Teacher Tolerance Ratings on Problem Behaviors.

A modified 36-item version of the Disturbing Behavior Checklist was used to examine the dimension of frequency in teachers' judgments about willingness to tolerate inappropriate behaviors in regular classrooms. Two samples of clinical teachers were asked to respond to the scale developed to explore this dimension: teachers in regular classes judging for themselves and special education teachers predicting how the generality of regular teachers might respond. The two groups differed on only 4 of the 36 behaviors. Three additional questions about tolerance of the addition of seriously emotionally disturbed children to mainstream classes were posed and no significant differences between groups were found. It was concluded that teacher opinions on these questions are worthy of respect and that the dimension of frequency of behavioral disorders should be examined in subse quent research. Growing concern about the appropriateness of a separate education for mildly handi capped youths has induced the Assistant Secretary of Education (Will, 1986) and some professionals in fields related to education (e.g., Gartner, 1986; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Wang & Reynolds, 1986; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1986) to advocate for a restructured unitary general education system for the education of all disabled and nondisabled students. This call for radical reformation initially aimed at mildly handicapped learning disabled children, generally referred to as the regular education initiative (REI), now threatens the existence of a continuum of placement options for seriously emotionally disturbed students (SED). Advocates of the REI contend that mildly handicapped students including those labeled seriously emotionally disturbed will receive a more appropriate educational expe rience in restructured regular classroom settings (Wang & Walberg, 1988). Restructuring regular classrooms at a minimum will entail inservice training and provision of additional resources to regular education teachers (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988). The inclusion of seriously emotionally disturbed children will require changes other than just academic techniques. We chose to focus on questions about the frequency of kinds of behaviors teachers would be willing to tolerate in their classes if, as a result of REI, behaviorally disordered/emotionally disturbed children are added to them. It appears to us that what began as a concern about the education of learning disabled children has become inclusive of emotionally disturbed children by a combination of overgeneralized thinking and the promotion of the now widely used term behaviorally disordered in lieu of the federally supported one of seriously emotionally disturbed. As a result, it appears to us that research on teacher tolerance, manageability of students, educational needs, and so forth should focus upon objective statements of behaviors and frequency measures over time rather than on labels such as behaviorally disordered, seriously emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, educable mentally retarded, and so forth. Such specificity might improve the chances of determining the necessary support required by REI. The literature supporting the REI does not i nclude specification of additional resources or "data reflecting attitudes of regular classroom teachers toward proposed changes in the structure of general and special education" (Kauffman et al., 1988, p. 9). Nor does the literature specify what degree(s) of problem(s), their nature(s), or how many of such children each regular teacher should be allocated in each class they teach. There is evidence from the research of Zigmond, Levin, and Laurie (1985) that regular teachers may restrict their help to mainstreamed learning disabled students to a reduction in demands for 236 [Vol. 14 No. 4 236-249] August 1989 Behavioral Disorders This content downloaded from 207.46.13.156 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 06:08:40 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms performance. To this we would add that the literature does not show the frequency of behaviors deemed inappropriate which teachers will put up with in their classes. Much rhetoric voiced in opposition to dual educational systems implies that special education advocates do not have the best interests of children in mind. Special seems to have become a synonym for unequal in REI-related literature (Greer, 1988). Regardless of the questionable research base supporting the REI (for a critical review of this research base being cited by REI advocates, see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1988a, 1988b; Hallahan, Keller, McKin ney, Lloyd, & Bryan, 1988; Kauffman et al., 1988) and the lack of supporting evidence that special is unequal, REI proponents contend that, given extensive retraining, regular class room teachers will be more effective [than special educators].with disabled students (Biklen & Zollers, 1986; Kauffman et al., 1988). From their research and knowledge of the literature, Walker et al. (1988) assume as a given that teachers are capable of evaluating/rating the appropriate/inappropriate behav iors of children with whom they work. We believe this also should hold true for special educators' ability to judge the attitudes (specifically tolerance) of the regular teachers with whom they work. If true, there should be little or no significant difference between the expression of self-opinions by regular teachers and the perceptions of special education teachers (the majority being resource) about how average or typical regular educators would answer the same questions. Walker and Rankin (1983) found regular and special teachers' own opinions to be similar. Polling exceptionally capable/successful teachers might possibly reveal some differen ces between their opinions and those of the generality of teachers. A brief review of a current sample of literature indicates that "there exists... an instructional tolerance, a band of permissible error around teachers' perceptions of what they regard to be teachable" (Gerber, 1988, p. 311). There is evidence to suggest that regular classroom teachers may rate tolerance level by determining what is in the best interests of the nonhandicapped children in their respective classes (Gerber, Tan, Rothman, & Semmel, 1986). Regular teachers may not be as con cerned with thei r com petence to teach handicapped students as they are with the potential "behavioral contagion effect" of placing disruptive students in their classrooms (Safran & Safran, 1987). In addition, they may tolerate fewer maladaptive behaviors than special educators (Algozzine, 1980; Schloss, Miller, Sedlak, & White, 1983), and effective classroom teachers may actively resist placement of behaviorally disordered students (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988). Development of Scales for Research Walker and Rankin (1983) concluded from their reading of earlier literature that; The standards, expectations, and tolerance levels that teachers hold for chil dren's social behavior is ... a powerful setting variable and important deter minant of classroom ecology .... When a teacher's behavioral standards and expectations are ecologically incongruent with behavioral capabilities of indi vidual students, the possibility exists for adjustment problems and impaired schooling effectiveness in both behavioral and academic domains, (p. 274) In their study they proposed to develop and validate two instruments for use in conduct ing ecological assessments of potential mainstream settings. The SBS Inventory lists 51 items describing maladaptive, inappropriate child behaviors using a3-positionscale: unac ceptable, tolerated, acceptable. They also used the SBS Checklist which requires teachers to check each behavior (amount/degrees or frequency unspecified) which would cause them to resist the placement of a child with the conditions specified on the SBS Checklist. These lists were designed with the express purpose of identifying environmental expecta tions prior to actual integration. This type of scaling constrains teachers by not permitting an expression of the range of teacher tolerance. When they did a case by case analysis they found that teachers differed dramatically in their tolerance levels and expectations concerning child behaviors. The authors concluded overall that "the behavioral standards/expectations of teachers in their Behavioral Disorders August 1989 237 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.156 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 06:08:40 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms