabilities tend to interact more frequently with
other nondisabled students than with students with disabilities in
social situations (e.g., Faught, Balleweg, Crow, & van den Pol, 1983;
Odom & Strain, 1986; Sale & Carey, 1995). Fortunately, many strategies
have been used successfully to encourage and maintain ongoing
interaction between students with and without disabilities, including
the use of communication aids and play organizers (Jolly, Test, &
Spooner, 1993), teacher-mediated interaction (Strain & Odom, 1986), and
peer-mediated assists (e.g., Brady et al., 1984; Sasso & Rude, 1987).

At least two studies suggest that the number of students with
disabilities in the classroom has an impact on the level of social
interaction that occurs between students with and without disabilities.
In a study at the preschool level, Guralnick and Groom (1988) found that
children with disabilities in playgroups with typically developing peers
engaged in more peer-related social interaction than those who were in
programs that grouped together children with disabilities. The authors
emphasized the importance of having adequate numbers of typical peers in
play groups, providing some empirical support for the principle of
"natural proportions" (Brown et al., 1989). Similarly, McDonnell et al.
(1991) found that the number of students with severe disabilities in a
school was negatively associated with in-school and after-school
integration. Students placed in their home school had significantly
higher levels of interaction with typical peers than those enrolled in
programs that tend to recruit larger numbers of students with
disabilities.

Closely associated with opportunities for social interaction is growth
in social competence and communication skills. Studies documenting
parental reports of child development have consistently identified
improvement in the area of social skills and communication as outcomes
associated with participation in an educational program with typical
peers (e.g., Bennett, DeLuca, & Bruns, 1997; Guralnick, Connor, &
Hammond, 1995; Turnbull, Winton, Blacher, & Salkind, 1982). These gains
have also been documented in studies that directly measure performance
in these areas. In a 2-year comparison study of students with
disabilities in both integrated and segregated settings, Cole and Meyer
(1991) found that students in integrated educational placements
demonstrated substantial progress on a measure of social competence,
encompassing such specific communication and social skills as
initiation, self-regulation, choice, and terminating contact. In
contrast, comparison of students in segregated settings showed
regression in these areas across the 2-year period. Performance gains in
these areas have been noted in other placement comparison studies (e.g.,
Jenkins et al., 1989) as well as in noncomparison studies conducted in
inclusive classroom settings (e.g., Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, & Goetz,
1996; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Jolly, Test, & Spooner, 1993;
Kozleski & Jackson, 1993).

***Academic Skill Acquisition for Students with Disabilities.*** A
recent study investigated the level of academic engagement of students
with severe disabilities included in the general education classroom for
content-area classes by comparing the behavior of students with
disabilities to a sample of peers without disabilities in the same
settings (McDonnell, Thorson, McQuivey, & Kiefer-O'Donnell, 1997).
Despite higher levels of inappropriate classroom behaviors among
students with disabilities (e.g., aggression, lack of attention during
instruction), there were no significant differences in academic
engagement between the two groups of students. While no measures of
skill acquisition were reported, these findings are consistent with
parent reports that their children are learning material from the
general education curriculum as a result of their inclusive placement
(Ryndak, Downing, Morrison, & Williams, 1996).

Skill acquisition data in academic areas are more frequently reported in
studies that involve the general classroom placement of students with
mild disabilities. McDougall & Brady (1998) demonstrated increases in
math fluency and engaged time for students with and without disabilities
after the introduction of a multicomponent self-management intervention.
On a larger scale, there are program models for which substantial
performance gains for students with disabilities have been found (e.g.,
Wang & Birch, 1984) as well as those for which positive gains were
evidenced in some, but not all, curricular areas (e.g., Affleck, Madge,
Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988), or for some, but not all, students with mild
disabilities (e.g., Zigmond & Baker, 1990). Manset & Semmel (1997)
conclude that gains for students *without* disabilities are the most
consistent outcome of this body of research, suggesting the potential
benefits of blending the instructional expertise of general and special
educators for the benefit of all students, while underscoring the need
to pay greater attention to specific organizational and instructional
practices in heterogeneous classrooms.

The traditional general education classroom, with an emphasis on whole
group instruction, is increasingly being viewed as a barrier to the
learning of not only students with disabilities but others in the
general education classroom who have diverse learning styles. A
substantial body of evidence points to instructional groupings that are
advantageous for students both with and without disabilities. Wang &
Birch (1984) describe the difference in student behavior in a
traditionally structured classroom and a classroom designed to
accommodate diverse learners (i.e., Adaptive Learning Environments Model
(ALEM)). In the ALEM classroom, students were more actively engaged in
exploratory and individual activities, spending less time in whole group
and teacher-prescribed activities. The small group structuring
associated with cooperative learning has been repeatedly demonstrated as
academically (e.g., Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Madden &
Slavin, 1983) and socially beneficial for heterogeneous groups of
students (Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983;
Johnson, Johnson, Tiffany, & Zaidman, 1983). Similarly, small group
structures associated with peer tutoring are associated with benefits
for students with and without disabilities in a variety of academic
areas (e.g., Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper,
1987; Mathur & Rutherford, 1991; Osguthorpe & Scruggs, 1986).

Several studies have examined the impact of small instructional groups
on the skill acquisition of students with more severe disabilities in
inclusive settings (Dugan et al., 1995; Hunt et al., 1994; Logan,
Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997). Hunt and colleagues (1994) structured
cooperative learning groups involving students with severe disabilities
and their typical peers. Students with disabilities learned and
generalized the skills targeted for them in this instructional context.
Their typical peers performed as well as peers assigned to groups that
did not have a student with a severe disability as a group member. In a
comparison of whole group, one-to-one, individual work, and small group
work, similarly positive findings are documented by Dugan et al. (1995).
Logan and colleagues (1997) found whole group instruction to be the
least favorable context for promoting task engagement of students with
severe disabilities. Together, these studies provide some preliminary
evidence that the type of instruction currently considered to represent
good practice in general education is also, when appropriately
structured, conducive to the learning of students with disabilities
(Cosden & Haring, 1992).

***Social Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.*** Another powerful
rationale for inclusion is that students with disabilities will have the
opportunity to develop relationships with peers that evolve into true
friendships, carrying over into after school hours. Research has
examined friendship outcomes for students with disabilities based upon
their educational environments. A direct comparison of the social
interactions, social support behaviors, and friendship networks of
students placed in general education classrooms with similar students
served in self-contained classrooms clearly favored those in inclusive
settings (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Kennedy et al., 1997). Students in
inclusive environments had more frequent interaction with their peers
and larger, more durable networks of peers without disabilities.
Furthermore, a positive relationship has been established between the
proximity of a student's educational environment to his home and
in-school and after-school involvement with peers (McDonnell et al.,
1991). Students who were in integrated settings but placed in a cluster
program had significantly lower levels of peer involvement than students
with disabilities attending their "home" school. These findings again
speak to the "best practice" guidelines delineated by Brown and
colleagues relative to natural proportion and home school settings
(Brown et al., 1989).

Other research about friendship in inclusive settings has been
descriptive, providing insight into the types of relationships that
develop between students with disabilities and their typical peers.
Qualitative investigations describe friendships between students with
and without disabilities that show the same variation in relationships
and status that one sees in friendships between students without
disabilities (Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, & Hollowood, 1992;
Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, & Peck, 1994). This research suggests that
differences seen in relationships are influenced by factors not uniquely
associated with disability status.

Using multiple methodologies and data sources gathered over a 3-year
timeframe, Meyer and her colleagues (1998) also found substantial
variations in the social relationships occurring between students with
severe disabilities and their peers. They identified six distinct
"frames" that characterize the relationships they saw. While some of the
relationships observed illustrate undesirable social status, friendships
encompassed by the descriptors "just another kid," "regular friends,"
and "best friends/friends forever" suggest more equitable and mutually
rewarding relationships.

Finally, reports from parents of students who are part of general
education classrooms indicate that these environments facilitate
friendships outside of school (Bennett et al., 1997). Despite
pessimistic assumptions held by some, severity of disability has not
been found to preclude the formation of social relations and
interactions with typical peers. However, the observations of Salisbury
and Palombaro regarding successful social relations (1998) do merit
attention.

> The potential for social isolation was there, but proactive strategies
> within a supportive classroom climate seemed sufficient to
> counterbalance the potentially negative consequences of challenging
> behaviors and limited expressive capabilities (p. 101).

