ED 376 620

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 303 446

Thompson, Barbara; And OthersA Qualitative Research Approach for Investigating andEvaluating an Emergent Early Childhood InclusionModel for Children with Severe Disabilities in aMontessori Preschool.Kansas Univ., Lawrence. Kansas Early ChildhoodResearch Inst.Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,DC.

Nov 91H024U8000126p.; Based on a paper presented at the AnnualConvention of the Association for Persons with SevereDisabilities (Washington, DC, November 1991).Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Demonstration Programs; Ethnography; *Inclusive

Schools; Interaction; *Mainstreaming; Models;*Montessori Method; Outcomes of Education; PreschoolEducation; Program Evaluation; Qualitative Research;Research Methodology; *Severe Disabilities; *SocialIntegration

IDENTIFIERS Kansas (Lawrence)

ABCTR ACT

This paper reports on a qualitative ethnographicresearch study on the inclusion of children with severe disabilitiesinto a Montessori preschool program in Lawrence, Kansas. The programhas served 20 children with disabilities since its inception in 1986.The program's emergent model involves a split program (utilizing aspecial education classroom and the community preschool) with use ofintegration facilitators and cooperative efforts among earlychildhood special educators, mainstream Montessori early childhoodeducators, and families. The project is based on seven specifiedvalues such as the rejection that children with disabilities must be"fixed" before they can be fully included. The program has developedseveral products including video documentation of participants'attitudes and inclusive strategies, a training handbook, srecificchecklists, and an Individualized Education Program observationalmatrix. A variety of studies are looking at the program including tworecently completed studies on the communicative interactions ofpreschool children with severe disabilities in the two settings. Themodel is currently being replicated and validated in Kansas City,Kansas. Attached tables provide detailed data on children in theprogram, interviews conducted, varieties of project documentation,outcome markers identified in evaluation efforts, concerns andbenefits expressed by participants, and variables related to theMontessori approach. (Contains 24 references.) (DB)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document. *

***********************************************************************

0iVCO

CO

LU

A Qualitative Research Approach for Investigatingand Evaluating an Emergent Early Childhood

Inclusion Model for Children with Severe Disabilitiesin a Montessori Preichool

by

Barbara ThompsonDonna Wickham

Jane Wegner

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person Or organizationoriginating it

O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of new o' OPinlOns Slated m this dMu"menl do not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or poky

Kansas Early Childhood 12C8earch Instituteof the University of Kansas

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Kansas Early Childhood Research InstituteThe University of Kansas

4132 Haworth HallLawrence, KS 66045-2930

tel. (913) 864-4801

Mabel L. RiceInstitute Co-Directors

Marion O'Brien

Judith ThieleCarolyn RoyAlice MinerJanice ChazdonPatsy Woods

Longitudinal Study CoordinatorDissemination CoordinatorInfant Research CoordinatorProgram AssistantAdministrative Assistant

3

E C R

A Qualitative Research Approach for investigatingand Evaluating an Emergent Early Childhood

Inclusion Model for Children with Severe Dis'abilitiesin a Moniessori Preichool

by

Barbara ThompsonDonna Wickham

Jane Wegner

Based on a paper presented at the Annual Conference ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities (TASH)

Washington, DCNovember 1991

4

Preparation of this docuMent was supported in part by theU.S. Department of Education, Office of Special EducationPrograms, under award number H024U80001 to theKansas Early Childhood Research Institute on Transitions.

A Qualitative Research Approach for Investigating and Evaluatingan Emergent Early Childhood Inclusion Model for Children

with Severe Disabilities in a Montessori Preschool

by

Barbara Thompson, Donna WickhamDept. of Special Education, University of Kansas

Jane WegnerDept. of Speech-Language-Hearing, University of Kansas

A Brief Look Inside: Introductory Anecdotes

Event: Production phase for videotapes about a program of integration for young childrenwith severe disabilities into a community Montessori preschool.

Sophie is a charming, 4-year-old, typicallydeveloping child with blue eyes. ,

Shannon is Sophie's classmate. She is a 5-year -old girl, also a charmer, with brown eyesand a ready smile. Shannon experiences mul-tiple disabilities including microcephaly andcerebral palsy, predominantly on her left side.She is ambulatory but cannot talk.

Interviewer: Well, Sophie, do you think Shannonshould be at Raintree or do you think maybe sheshould go to a preschool for other children just like her?

Sophie (after a short and apparently reflectivepause): No, she should go to Raintree, because howwould all the children know who the teacher wastalking to . . with everybody named Shannon inthat school?

EKent: An early morning fender-bender in the icy parking lot of Raintree Montessori Schoolat the arrival time for the morning preschool session, and the resulting conversationbetween Scott's and Mohammed's mothers.

Mohammed is a 4-year-old boy who is certi-fied as having deaf/blindness. He is also non-verbal and nonambulatorv.Scott is also 4 years old and can be character-ized as a very verbal and active young boywith typical dewlopment.Mohammed's Mom: Hi, I'm Mohammed'smother.

Scott's Morn: Oh, I've been meaning to call you.Scott talks about Mohammed all the time. Theboys seem to have become the best of friends.

Mohammed's Mom: Well, of course I've metScott when I pick lvlohammed up. I'd reallyappreciate it if you would you carry Mohammedinto school while I deal with my car?

3

Scott's Mom: Oh, I don't think it is so icy that theboys can't walk in on their own.

Mohammed's Mom (after a slightly stunnedpause, and as she lifts Mohammed out of thecar seat): Um, well, Mohammed is handicappedand he can't walk by himself.

Scott's Mom (a somewhat embarrassed andquick response): Well, certainly I will be happy tocarry him in. Hi, Mohammed, it's nice to meet you.

Scott's Mom (later when she picks up Scott; toPam, the boys' teacher): I have heard aboutMohammed for several months and I had no idea hewas handicappedand he is in fact very handi-capped! I'm absolutely stunned by the fact thatScott never mentioned it to me.

6

There are many such anecdotes related byparticipants in our program, which involvesthe inclusion of preschool- and kindergarten-age children with severe disabilities in aprivate community Montessori early child-hood preschool and child care program. Theanecdotes offer evidence of something theparticipating adults have consistently beenreminded of: young children do not view orrespond to the presence of a person with adisability the same way as adults do. And,more importantly, the children's responses totheir peers who experience very severe dis-abilities strongly support the belief that theearly childhood period is the most opportunetime to begin breaking dov n the societalbarriers and discrimination that confrontpersons with disabilities and their families.

Our observations do not suggest that thetypically developing children are unaware ofthe differences presented by their friends whoexperience severe disabilities. Their countlessquestions related to the disabling conditionsof their classmates give testimony to the factthat they do. Questions such as, "I neverknew a 5-year-old who wore diapers before,"and, "I never knew a 5-year-old who couldn'twalk on the bottom of the pool before," "Whycan't he say it with his mouth ?' (i.e., talk) or,"Why does he spit all the time?" (i.e., drool)offer evidence of their interest and need tounderstand the differences they recognize intheir peers.

Their questions do not, however, reflectvalue judgments about individual worth,signal rejection, or suggest a questioning of achild's right to be part of the same setting. Infact, it is not unusual to hear the child whooriginally asked the question telling anotherpeer the information contained in the adult'sresponse. It is also not unusual to hearsimilar information offered by a differentchild who overheard when the question wasfirst posed and answered. The role of infor-mant, interpreter and facilitator for a childwith a disability is often naturally assumedby typically developing peers of 3, 4 and 5years of age. For example, you might over-hear something like this:

Jacob can't talk because his muscles don't workvery well, but he knows all about the soundcylinders. He can't shake thembut he nods hishead if they sound the same. He knows all aboutthem.

Our favorite story illustrating this experi-ence concerns Shawn and Cedric. Shawn wasalways quick to spot a new person in the set-ting and to introduce Cedric.

This is my good friend Cedric [he would alwaysbegin]. Cedric can't talk or walk because hismuscles don't work as well as mine, but he islearning. Cedric likes to swing and do waterworks. Cedric has two brothers, and Cedric wearsdiapers.

Not having to wearing diapers is, ofcourse, a significant rite of passage for youngchildren and symbolizes a change of statusfrom being considered a baby to becoming achild. It is therefore a topic frequently raisedby typically developing preschoolers whenthey first meet a classmate with severe dis-abilities. After several repetitions of thisintroduction, Kim (Cedric's IntegrationFacilitator) had a discussion with Shawn inwhich she emphasized what a good friend hewas being to Cedric by helping him meet newpeople. Kim then broached the subject ofdiapers and explained how it is difficult forCedric to let people know that he has to go tothe bathroom or to get to a bathroom on hisown. She proceeded to elaborate on the issueof privacy from what she hoped was the per-spective of a 4-year-old. She pointed out toShawn that the reason Cedric wears diapers isof interest to those of us who know Cedric,but this is private information that isn'tappropriate to announce to every strangerwho visits the program.

Several days after this conversation, avisitor came to the classroom and was quicklyapproached by Shawn as soon as he noticedthat the visitor was observing Cedric. Onceagain Shawn offered his introduction:

This is my good friend Cedric. He can't walk ortalk Ina he likes a lot of things. We like to eat snacktogether. He has two brothers, but there is onething I won't be telling you about Cedric!

4 7

Research Focus and Program Summary

A program of inclusion for young childrenwith severe disabilities is the focus of thequalitative investigation discussed in thispaper. The program has been under develop-ment since 1986 when Dana, a charming 3-year -old with profound multiple disabilities,left a state institution for persons with devel-opmental disabilities and joined a fosterfamily in Lawrence, Kansas. The purpose ofthe inquiry was to delineate the issues andeffective strategies to be considered whenrecommending a best-practice approach forsimilar integration efforts in other settings.Relative to that overall focus, the researchproject's aims can be characterized as:

to portray the events, issues and meaningof the child's transition to a program ofinclusion from the viewpoints of thoseinvolved, so that strategies and informa-tion may be made available to supportindividuals from other programs as theylaunch into this process;to document the nature of children's inter-actions in the settings and the nature oftheir participation, and to evaluate thepersonal and environmental accommoda-tions required of participants, so that thesalient strategies that enhance meaningfulinstructional and social inclusion may beidentified and recommended;to facilitate the development of what hascome to be called an emergent model ofinclusion that has functional and acces-sible features for other programs, so that(parts of) this approach may be used byindividuals from other programs as theymove forward in the process of develop-ing inclusive early childhood and childcare programs; andto delineate variables that could serve asthe basis for quantitative investigationsthat may further enhance our understanding of the process and the model.

Dana began attending Raintree Montes-sori School, a private community child careand preschool program that serves typically

K ECR

developing children, shortly after her arrivalin Lawrence. She was the first of 20 childrento participate in the project for the inclusionof young children with severe disabilities inmainstream early childhood and child careprograms. Table 1 provides descriptiveinformation about the children who haveparticipated in the mainstream program.(Tables are located at the end of this docu-ment.) Table 1 displays the children'sdiagnosed disabilities and assessed develop-ment at the point of entry into the program:the majority of the children experience severeto profound multiple disabilities, while fourof the 20 children have Down Syndrome.

Raintree Montessori school was selectedbecause it enjoys an excellent reputation inthe community. It soon became apparent,moreover, that the Montessori method ofearly childhood education has particularviability as part of a model for integratingpreschoolers with severe and profound mul-tiple disabilities into mainstream programs.A very practical consideration is the relativeuniformity and availability of Montessori pro-grams, which serves to increase the likelihoodthat procedures developed in one setting canhe replicated across others. Additionally,several important features of the Montessoriapproach can be directly related to currentbest practice in special education as wsll as tofactors that contribute to successful integra-tion. Certified Montessori teachers must meetrigorous standards for training and perfor-mance and are well qualified early childhoodeducators who hold very child-focused beliefsand have well-refined observational skills.Specific features of the Montessori approachcan be individually linked to either the teach-er preparation or the prepared environment.Discussions of these features often mentionthe inclusion of mixed age groups in a singleclassroom, the child-oriented design of thesetting, the focus on choice and child auton-omy, and the inherently interesting and func-tional materials available (Krogh, 1982; Safford,1989; Thompson et al., 1991; Wegner, 1989).

8

InrETICTIlr

Participants in this ethnographic investi-gation include the families both of childrenwith disabilities and of children typical intheir development, the staff from both thespecial education and the communityMontessori preschool programs, theIntegration Facilitators who accompany thechild with a disability to the mainstreamclassroom and, of course, the children withsevere disabilities and their typicallydeveloping peers. Table 2 summarizes theroles of the adult participants and providesinformation about the number of interviewstaped and transcribed. Table 3 identifies thetypes of referential and other forms of dataalso collected in this investigation.

As noted, 20 children have participated inthis project: four in a Kansas City replicationprogram begun in spring 1991, and 15 fromthe original program in Lawrence. Initially,the children attended the Montessori programfor two half-days per week while also

attending the Special Education programfrom Monday through Thursday for half-days. Subsequently, the program has begunto meet some of the child care needs of theparticipating families. From September1990, the children increased their attendancein the community preschool from two to fivesessions per week. Many of the children eatlunch in the mainstream program, and somehave participated in child care before and/orafter school.

