Evaluation of the Integration of Severely Handicapped Students in Regular Education and Community Settings

Abstract

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P. L. 94–142) requires that all children have access to free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As this law is applied to severely handicapped (SH) students, the requirements of an appropriate education may compete with the requirements of education in the least restrictive environment. The question addressed by this report is whether integration of SH students into regular schools can constitute a “least restrictive setting” without seriously compromising the appropriateness of the education offered. This project provided an initial empirical basis for considering the impact of integration in terms of educational improvement of SH students and attitudes of nonhandicapped (NH) students toward the handicapped. In addition, the evaluation was designed to examine factors at various levels of the educational process which might facilitate integration. These factors included information from the state district, school, teacher, and individual student assessments. Subjects were 245 severely handicapped students from 14 school districts located in 9 states. All students were in integrated school or community settings in which nonhandicapped students were present between 3 and 16 hours per week. The criterion for degree of integration was the observed rate of interaction between SH and NH students in schools evaluated. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine which information best predicted the rate of interaction between SH and NH students. Subsequently, the rate of interaction between SH and NH students was used to predict the proportion of educational objectives met by SH students. Finally, NH students' attitudes toward the handicapped in schools which were not integrated were compared to NH students' attitudes in integrated schools. Results indicated that severely handicapped students had more social opportunities for interacting with other students in integrated settings in comparison to these same students' opportunities when in segregated settings. NH students responded to more social bids from SH students in comparison to responses by other SH students. The best predictors of social behavior of SH students was the interactive behavior of other students. The rate of social interaction with nonhandicapped students accounted for a statistically significant (p < .025) proportion of objectives met on SH students' Individualized Educational Plans (IEP) when those SH students' functional abilities were statistically controlled as a covariate. NH students in integrated schools had more positive attitudes toward handicapped students in comparison to NH students from nonintegrated schools which were comparable in size, resources and SES. However, when attitudes measured at the beginning of the year were controlled statistically, it was found that NH students in integrated schools had less positive attitudes at the end of the year if SH students interacted more with other SH students when they were in integrated settin...

Advancing Human Assessment: A Synthesis Over Seven Decades

“…In addition, the organization's most prominent evaluator, Samuel Ball, departed to take an academic appointment in his native Australia. The work that remained investigated the effects of instructional software like the IBM Writing to Read program (Murphy and Appel 1984), educational television (Murphy 1988), alternative higher education programs (Centra and Barrows 1982), professional training (Campbell et al 1982), and the educational integration of students with severe disabilities (Brinker and Thorpe 1984). Whereas funding for evaluation was in decline, support for policy analysis grew.…”

A Synthesis of "Best Practice" Guidelines for Early Childhood Services

“…Integrated services are described throughout the literature as &dquo;best practice&dquo; based on social-ethical, legal-legislative, and psychological-educational arguments (e.g., Bricker, 1978;CEC 1979;Fox et al, 1986;Guralnick, 1976Guralnick, , 1981TASH, 1979;Wilcox & Bellamy, 1982). Research studies over the past 10 years have demonstrated the educational and social benefits of integration for both preschool and school-age students with severe handicaps (e.g., Beckman & Kohl, 1987;Brinker & Thorpe, 1984;Fink, 1979;Guralnick, 1981;Jenkins, Speltz & Odom, 1985;Strain, Hoyson, & Jamieson, 1985). However, integrated services are not standard practice (Rostetter, Kowalski & Hunter, 1984), primarily because of funding patterns that have discouraged the development of integrated early childhood services (Gentry & Olson, 1985).…”

Factors Associated with the Integrated Educational Placement of Students with Severe Disabilities

“…Teacher characteristics also are associated with educational placement. In particular, studies suggest that years of teaching experience, participation in in-service training on integration (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984, and teacher advocacy for integration (Filler et al, 1986;Hamre-Nietupski et aI., 1988) are related to the delivery of educational services in integrated environments.…”