In a qualitative study of five inclusive elementary schools, Janney and
Snell (1996) identified strategies used to facilitate inclusion and
interaction. They found that teachers made complex judgments in order to
know when to encourage interaction and when to "back off." They used
typical peers in various ways to assist and promote interaction.
Classroom rules about helping changed. Finally, they modeled the message
"just another student" in their talk and actions, implicitly conferring
classroom membership status to the student with severe disabilities. In
contrast to other methods of promoting friendship and support that focus
exclusively on the "identified" students, these teachers used
whole-classroom strategies based on cooperation and mutual assistance to
create a setting in which all students could be supported.

Adults can also interfere with the development of relationships between
students with and without disabilities in the regular classroom.
Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, and MacFarland (1997) analyzed
interactions between students and instructional assistants in 16
classrooms in 11 schools in four States over 2 school years. The finding
that instructional assistants maintain *ongoing* physical proximity to
students with severe disabilities that they support in the general
education classroom has broad implications but is particularly relevant
in the area of peer interaction. Observations and comments by staff
suggest that, in some cases, the constant proximity of an adult inhibits
interaction with peers. When instructional assistants had established
good relationships with typical peers, the opposite effect was noted.

At least two approaches have been taken to promote interaction and
friendship between students with and without disabilities. Early
published reports describe special programs or interventions (e.g.,
Special Friends) to bring students together, based on the knowledge that
contact with people with disabilities positively influences attitudes
(Voeltz, 1982). The limitations of this periodic contact outside the
ongoing structures and activities of the general education classroom are
suggested by two studies. In an early analysis of student interaction in
integrated preschools, Guralnick (1981) found that students with mild
disabilities were more socially integrated than those with more
significant differences. However, these students were members of the
same class, while other students were integrated for only select
activities. Hanline (1993) commented, "It may be that the shared
experiences created by full inclusion provide the foundation for more
social integration" (p. 33). Schnorr (1990) observed and talked with
middle schoolers in an effort to understand their perception of a "part
time" mainstreamed student. In the eyes of the typical students, these
part-time students did not "belong" to the class because they did not
share in the school experiences that, for these children, defined what
it meant to be in middle school. Students with disabilities found it
difficult to "connect" with peers because they did not participate in
extracurricular activities, lacked membership in subgroups and
partnerships established outside the classroom, and lacked the time to
form connections due to receiving special instruction during times when
their peers typically socialized.

More recent efforts to promote friendship are embedded within the
context of the ongoing school and classroom routine. These strategies
attempt to encourage natural relationships between students and their
peers in these shared settings. In a second investigation of the elusive
concept of membership and belonging, Schnorr (1997) found that in middle
and high school classes, student membership and belonging depend upon
developing an affiliation with a subgroup of peers within the class. In
her study of students with disabilities in four classes, she observed
that some students were successful in connecting with a subgroup, while
others were not.

## *Impact on Students without Disabilities*

A frequent concern about the involvement of students with disabilities
in general education classrooms is that their presence will be
detrimental to other students in the class. Many early investigations of
the impact of students with disabilities on the developmental progress
of typical students were conducted in preschool programs involving
students with varying degrees and types of disabilities. Studies
consistently demonstrated that the development of typically developing
children did not decelerate (e.g., Bricker, Bruder, & Bailey, 1982;
Odom, Deklyer, & Jenkins, 1984) as a function of the diversity of
children in the classroom. Among school-aged students, consistent
results have been obtained (Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994), although the
research is sparse in this area. Measurement issues (i.e., the
questionable sensitivity of standardized academic and behavioral
measures typically used by schools) complicate this type of
investigation.

Several studies have examined this issue from a different perspective,
seeking to investigate concerns that students with disabilities require
a disproportionate amount of teacher attention and therefore take away
from the educational opportunities for other students. In the Johnson
City School District, an investigation focused on the use of
instructional time compared the teacher's use of time in classrooms with
and without students with severe disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury,
Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1995). Results indicated no difference in
engagement rates between classrooms, suggesting no negative impact on
instructional opportunities. Similar findings are reported by McDonnell
et al. (1997) in another direct comparison of classrooms with and
without students with severe disabilities.

Examining this issue from yet another perspective, skill acquisition of
typical students who are involved in small instructional groups
containing a student with a severe disability has been examined by Dugan
et al. (1995) and Hunt et al. (1994). In each case, the nondisabled
students and the students with disabilities who were part of small
cooperative groups demonstrated academic gains. In contrast, mixed
results were obtained by O'Connor and Jenkins (1996) in a study focused
on cooperative groups comprising typical students and students with mild
disabilities in grades 3 through 6. While some groups were successful,
others were not. Factors such as partner selection, teacher monitoring,
and the establishment of a cooperative ethic appeared to influence the
outcomes. Clearly, structure and support are essential to the success of
these arrangements, and more research is needed to clarify critical
organizational elements.

Finally, data from at least one study are available to respond to the
concern that typical students will model inappropriate behavior
exhibited by some students with disabilities. In a year-long
observational study in an inclusive elementary classroom, Staub and
colleagues (1994) did not find evidence to substantiate this fear.

Much of the research documenting positive outcomes for typically
developing students has been survey research in which students
themselves are the respondents (e.g., Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco,
1994; Kishi & Meyer, 1994; Peck, Donaldson, & Pezzoli, 1990). Benefits
described by students revolve around several themes, including
improvement in self-concept, growth in social cognition, and reduced
fear of human differences (Peck et al., 1990). These results are
corroborated in studies based on parental reports of child outcomes
(e.g., Giangreco, Edelman, Cloninger, & Dennis, 1993; Miller et al.,
1992). Furthermore, benefits associated with relationships with peers
with disabilities have been found to persist far beyond the time that
students are actively involved with each other (Kishi & Meyer, 1994).

The inclusion of students with disabilities in general education
classrooms stimulates activities, opportunities, and experiences that
might not otherwise occur within that classroom. In a review of various
program models designed to support students with mild disabilities in
regular classrooms, Manset and Semmel (1997) write that the most
consistent positive result across program models is gains for
nonidentified students. This suggests that some of the instructional
strategies and organizational approaches typically introduced into the
general education setting for the purpose of supporting identified
students actually yield academic benefits for a far wider range of
students.

Students with disabilities also create the opportunity to engage typical
students in dialogues around issues that might otherwise go untouched
within the scope and sequence of the curriculum. In the context of
providing ongoing accommodations, issues about fairness and equity
naturally arise. Qualitative investigations of classrooms in which these
issues were actively raised and discussed have been associated with the
acquisition of sophisticated social cognition skills by students without
disabilities. In one such study (Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, &
Goldberg, 1994), even students in kindergarten exhibited highly
sophisticated concepts of fairness and could articulate principles of
equal treatment. In this same school, teachers successfully taught
elementary-aged students to use a collaborative problem-solving process
to eliminate barriers to various issues related to the inclusion of
students with disabilities (Salisbury, Evans, & Palombaro, 1997).
Children successfully assumed the role of problem-solver, identifying
solutions to address physical, social, academic, and staffing problems
associated with students included in their classrooms. While these
skills and values may have been learned through other experiences, they
were a vital and recurring part of these classrooms as a result of the
naturally occurring situations that arose in the course of supporting
students with a wide range of skills within the general education
setting.

A final observation relative to this theme relates to a finding by York
& Tundidor (1995), generated in their discussions with typical students.
Students reported a willingness to do far more than they were asked to
do by adults in initial efforts to include students with disabilities in
general education classes. The presence of these students creates
opportunities for others to serve in roles or assume responsibilities
that were previously not available. Clearly, some are willing to take
advantage of these opportunities and may experience considerable
personal growth as a result.

# Educational Environment by Disability

Each year, States report to OSEP by age group and by disability the
number of students served in a variety of educational environments, as
defined in table III-1. The placement categories are designed to reflect
the extent to which students with disabilities are served in schools and
classes with their nondisabled peers. In 1996-97, 5,738,632 children
ages 3 through 21 with disabilities received services in a variety of
educational environments, from full-time general education classes to
residential facilities (see table III-2). The largest percentage of
students with disabilities (46 percent) received special education and
related services outside the regular class for less than 21 percent of
the school day. An additional 27 percent received services outside the
regular class for 21 to 60 percent of the day, and 22 percent received
special education and related services outside the regular class for
more than 60 percent of the school day. More than 95 percent of students
with disabilities were served in regular school buildings. Of the
remaining students, 3 percent were served in public or private separate
day schools, less than 1 percent were served in homebound/hospital
environments, and less than 1 percent were served in public or private
residential facilities (see table III-2). From 1995-96 to 1996-97, the
number of students receiving services outside the regular class for less
than 21 percent of the

Table III-1

OSEP Placement Categories and Definitions

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs*, OSEP IDEA, Part B Data Dictionary, 1998*.

school day increased by 3.8 percent from 2,554,635 to 2,651,394; the
percentage served in public separate day schools for students with
disabilities decreased by 1.7 percent, from 131,785 to 129,578.[^3]

Although the overwhelming majority of children with disabilities were
served in regular school buildings, placement in regular schools varied
considerably by disability (table III-3). More than 90 percent of
students ages 6-21 with speech or

Table III-2

Number and Percentage of Students Ages 3 Through 21 with Disabilities
Served in Different Educational Environments: 1996-97

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

language impairments (99.6 percent), specific learning disabilities
(99.1 percent), mental retardation (93.1 percent), other health
impairments (93.1 percent), and orthopedic impairments, (92.7 percent)
were served in regular school buildings. Students with deaf-blindness
(64 percent) and multiple disabilities (70.5 percent) were least likely
to be served in regular schools with their nondisabled peers.

There was also considerable variation by disability in placements within
regular school buildings. The majority of students with speech or
language impairments (88.6 percent) were served outside the regular
class less than 21 percent of the school day as were large percentages
of students with visual impairments (48.3 percent), specific learning
disabilities (43.1 percent), orthopedic impairments (41.6 percent),
other health impairments (41.3 percent), and hearing impairments (37.6
percent). Substantial percentages of students with specific learning
disabilities (38.9 percent) and other health impairments (34.5 percent)
received special education and related services outside the regular
class 21 to 60 percent of the day. The majority of students with mental
retardation (54.2 percent) and autism (53.1 percent) were served outside
the regular class for more than 60 percent of the day as were large
percentages of students with multiple disabilities (44.4 percent),
deaf-blindness (38.1 percent), emotional disturbance (35.3 percent), and
traumatic brain injury (30.6 percent).

Table III-3

Number and Percentage of Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served in Various
Educational Environments Under IDEA, Part B by Disability on\
December 1, 1996

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

# Educational Environment by Age Group

Educational environments also varied by age group, with younger children
more likely to receive services in regular school buildings and regular
classes (table III-4). More than 50 percent of children ages 3 through 5
with disabilities received services

Table III-4

Number and Percentage of Students Ages 3 Through 21 Served in Different
Educational Environments by Age Group: 1996-97

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

outside the regular class for less than 21 percent of the time.[^4] An
additional 9 percent received services outside the regular class for 21
to 60 percent of the time, and 32 percent received services outside the
regular class for more than 60 percent of the time.

The majority of children in the 6 through 11 age group (56 percent)
received services outside the regular class for less than 21 percent of
the day. An additional 24 percent received services outside the regular
class for 21 to 60 percent of the day, and 18 percent were served
outside the regular class for more than 60 percent of the day.

Students ages 12 through 17 were fairly evenly distributed among the
three regular school building placements. Thirty-six percent, 34
percent, and 24 percent received services outside the regular class 0-21
percent, 21-60 percent, and more than 60 percent of the school day,
respectively.

The largest percentage of students ages 18 through 21 received special
education and related services outside the regular class for more than
60 percent of the school day (29.9 percent). Smaller percentages of
students in this age group (29.1 percent and 27.5 percent, respectively)
received services outside the regular class for 0-21 percent and 21-60
percent of the school day.

# Summary

This module summarized literature on the outcomes of inclusive schooling
practices for students with and without disabilities and presented data
on the number and percentage of students with disabilities served in
different educational environments. Findings from previous research
suggest that social interactions between students with and without
disabilities are enhanced when students with disabilities are served in
regular classes, particularly if teachers use deliberate techniques to
promote interaction. Some students with disabilities in general
education classes exhibited improved social and academic skills. Changes
in instructional strategies designed to address the needs of students
with disabilities were cited as beneficial for many students who had not
been identified as eligible for special education services.

Over 95 percent of students with disabilities received special education
services and related services in regular school buildings, and 46
percent were removed from regular classes for less than 21 percent of
the school day. This varied considerably by disability and age group.
Students with speech and language impairments were most likely to
receive services primarily in regular classes. Elementary-aged children
were more likely than secondary-aged children to receive services
outside the regular class for less than 21 percent of the school day.

# References

Affleck, J., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated
classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness.
*Exceptional Children*, *54*, 339-348.

Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into
practice: Perspective of teachers and parents. *Exceptional Children*,
*64*, 115-131.

Brady, M.P., Shores, R., Gunter, P., McEvoy, M.A., Fox, J.J., & White,
C. (1984). Generalization of an adolescent's social interaction behavior
via multiple peers in a classroom setting. *Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *9*, 278-286.

Bricker, D.D., Bruder, M.B., & Bailey, E. (1982). Developmental
integration of preschool children. *Analysis an*d *Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities*, *2*, 207-222.

Brinker, R.P. (1985). Interactions between severely mentally retarded
students and other students in integrated and segregated public school
settings. *American Journal of Mental Deficiency*, *89*, 587-594.

Brinker, R.P., & Thorpe, M.E. (1986). Features of integrated educational
ecologies that predict social behavior among severely mentally retarded
and nonretarded students. *American Journal of Mental Deficiency*, *91*,
150-159.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P.,
Ahlgren, C., et al., (1989). The home school: Why students with severe
intellectual disabilities must attend the school of their brothers,
sisters, friends, and neighbors. *Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps*, *14*, 1-7.

Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of
tutoring. *American Educational Research Journal*, *19*, 237-248.

Cole, D.A., & Meyer, L.H. (1991). Social integration and severe
disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. *Journal of
Special Education*, *25*, 340-351.

Cosden, M.A., & Haring, T.G. (1992). Cooperative learning in the
classroom: Contingencies, group interactions, and students with special
needs. *Journal of Behavioral Education*, *2*, 53-71.

Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N., Rehinberger, A., &
Stackhaus, J. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning groups during
social studies for students with autism and fourth-grade peers. *Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *28*, 175-188.

Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded\--Is much
of it justifiable? *Exceptional Children*, *35*, 5-22.

Evans, I.M., Salisbury, C.L., Palombaro, M.M., Berryman, J., &
Hollowood, T.M. (1992). Peer interactions and social acceptance of
elementary-age children with severe disabilities in an inclusive school.
*Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *17,*
205-212.

Evans, I.M., Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M., & Goldberg, J.S. (1994).
Children's perception of fairness in classroom and interpersonal
situations involving peers with severe disabilities. *Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19,* 326-332.

Faught, K.K., Balleweg, B.J., Crow, R.E., & Van den Pol, R.A. (1983). An
analysis of social behaviors among handicapped and nonhandicapped
preschool children. *Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded*,
*18*, 210-214.

Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C.H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of
services and its impact on students' social relationships. *Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *20*, 259-269.

Giangreco, M., Edelman, S.W., Luiselli, T.E., & MacFarland, S.Z. (1997).
Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on
students with disabilities*. Exceptional Children*, *64*, 7-18.

Giangreco, M., Edelman, S., Cloninger, C., & Dennis, R. (1993). My child
has a classmate with severe disabilities: What parents of nondisabled
children think about full inclusion. *Developmental Disabilities
Bulletin*, *21*, 77-91.

Guralnick, M. (1981). The efficacy of integrating handicapped children
in early childhood settings: Research implications. *Topics in Early
Childhood Education*, *1*, 57-71.

Guralnick, M., & Groom, J.M. (1988). Peer interactions in mainstreamed
and specialized classrooms: A comparative analysis. *Exceptional
Children*, *54*, 415-425.

Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T., & Hammond, M. (1995). Parent perspectives
of peer relationships and friendships in integrated and specialized
programs*. American Journal on Mental Retardation*, *99*, 457-476.

Hanline, M.F. (1993). Inclusion of preschoolers with profound
disabilities: An analysis of children's interactions. *Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *18*, 28-35.

Helmstetter, E., Peck, C.A., & Giangreco, M.F. (1994). Outcomes of
interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A
statewide survey of high school students. *Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *19*, 263-276.

Hollowood, T.M., Salisbury, C.L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M.M.
(1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with
and without severe disabilities. *Exceptional Children*, *61*, 242-253.

Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating
socially supportive environments for fully included students who
experience multiple disabilities*. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *21*, 53-71.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all
students within the context of cooperative learning groups. *Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *19*, 290-301.

Janney, R.E., & Snell, M.E. (1996). How teachers use peer interactions
to include students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary
general education classes. *Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps*, *21*, 72-80.

Jenkins, J.R., Odom, S.L., & Speltz, M.L. (1989). Effects of social
integration on preschool children with handicaps. *Exceptional
Children*, *55*, 420-428.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1981). The integration of the
handicapped into the regular classroom: Effects of cooperative and
individualistic instruction*. Contemporary Educational Psychology*, *6*,
344-353.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social
interdependence and classroom climate. *Journal of Psychology*, *114*,
135-142.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Tiffany, M., & Zaidman, B. (1983). Are low
achievers disliked in a cooperative situation? A test of rival theories
in a mixed ethnic situation*. Contemporary Educational Psychology*, *8*,
189-200.

Jolly, A.C., Test, D.W., & Spooner, F. (1993). Using badges to increase
initiations of children with severe disabilities in a play setting.
*Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *18*,
46-51.

Kennedy, C.H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects
of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate
school students with severe disabilities. *Exceptional Children*, *64*,
31-48.

Kishi, G.S., & Meyer, L.H. (1994). What children report and remember: A
six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with
and without severe disabilities*. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps*, *19*, 277-289.

Kozleski, E.B., & Jackson, L. (1993). Taylor's story: Full inclusion in
her neighborhood elementary school. *Exceptionality*, *4*, 153-175.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Components of
cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group
contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. *Contemporary
Educational Psychology*, *11*, 229-239.

Logan, K.R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E.B. (1997). Effects of instructional
variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general
education classrooms*. Exceptional Children*, *63*, 481-498.

Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild
handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. *Review of Educational
Research*, *53*, 519-569.

Maheady, L., Sacca, M.K., & Harper, G.F. (1987). Classwide student
tutoring teams: Effects on the academic performance of secondary
students. *Journal of Special Education*, *12*, 107-121.

Manset, G., & Semmel, M.I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students
with mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model
programs. *Journal of Special Education*, *31*, 155-180.

Mathur, S.R., & Rutherford, R.B. (1991). Peer-mediated interventions
promoting social skills of children and youth with behavioral disorders.
*Education and Treatment of Children*, *14*, 227-242.

McDonnell, J., Hardman, M., Hightower, J., & Kiefer-O'Donnell, R.
(1991). Variables associated with in-school and after-school integration
of secondary students with severe disabilities. *Education and Training
in Mental Retardation*, *26*, 243-257.

McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C., & Kiefer-O'Donnell, R. (1997).
Academic engaged time of students with low-incidence disabilities in
general education classes. *Mental Retardation*, *35*, 18-26.

McDougall, D., & Brady, M.P. (1998). Initiating and fading
self-management interventions to increase math fluency in general
education classes. *Exceptional Children*, *64*, 151-166.

McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R.T. (1998). *Inclusive schooling practices:
A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about
inclusive schooling*. Monograph prepared under grant no. H086V40007 for
the U.S. Department of Education.

Meyer, L.H., Minondo, S., Fisher, M., Larson, M.J., Dunmore, S., Black,
J.W., & D'Aquanni, M. (1998). Frames of friendships. Social
relationships among adolescents with diverse abilities. In L.H. Meyer,
H. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I.S. Schwartz, & G. Harry (Eds.), *Making
friends: The influences of culture and development* (pp. 189-218).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Miller, L.J., Strain, P.S., Boyd, K., Hunsicker, S., McKinley, J., & Wu,
A. (1992). Parent attitudes toward integration. *Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education*, *12*, 230-246.

O'Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1996). Cooperative learning as an
inclusion strategy: A closer look. *Exceptionality*, *6*, 29-51.

Odom, S., & Strain, P.S. (1986). A comparison of peer-initiation and
teacher-antecedent interventions for promoting reciprocal social
interaction of autistic preschoolers. *Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis*, *19*, 59-71.

Odom, S.L., Deklyer, M., & Jenkins, J.R. (1984). Integrating handicapped
and nonhandicapped preschoolers: Developmental impact on nonhandicapped
children*. Exceptional Children*, *51*, 41-48.

Osguthorpe, R.T., & Scruggs, T.E. (1986). Special education students as
tutors: A review and analysis. *Remedial and Special Education*, *7*,
15-26.

Peck, C.A., Donaldson, J., & Pezzoli, M. (1990). Some benefits
adolescents perceive for themselves from their social relationships with
peers who have severe disabilities. *Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *15*, 241-249.

Ryndak, D.L., Downing, J.E., Morrison, A.P., & Williams, L.J. (1996).
Parents' perceptions of educational settings and services for children
with moderate or severe disabilities. *Remedial and Special Education*,
*17*, 106-118.

Sale, P., & Carey, D.M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with
disabilities in a full-inclusion school. *Exceptional Children*, *62*,
6-19.

Salisbury, C.L., & Palombaro, M.M. (1998). Friends and acquaintances:
Evolving relationships in an inclusive elementary school. In L.H. Meyer,
H. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I.S. Schwartz, & B. Harry (Eds.), *Making
friends. The influences of culture and development* (pp. 81-104).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Salisbury, C.L., Evans, I.M., & Palombaro, M.M. (1997). Collaborative
problem-solving to promote the inclusion of young children with
significant disabilities in primary grades. *Exceptional Children*,
*63*, 195-210.

Sasso, G.M., & Rude, H.A. (1987). Unprogrammed effects of training
high-status peers to interact with severely handicapped children.
*Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, *20*, 35-44.

Schnorr, R.F. (1990). "Peter? He comes and goes. . . ." First graders'
perspective on a part-time mainstream student. *Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *15*, 231-240.

Schnorr, R.F. (1997). From enrollment to membership: "Belonging" in
middle and high school classes. *Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps*, *22*, 1-15.

Sharpe, M.N., York, J.L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on
the academic performance of classmates without disabilities. *Remedial
and Special Education*, *15*, 281-287.

Staub, D., Schwartz, I.L., Gallucci, C., & Peck, C.A. (1994). Four
portraits of friendship at an inclusive school. *Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *19*, 314-325.

Strain, P.S., & Odom, S.L. (1986). A comparison of peer-limitation and
teachers-antecedent interventions for promoting reciprocal social
interaction of autistic preschoolers. *Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis*, *19*, 57-71.

Turnbull, A.P., Winton, P.J., Blacher, J., & Salkind, N. (1982).
Mainstreaming in the kindergarten classroom: Perspectives of parents of
handicapped and nonhandicapped children. *Journal of the Division for
Early Childhood*, *6*, 14-20.

Voeltz, L.M. (1982). Effects of structured interactions with severely
handicapped peers on children's attitudes. *American Journal of Mental
Deficiency*, *86*, 380-390.

Wang, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1984). Comparison of a full-time
mainstreaming program and a resource room approach. *Exceptional
Children*, *51*, 33-40.

York, J., & Tundidor, H. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion:
Perspectives of educator, parents, and students*. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, *20*, 31-44.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J.M. (1990). Mainstreaming experiences for
learning disabled students (Project MELD): Preliminary report.
*Exceptional Children*, *57*, 176-185.

School Discipline and Students with Disabilities

When students with disabilities are involved in misconduct,
implementation of discipline policies can be perceived as complex
because of laws designed to protect these students' civil rights. Prior
to 1975, an estimated 1 million students with disabilities were excluded
from public elementary and secondary schools on the basis of their
disability. Public Law 94-142 included due process protections to guard
against further exclusion of students with disabilities on the basis of
disability. In *Honig v. Doe,* the Supreme Court found that "Congress
very much meant to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had
traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly
emotionally disturbed students, from school." One of the limits to this
authority, the "stay-put" provision, was interpreted by the Court to
require that students remain in their current educational placement
during due process proceedings. Districts seeking to change the
educational placement of a student with a disability against the
parent's will could seek a court order but could not unilaterally remove
the student from school for more than 10 days. In the past 20 years,
case law has defined suspensions or expulsions of more than 10 days in a
school year as a change of educational placement subject to the IDEA
stay-put provision.

Recent education policy reflects an attempt to balance the rights of
students with disabilities to a free appropriate public education with
the rights of students to an educational environment that is safe and
conducive to learning. This module describes Federal policies regarding
discipline and students with disabilities, summarizes available research
relevant to those policies, and outlines the discipline provisions
enacted in the IDEA Amendments of 1997.

In recent years, the stay-put provision has been perceived as
conflicting with goals for safe and drug-free schools by limiting the
authority of school personnel to unilaterally remove students with
disabilities from school for disciplinary infractions without regard for
the nature of the disability or the appropriateness of behavioral
interventions. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that students
with disabilities continue to receive services in general education
classes and schools after committing dangerous acts because of the
protections awarded in IDEA, while nondisabled students are suspended or
expelled for similar misconduct. The perception of a double standard has
raised concern about the fairness of school discipline policies for
students with disabilities (Egnor, 1996). In one qualitative study, many
teachers and administrators indicated that students with disabilities
should be subject to "the same disciplinary actions as other students."
Some speculated that students with individualized education programs
(IEPs) were aware of differences in disciplinary procedures and took
advantage of the protections afforded by their special status (Butera,
Klein, McMullen, & Wilson, 1998).

These perceptions raise two questions that are relevant to policy.
First, to what extent are students with disabilities actually engaged in
misconduct, particularly acts that are a threat to themselves or others?
Second, to what extent are students with disabilities excluded from
school through suspension or expulsion, as a result of misconduct?

# School Misconduct/School Discipline for Students with Disabilities

Under contract with the U.S. Department of Education, the Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) conducted a study of misconduct and discipline
for students with disabilities using extant data from States and
districts. The study found that most States did not collect the data
necessary for assessing the extent or type of misconduct by students
with disabilities or the disciplinary actions resulting from that
misconduct. IDEA due process hearings around issues of misconduct were
rare, as were court injunctions to remove dangerous students from school
pending an IEP meeting. Suspension of students with disabilities was
quite common, especially for males and for students with emotional
disturbance. Almost 28 percent of all special education students who
were suspended or expelled had emotional disturbance, while less than 9
percent of all special education students had emotional disturbance.
Males were more likely than females to be suspended or expelled, and the
gender discrepancy was greater among students with disabilities than for
the entire school population (Fiore & Reynolds, 1996). However, this
discrepancy may be attributable to the disproportionate representation
of males in special education.

The researchers concluded that students with disabilities were suspended
and expelled at rates that exceeded their proportion in the school
population (Fiore & Reynolds, 1996). This finding was supported by a
Kansas study, which found that students with disabilities were
suspended/expelled at twice the rate of their nondisabled peers (Cooley,
1995). However, data from the 1994 Office for Civil Rights (OCR*)
Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports* did not support this
finding. Although disproportion was evident in a few States, an
estimated 6.2 percent of students with disabilities nationwide were
suspended for at least 1 day in 1994 compared to 7.2 percent of all
students (U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

Findings on the use of corporal punishment were also discrepant. Data
from OCR (1994) show that approximately 0.7 percent of students with
disabilities were subject to corporal punishment compared with 1.1
percent of students overall (see table III-5). This finding contrasts
with the findings of a study of 4,391 discipline records from nine
Florida schools (McFadden, Marsh, Price, & Hwang, 1992). In that study,
56 percent of students with disabilities caught fighting received
corporal punishment, compared to 36 percent of nondisabled students.

Table III-5

Number and Percentage of Students with Disabilities Subject to Different
Types of School Discipline: 1994

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1994*).
Elementary and secondary school Civil Rights compliance reports*.
Washington, DC: Author.

With regard to the types of misconduct committed, Fiore and Reynolds
(1996) estimated that 80 percent of reported incidents involving
students with disabilities were fights or general misconduct. Weapons
offenses accounted for 6 percent of all reported misconduct for students
with disabilities and 5 percent of misconduct overall. The vast majority
of weapons offenses involved possession or concealment as opposed to
use.

McFadden et al. (1992) found that defiance of school authority (27
percent), bothering others (20 percent), fighting (15 percent), and
unacceptable physical contact (8 percent) were the most common offenses
for students with disabilities. Defiance of authority, fighting, and
bothering others were also common among nondisabled students. However,
12 percent of nondisabled students were disciplined for truancy, a form
of misconduct that was rare for students with disabilities.

Cooley (1995) found no differences in the types of misconduct leading to
suspension/expulsion of students with and without disabilities. For all
students, disobedience, altercations with other students, disrespect,
and smoking were the most frequent forms of misconduct leading to
suspension/expulsion. Incidents involving weapons and drugs were far
less common. Of those students with disabilities who were
suspended/expelled, 3 percent were suspended/expelled for a drug
offense, 2 percent for possessing a gun, and 2 percent for possessing a
knife. These percentages were very similar to the percentages for
students without disabilities.

# Discipline Provisions of the IDEA Amendments of 1997

The 1997 Amendments contain exception to the stay-put provision; the
exception states that if a student with a disability brings a weapon to
school, commits a drug offense, or a hearing officer determines that the
district has demonstrated by substantial evidence that maintaining the
student's current placement is substantially likely to result in injury
to the child or others, the student may be placed immediately in an
interim alternative educational setting (AES) for up to 45 days. The
student's IEP team and, in the case of a hearing, the hearing officer,
are given the authority to determine an appropriate interim AES. This
policy gives local administrators the authority to unilaterally change a
student's educational placement under certain circumstance but also
provides protections for students. Students placed in an interim AES are
guaranteed access to the general education curriculum, continuation of
IEP-specified services, a functional behavioral assessment, and
implementation of positive strategies to address behavior.

Under Section 615(k)(1)(A)(ii) and (B):

> \(A\) School personnel . . . may order a change in the placement of a
> child with a disability\--(ii) to an appropriate interim alternative
> educational setting for the same amount of time that a child without a
> disability would be subject to discipline, but for not more than 45
> days if\--(I) the child carries a weapon to school or to a school
> function . . . ; or (II) the child knowingly possesses or uses illegal
> drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled substance while at
> school or a school function . . . \[I\]f the local educational agency
> did not conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a
> behavioral intervention plan for such child before the behavior that
> resulted in the suspension . . . , the agency shall convene an IEP
> meeting to develop an assessment plan to address that behavior; or
> (ii) if the child already has a behavioral intervention plan, the IEP
> Team shall review the plan and modify it, as necessary, to address the
> behavior.
>
> A hearing officer under this section may order a change in the
> placement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim
> alternative educational setting for not more than 45 days if the
> hearing officer\--(A) determines that the public agency has
> demonstrated by substantial evidence that maintaining the current
> placement of such child is substantially likely to result in injury to
> the child or to others . . . .

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 require that States report to the Secretary
each year the number of students with disabilities removed to interim
educational settings, the acts precipitating those removals, and the
number of students with disabilities subject to long-term suspension or
expulsion. Those requirements indicate that:

> Each State . . . shall provide data each year to the Secretary . . .
> on . . . (I) the number of children with disabilities, by race,
> ethnicity, and disability category, who under subparagraphs (A)(ii)
> and (B) of section 615(k)(1), are removed to an interim alternative
> educational setting; (II) the acts or items precipitating those
> removals; and (III) the number of children with disabilities who are
> subject to long‑term suspensions or expulsions . . . .
> (§618(a)(1)(A)(vii))

States will begin reporting these data in 1998-99. The IDEA Amendments
of 1997 also require that States examine "data to determine if
significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities\--(i) among
local educational agencies in the State; or (ii) compared to such rates
for nondisabled children within such agencies." (§612(a)(22)(A))

Nowhere in the provisions of IDEA or in other Federal statutes do
lawmakers specifically recognize students with disabilities as likely
victims of school violence and misconduct. Research suggests that
individuals with mental retardation are vulnerable to psychological and
physical abuse (Edgerton, 1981; Halpern, Close, & Nelson, 1986);
adolescent males with learning disabilities are more likely than their
peers without disabilities to be victims of crime (Bryan, Pearl, &
Herzog, 1989); and youth with emotional disturbance who exhibited low
personal/social skills were more likely than other youth with
disabilities to be victimized during their school careers (Doren,
Bullis, & Benz, 1996).

# Summary

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 sought to clarify the relationship between
the right to a safe learning environment and the rights of students with
disabilities to a free appropriate public education. Limitations in
available data preclude a thorough assessment of the extent to which
students with disabilities are subject to long-term suspension or
expulsion. In fact, it is not clear whether students with disabilities
are more likely than students without disabilities to engage in serious
misconduct or to be suspended from school. The IDEA Amendments of 1997
require States to report the number of students with disabilities
subject to long-term suspension/expulsion and removed to AESs for
disciplinary reasons. States will begin reporting these data to the
Office of Special Education Programs in 1998-99.

# References

Bryan, T., Pearl, R., & Herzog, A. (1989). Learning disabled
adolescents' vulnerability to crime: Attitudes, anxieties, experiences.
*Learning Disabilities Research*, *5*, 51-60.

Butera, G., Klein, H., McMullen, L., & Wilson, B. (1998). A statewide
study of FAPE and school discipline policies. *The Journal of Special
Education, 32,* 108-114.

Cooley, S. (1995). *Suspension/expulsion of regular and special
education students in Kansas: A report to the Kansas State Board of
Education.* (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 403)

Doren, B., Bullis, M., & Benz, M.R. (1996). Predictors of victimization
experiences of adolescents with disabilities in transition. *Exceptional
Children*, *63,* 7-18.

Edgerton, R.B. (1981). Crime, deviance, and normalization: Reconsidered.
In R.H. Bruininks, C.E. Meyers, B.B. Sigford, & K.C. Lakin (Eds*.),
Deinstitutionalization and community adjustment of mentally retarded
people* (pp. 145-166). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Deficiency.

Egnor, D. (1996). IDEA reauthorization and the debate on schools'
disciplinary procedures under IDEA. *Focus on Exceptional Children, 29,*
17-22.

Fiore, T.A., & Reynolds, K.S. (1996). *Analysis of discipline issues in
special education.* Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle
Institute.

Halpern, A., Close, D., & Nelson, D.J. (1986). *On my own: The impact of
semi-independent living programs for adults with mental retardation*.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA),
P.L. 105-17. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 *et seq.*

McFadden, A.C., Marsh, G.E., Price, B.J., & Hwang, Y. (1992). A study of
race and gender bias in the punishment of handicapped school children.
*The Urban Review, 24,* 239-251.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (1994*).
Elementary and secondary school Civil Rights compliance reports*.
Washington, DC: Author.

Preparing Teachers To Serve Students with Visual Impairments[^5]

Administrators of schools and agencies that provide services to persons
with visual impairments have raised concerns about the growing shortage
of teachers for children with visual impairments, orientation and
mobility (O&M) instructors, and rehabilitation teachers[^6] (Wiener &
Joffee, 1993). Chronic shortages of trained personnel have been well
documented in the literature (Head, 1989; Hunter, 1994; Silberman, Corn,
& Sowell, 1996). Although the personnel shortfall affects students with
visual impairments in all parts of the country, the impact appears to be
greatest in rural areas, where the nearest teacher trained in visual
impairments may be in a remote location or hundreds of miles away.

The personnel shortage is influenced by several factors, including
limited public awareness of the field, specialized requirements such as
Braille and hand-sign language that are not routinely taught in special
education training programs, and the relatively low number of training
programs designed specifically for vision specialists. The last factor
may be particularly important: In recent years, more visual impairment
training programs have closed than have opened (Corn, Ferrell, Spungin,
& Zimmerman, as cited in NASDSE, 1997). The low number of training
programs in the visual impairment field suggests that the personnel
shortage will not lessen in the near future. The Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) has joined with university researchers and
other agencies to develop innovative programs that are designed to
reduce the shortage of teachers for students with visual impairments.

This module first describes the population of students served by visual
impairment specialists and looks briefly at some of the factors that
contribute to the shortage of teachers in this field. The second section
of the module examines training programs in the field and its specialty
areas, such as deaf-blindness and O&M, and the third section discusses
licensure issues. The final section presents initiatives aimed at
reducing the shortages of teachers for students with visual impairments,
with an emphasis on OSEP-funded research and personnel preparation
projects.

# Students Served by Visual Impairment Specialists

The population of students served by visual impairment specialists is
quite varied and includes those who have low vision or those who are
blind or deaf-blind. Students with multiple disabilities that include
visual impairments or deaf-blindness may be reported under those
categories or under the multiple disabilities category. In addition,
noncategorical reporting affects the number of children reported as
receiving services for visual impairments.

All States use noncategorical reporting methods for children ages birth
through 2, and States now have the option of using the developmental
delay category for children ages 6 through 9; Data on disability
category are not collected for children ages birth through 5. Five
States allow noncategorical reporting beyond age 5: Idaho (through age
9) Iowa and Massachusetts (through age 21), Minnesota (through age 6),
and Virginia (through age 7) (NECTAS, 1998). Categorical reporting of
students ages 6-21 with visual impairments also varies across States.
For example, in 1995-96, Michigan and Wyoming reported school-aged
children with deaf-blindness in the hearing impairments category.

These reporting differences make it difficult to determine accurately
how many children need special education and related services for visual
impairments. This is an important issue because the number of children
reported as receiving services under a given disability category is
often one of the key determinants of funding priorities for preservice
and in-service training.

In 1997-98, 26,070 students ages 6 through 21 were reported as receiving
services for visual impairments under IDEA. An additional 1,463 students
were reported as receiving services under the deaf-blind category. It is
unclear how many children with visual impairments were reported
noncategorically or under different categories for the 1997-98 school
year.

# Factors Contributing to the Shortage of Visual Impairment Teachers

Several factors that may contribute to the shortage of teachers for
students with visual impairments were mentioned briefly in the
introduction to this module. One such factor is the status of visual
impairments as a low-incidence disability. Because public awareness of
low-incidence disabilities is often limited, potential students usually
are not aware of and thus do not consider careers in the field (Mazzocco
et al., 1992).

Students who do enter the visual impairments field soon learn that they
have a number of career opportunities beyond classroom teaching,
including adult rehabilitation, program administration, and university
teaching. This is another factor in the shortage of teachers for 6-
through 21-year-olds with visual impairments. Wiener, Fauver, and
Schwartz (1995) conducted a study of persons employed in the visual
impairments field across the United States and Canada. The 440
respondents were virtually all degreed professionals, with almost 84
percent holding a master's or doctoral degree. In addition, many had
degrees specific to the visual impairments field: 25 percent held
degrees in O&M, 9.3 percent in rehabilitation teaching, and 13 percent
in special education, including the visual impairments specialty. The
researchers found that although the largest percentage of their
respondents were employed primarily as teachers of students with visual
impairments, that percentage was only 27.7 percent. Twenty percent of
the respondents worked in the O&M field, and almost 19 percent worked in
administration. It is clear that at least in this sample, less than
one-third of professionals in the visual impairments field were working
primarily as teachers for students ages 6 though 21. The remaining
respondents either worked in multiple settings or did not respond to the
question.

Another possible factor in the teacher shortage is that the specialized
skills required for teaching subgroups of students with visual
impairments, such as Braille and hand-sign language, are not taught in
typical special education training programs (Mazzocco et al., 1992).
Learning these skills requires some degree of specialization during
training. Special education teachers without such skills may not be able
to teach students with visual impairments as effectively as teachers who
do have these skills.

A final factor that contributes to the shortage of teachers for students
with visual impairments is the relative lack of training programs in the
visual impairments field. This aspect of the teacher shortage is best
examined by looking individually at the different programmatic areas of
training in the visual impairments arena: blindness and low vision,
deaf-blindness, O&M,[^7] and rehabilitation training. The next section
of this module examines the availability of teacher training programs in
the visual impairments field, including blindness and low vision,
deaf-blindness, and O&M. The extent of the teacher shortage in each
specialty area is also addressed.

# Teacher Training Programs

Although the visual impairments field can be divided into several
discrete areas of training, in many cases there is an overlap in program
requirements and instruction. In addition, some programs incorporate
visual impairment programs into their severe disabilities or multiple
disabilities programs. There are often not clear lines between visual
impairments training programs and other special education training
programs or between the various visual impairments specialty programs
themselves. This makes it difficult to determine how many visual
impairments teacher training programs there are and how many graduates
they produce.

There are 1,200 colleges and universities that graduate 500,000 students
each year in the field of education (Doyle, as cited in McLetchie &
MacFarland, 1995), but only a handful of these schools have programs in
blindness and low vision, deaf-blindness, or O&M. Within the visual
impairments field, there is disagreement as to the exact number of
teacher training programs. According to one study (Corn, Ferrell,
Spungin, & Zimmerman, as cited in NASDSE, 1997), there are 26 programs
in 19 States that meet the standards established by the American
Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually
Impaired (AER). These standards are stringent; perhaps the most binding
is the requirement that programs have at least one full-time faculty
member dedicated solely to visual impairments. Of the 26 programs that
meet AER standards, 16 received OSEP funding, and 12 prepared graduates
eligible as both vision and O&M specialists. However, the National
Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education (1997a) lists 51
colleges or universities with programs in visual impairments. At three
of the schools, the highest degree offered is an associate degree, for
specialized paraprofessional training in the field of blindness. Ten
colleges or universities offer programs in deaf-blindness (McLetchie &
MacFarland, 1995).

The shortage of visual impairments specialists appears to be multilevel,
with low numbers entering the field at the bachelor's, master's, and
doctoral levels (Bowen & Stearns, 1994; Head, 1989; Pierce & Smith,
1994). The shortfall is also apparent at the faculty level in colleges
and universities. Silberman, Corn, and Sowell (1996) surveyed faculty
members in the field of visual impairments to determine whether there
were enough doctorate-level faculty members to train the needed number
of classroom teachers at the bachelor's and master's levels. They
surveyed 34 preparation programs for teachers of children with visual
impairments, O&M instructors, and rehabilitation teachers.

Of the 69 faculty members who responded to the survey, only 28 reported
spending their time in one specialization area, and 14 respondents
reported spending at least half of their time in disability areas other
than visual impairments. Fifty-nine of the respondents planned to remain
in the field for the next 5 years, five planned to retire, and five were
unsure of their plans. Furthermore, 21 believed their positions would be
filled when they retired, 5 anticipated that they would not be replaced,
and 43 were unsure of the future status of the position. At the time of
the study, only 2 of the 32 programs surveyed were in the process of
hiring a full-time faculty member, and neither program had received any
applications from people with doctorates in the applied areas. The study
results led the authors to conclude that "the future of the programs
continues to be threatened" (Silberman et al., 1996, p. 121).

## *Orientation and Mobility Programs*

Wiener and Joffee (1993) surveyed student enrollment in O&M programs and
found somewhat more promising results. In 1990, 186 students were
enrolled in O&M programs, which the authors claim is an increase from
1985 enrollment levels. The rise is attributed in part to a cooperative
student recruitment effort between AER and the Affiliated Leadership
League of the Blind. The collaboration included innovative approaches to
facilitating completion of required coursework, the strengthening of
accreditation standards, and a video marketing effort. Weiner and Joffee
(1993) believe that cooperative and innovative teamwork between these
agencies and teacher training programs holds significant promise for
effective solutions to the orientation and mobility teacher shortages.

## *Deaf-Blind Programs*

In 1967, in response to the rubella epidemic of 1964-65 that resulted in
more than 5,000 children being born with combined hearing and vision
losses, the Federal government funded 10 Deaf-Blind Centers (Heumann,
1994; McLetchie, 1995). The Centers and Services for Deaf-Blind Children
Program was established a year later. These programs served as the
primary resource for direct services and personnel training for children
with deaf-blindness, producing more than 100 graduates in this specialty
area per year in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Most of those graduates
became teachers for students with deaf-blindness, and some became
administrators of the deaf-blind centers (McLetchie & MacFarland, 1995).
The program was later amended to maintain direct services for children
who are not served under a State-service mandate, provide technical
assistance to improve services, and fund projects of research,
innovation, development, and demonstration to improve knowledge and
practices (Heumann, 1994).

However, significant changes within the field have made the task of
addressing the needs of children with deaf-blindness more difficult in
recent years. One such change, the geographic dispersion of the children
receiving services, is due to inclusive programming. In 1983, the 215
children receiving services for deaf-blindness in Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut were served in 29 school buildings. In
1992, 267 children in these States were receiving services but in 218
different programs or sites (Collins, as cited in McLetchie &
MacFarland, 1995). Yet the supply of qualified teachers needed to
provide a quality education for children who are deaf-blind has become
critically limited (Heumann, 1994).

# State Licensure Requirements

The shortage of teachers for students with visual impairments may be
exacerbated by a lack of standardization in State licensure
requirements. Teacher training requirements vary by program and are
often influenced by State department of education guidelines. Licensure
qualifications also vary by State and may differ depending on whether a
teacher enters the field of general visual impairments, O&M, or
deaf-blindness. Forty-five States have specific requirements for
individuals who seek to become visual impairment specialists. These
States require that teachers either meet State licensure requirements in
visual impairments or first meet the general special education licensure
requirements and then take additional coursework to obtain an
endorsement in visual impairments. Five States offer only generic or
noncategorical licensure, which may have implications for children who
need highly specialized services (National Clearinghouse for Professions
in Special Education, 1997b).

DuPass and Fazzi (1996) found that of the 41 States responding to a
survey about O&M licensure requirements, only 17 required O&M
specialists to meet specific qualifications for employment. In most of
those States, minimum qualifications included completion of an
undergraduate or graduate program in O&M, AER certification as an O&M
specialist, or both. These researchers also learned that in many of the
States that do not have statewide qualifications for O&M specialists,
local school districts, State schools for the blind, or private agencies
that provide O&M services on a contract basis have established their own
employment qualifications. In some cases, those qualifications were as
stringent as those established by departments of education in other
States. However, it is clear that although most States have established
some form of minimum qualifications for visual impairment specialists,
those qualifications can vary considerably by State.

# Efforts To Produce More Qualified Teachers for Students with Visual Impairments

The shortage of teachers for students with visual impairments requires
innovative, collaborative efforts between OSEP and other agencies. This
section of the module highlights OSEP's partnership with the Council for
Exceptional Children (CEC), the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB),
and Texas Tech University as well as other OSEP research investments
aimed at helping ensure an adequate supply of qualified teachers for
students with visual impairments. The AFB's national agenda, reflecting
the changes needed in teacher training and strategies to help bring
about those changes, is also discussed.

## *OSEP's Research and Training Initiatives*

In 1997, OSEP awarded a 2-year grant to a consortium composed of the
CEC, the AFB, and Division 17 of the Association for the Education of
the Blind and Visually Impaired to conduct a national needs assessment
and develop the National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children
with Blindness and Low Vision (NPTP). Information on the NPTP can be
found at *www.cec.sped.org/nptp.html*. Needs assess-ment data were
collected through a national survey of teachers and field-based
specialists and through telephone surveys, focus groups, and literature
reviews. A national advisory board and other key stakeholders were
involved in a strategic planning session and a series of followup
consensus-building activities as well. The goal of the project was to
reach consensus regarding national needs and problem-solving methods in
the recruitment and preparation of teachers for students with visual
impairments. The plan is scheduled for dissemination in early 2000.

In addition to the NPTP project, in 1999 OSEP was funding a number of
other preservice and inservice training grants in the visual impairments
field. Recognizing that personnel shortages "have created continuing
demands for creative, practical, and productive personnel programs"
(Spooner, Spooner, Algozzine, & Jordan, 1998, p. 122), OSEP has made
particular investments in distance learning programs. Distance learning
involves the separation of the learner from the instructor in location
and in some instances time; it relies on technology such as interactive
television, electronic mail, compressed video, and telephone link-ups
(Spooner et al., 1998). The method allows teachers who are certified in
other areas to obtain certification in the visual impairments field
without traveling great distances and often while retaining their
current teaching positions. Distance learning also provides training to
teachers in areas of the country that lack certified teachers who
specialize in visual impairments; this is particularly helpful in rural
areas where there is little access to traditional training programs. The
goal of most of these distance learning programs is to produce teachers
who, after completing training, will remain in their local area and
provide services to students with visual impairments (Spooner et al.,
1998). Between 1995 and 1999, OSEP invested over \$5 million in
personnel preparation grant monies to fund 12 projects related to
distance learning programs for personnel providing services to children
with visual impairments.

A 2-year grant to the University of Arizona supported a project to train
special and regular education teachers to work with students with visual
impairments or deaf-blindness in Arizona, as well as in Nevada and New
Mexico, where there are no university personnel preparation programs
that specialize in the instruction of these students. The project
utilized three instruction methods, combining traditional and
distance-learning approaches. The first, an alternative sites model,
delivered courses on-site in Nevada and New Mexico. The alternative
method model offered the same courses, but in a VideoCampus format,
requiring only two weekends of on-site training. The third model, an
alternative scheduling format, offered coursework in deaf-blindness in
intensive workshops at the University of Arizona during the summer and
fall semesters. The summer sessions involved 3-week workshops, and the
fall sessions were held over a period of 5 weekends, to allow students
who lived at a distance to attend.

Another distance learning program currently funded by OSEP is a
collaborative effort between the University of Utah and Utah State
University. This program prepares early interventionists to serve
children ages birth through 5 with vision and hearing impairments. The
program will enroll at least 18 students during each year of a 3-year
period. Because this is an endorsement program, eligible students are
already certified in special education. The program is offered
simultaneously on campus and through distance learning. Clinical
instructors travel all over the State to meet with students on a regular
basis. Students complete required practica at sites close to home or at
other sites during the summer.

In addition to distance learning programs, OSEP funds a number of more
traditional personnel preparation programs for teachers and other
personnel who provide services to children with visual impairments. For
example, California State University at Los Angeles received a 4-year
grant to train 48 qualified professionals in visual impairments. The
project's emphasis is on training graduate students to be O&M
specialists and teachers of children with visual impairments. Although
it is less recognized by the literature, there is a shortage of teachers
trained in visual impairment in urban areas as well as in rural areas.
An OSEP-funded project in Chicago addresses this shortage. Northern
Illinois University, in conjunction with the Chicago public schools,
received a 4-year grant to train 20 Chicago public school teachers to
work with students with visual impairments in kindergarten through
12^th^ grade. The project has three goals: (1) to recruit well-qualified
individuals to work in the Chicago public schools, (2) to train special
educators in the area of visual impairments to meet the needs of
students in a multicultural urban environment, and (3) to contribute to
the research literature on these issues. Classes take place during the
summer and in the evening during the school year. Project participants
complete their student teaching in mentoring programs without taking a
leave of absence from their other teaching duties. Each participant
signs a statement pledging to teach

Table III-6

National Agenda Goal Statements

Source: Corn, A.L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K.M., Ryan, F., & Siller, M.A.
(1995). *The national agenda for the education of children and youth
with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities.*
New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.

children with visual impairments in the Chicago school system for a
minimum of 5 years.

## *The National Agenda*

In addition to OSEP's efforts to provide an adequate supply of
well-trained teachers for students with visual impairments, the AFB
issued *The National Agenda for the Education of Children and Youth with
Visual Impairments, Including Those with Multiple Disabilities* (Corn,
Hatlen, Huebner, Ryan, & Siller, 1995). The agenda represents a broad
consensus of the changes needed in educational programs to meet the
needs of students with visual impairments. It comprises eight goals and
a commitment to achieve each goal by the year 2000 (see table III-6).

The eight goals "reiterate in a simple yet thorough manner the very same
concepts that are at the core of our efforts to bring about lasting and
effective educational reform at the U.S. Department of
Education\--ensuring that each individual student receives the free
appropriate education to which he or she is entitled under the law.
Along with our efforts, school districts and States around the nation
are actively engaged in education reform. Using our Goals 2000 and the
School to Work initiatives in concert with IDEA as a framework for
change, educators throughout the country are promoting comprehensive
strategies for education reform based on high academic and occupational
standards, improving teaching, and strengthening family involvement"
(Heumann, as cited in Corn et al., 1995, p. V).

The agenda's third goal addresses personnel preparation. It states,
"Universities, with a minimum of one full-time faculty member in the
area of visual impairments, will prepare a sufficient number of
educators of students with visual impairments to meet personnel needs
throughout the country" (Corn et al., 1995, p. 6). The goal has five
national and five regional, State, and/or local strategies. The national
strategies are:

1.  Develop a model of excellence for personnel preparation.

2.  Encourage establishment of a national research center on the
    education of students with visual impairments, including those with
    multiple disabilities.

3.  Develop a collaborative national recruitment program in conjunction
    with AER.

4.  Encourage all university personnel preparation programs in the area
    of education of students with visual impairments to implement
    national standards.

5.  Determine the number of teachers of students with visual impairments
    as well as O&M specialists who graduated from university preparation
    programs in 1995. Ensure that the number who will graduate in the
    year 2000 is the same or greater than the number in 1995 (Corn et
    al., 1995).

Part of the fourth goal also deals with teacher training issues; it
addresses the need for ongoing professional development for all visual
impairments teachers and O&M specialists. The goal includes a national
strategy for developing an information base on a variety of training
programs, including independent study, distance education, and mentoring
programs.

# Summary

There are persistent shortages of classroom teachers for students with
visual impairments. Low numbers of doctoral-level faculty members and a
relative lack of teacher training programs contribute to the shortage.
In addition, most children with visual impairments are no longer
clustered in schools for the blind, but are instead attending their
neighborhood schools. The geographic dispersal of students has increased
the need for qualified personnel in the field and for innovative
techniques for serving these students.

OSEP has taken steps to ensure that all children with visual impairments
are served by qualified teachers, including funding a joint project of
CEC, AFB, and Texas Tech University to develop a national plan for
training teachers to serve children with visual impairments. OSEP also
sponsors both traditional and innovative preservice and inservice
training grants to universities to improve the training of teachers who
work with these children. In addition, the AFB has issued a National
Agenda that delineates areas of concern and offers strategies for
change.

# References

Bowen, M.L., & Stearns, K.E. (1994). *Low-incidence special education
teacher preparation: A supply and capacity pilot study*. Normal, IL:
Illinois State University.

Center for Exceptional Children. Information on the National Plan for
Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision.
Available online at www.cec.sped.org/nptp.html.

Corn, A.L., Hatlen, P., Huebner, K.M., Ryan, F., & Siller, M.A. (1995).
*The national agenda for the education of children and youth with visual
impairments, including those with multiple disabilities.* New York, NY:
American Foundation for the Blind.

DuPass, M., & Fazzi, D.L. (1996). State qualifications for orientation
and mobility specialists working in the public school system: A national
survey*. RE: view, 28,* 136-144.

Head, D.N. (1989). The future of low incidence training program: A
national problem. *RE: view, 21,* 145-152.

Heumann, J.E. (1994). Improving outcomes and quality of life for
children, youth, and adults who are deaf-blind. *Deaf-Blind
Perspectives*, *2*, 1-3.

Hunter, D. (1994). Now is the time for action. *Deaf-Blind
Perspectives*, *2*, 10-11.

Mazzocco, V., Bina, M., Corn, A., Friedman, P., Graves, W., Herie, E.,
et al. (1992). Report of the professionalism work group. *Journal of
Visual Impairment & Blindness*, *86*, 346-348.

McLetchie, B.A.B. (1995). Personnel preparation, past, present, and
future perspectives. *Deaf-Blind Perspectives*, *3*, 15-18.

McLetchie, B.A., & MacFarland, S.C.Z. (1995). The need for qualified
teachers of students who are deaf-blind. *Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 89,* 244-248.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1997).
*Policy forum report: Training educators to work with students who are
blind or visually impaired.* Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (1997a).
*Personnel preparation programs in visual impairments/blindness.*
Reston, VA: Author.

National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (1997b).
*State requirements for licensure of special educators, certification
for related services, and reciprocity agreements.* Reston, VA: Author.

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NECTAS). (1998).
*NECTAS Notes, Issue 6*, 1-16.

Pierce, T.B., & Smith, D.B. (1994). Career choices of recent special
education graduates holding doctoral degrees. *Teacher Education and
Special Education, 17*, 129-136.

Silberman, R.K., Corn, A.L., & Sowell, V.M. (1996). Teacher educators
and the future of personnel preparation programs for serving students
with visual impairments. *Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness*,
*90*, 115-123.

Spooner, F., Spooner, M., Algozzine, B., & Jordan, L. (1998). Distance
education and special education: Promises, practices, and potential
pitfalls. *Teacher Education and Special Education,* *21*, 121-131.

Wiener, W.R., & Joffee, E. (1993) The O&M personnel shortage and
university training programs. *RE: view, 25,* 67-73.

Wiener, W.R., Fauver, R., & Schwartz, M. (1995). Survey of salaries of
professionals in the field of blindness. *RE: view, 26,* 149-157.

[^1]: This module reports on work conducted by Anna Lou Pickett,
    National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals, Center for Advanced
    Study in Education, City University of New York. This work is funded
    by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

[^2]: The following sections were adapted from McGregor, G., &
    Vogelsberg, R.T. (1998). *Inclusive schooling practices: A synthesis
    of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive
    schooling*. Supported by OSEP grant #H086V40007.

[^3]: Since States and Outlying Areas may update previously reported
    data as necessary, the data reported here may differ from those
    included in prior annual reports.

[^4]: Children 3 through 5 do not have a typical 5- or 6-hour school
    day, so percentages are based on the amount of time they receive
    services.

[^5]: The term "visual impairments" will be used throughout this module
    to describe students who are blind or deaf-blind, or who have low
    vision.

[^6]: Because rehabilitation teaching in visual impairments involves
    working with persons with adult-onset blindness, this specialty area
    is less relevant to students with visual impairments and is not
    treated in depth here.

[^7]: O&M specialists teach students independent travel skills,
    including the use of a long cane and residual vision, sensory
    skills, concept development, street crossings, route planning, and
    traveling by mass transportation.