The model can be characterized as a splitprogram (although one child attends the main-stream program exclusively, and during thesummer all the children attend only themainstream summer program). The modelalso invo!ves the use of IntegrationFacilitators who are trained to support thefull inclusion of the children within the main-stream program. The project is the result of acooperative effort among early childhoodspecial educators, mainstream Montessori

Figure 1. Circle of Inclusion Project Values

1. We reject the notion that children with disabilities mustfirst be "fixed" (often couched in terms of their meetingcertain criteria before they are ready to take their place infamilies, neighborhood and community environmentsand to experience the normal flow of everyday life andfriendships available to those of us who have not had tomeet the challenges of having a disability). Specifically,we are concerned that preschool children with severeand profound disabilities and their families have theright to high-quality child care and preschool serviceswithin the mainstream of community programs avail-able to typically developing children and their families.

2. We recognize that typically developing preschoolersmust have an opportunity to have contact with and de-velop relationships with children who experience the fullrange of disabilities, including children with the mostsevere and profound disabilities. We acknowledge theimportance of children learning to live in a pluralisticsociety and to accept differences at an early age. Webelieve that typically developing preschool children areat a critical readiness period for the experience of know-ing a child with a very severe disability and that theirlives will be enriched by reaching out to friends whoexperience disabilities.

3. We believe that a viable program needs to reflectinvolvement, input and ongoing collaborative effortsfrom the key stake-holders, including the familiesreceiving services, and the special education and main-stream community early childhood program personnel

4. We hold deep respect for the uniqueness and dignity ofeach child as an individual human being who merits ourcareful observation and response to his or her needs. Wereject the application of any aversive procedures andbelieve that the acknowledgment of child preference, thedevelopment of choice-making skills, a sense of self, andthe development of personal autonomy are critical.

5. We believe that mainstream programming efforts mustincorporate best practice approaches that not onlyinclude ongoing social interactions with typicallydeveloping age peers, but also incorporate functionalobjectives taught and practiced through age-appropriateand functional activities and materials involving theapplication of activity-based programming and otherprocedures to promote generalization. Additionally,objectives and activities must be based on family involve-ment and family priorities as well as integrated teaminput. Finally, the principle of partial participationshould be used systematically to maximize involvement.

6. We accept the concept of natural proportions and believethat it is best to place young children with severe disabili-ties in mainstream programs in accordance with realisticpopulation distributions.

7. Our t:me and energy should be vested in investigatingthe variables that make mainstreaming endeavors workin the best possible way, rather than focusing on whetheror not they work.

early childhood educators, and families whoshare the same values about the life experi-ences that should be available to children.More specifically, seven values guided themodel's development and also serve to focusthe research efforts (see Figure 1).

Summary of Research ProceduresAt this time the investigators have had sus-tained involvement with the qualitativeresearch procedures for approximately fiveyears in the process of implementing andinvestigating the inclusive early childhoodprogram. The substantial time span of thisproject has allowed prolonged contact withparticipants, as well as the collection of dataon both the short- and long-term issues andpractices surrounding the inclusion of thischallenging group of youngsters in a main-stream setting. Issues of reliability andvalidity for ethnographic studies are bestsatisfied through persistent and prolongedengagement with the participants and thesettings one is seeking to understand anddescribe. Additionally, multiple sources ofdata can be more systematically and exten-sively collected and the "triangulation" orcross-validation of data sources morethoroughly and rigorously pursued overextended periods of time.

The investigation has followed recom-mended procedures for conducting qualita-tive research, as described by Lin,:oln andGuba (1985) in their discussion of naturalisticinquiry methods. The methodology followsthat offered by Glaser and Strauss (1967) intheir discussion of strategies and discovery ofgrounded theory. Tables depicting thesources of data and research procedures areas follows: Table 4 summarizes the qualita-tive methodology employed in the investiga-tion, and Table 5 displays the categorical andsubcategorical units resulting from the dataanalysis.

Data are entered into a Hyper Care' database developed specifically to store and sortthe narrative data units collected in this inves-tigation. Over a Olousand (1,338) individualunits of data from interviews and field notes

were entered into the data base for analysisusing the constant comparison method(Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Summary of Participant Issues and Datafor Emergent ThemesIn order to conduct model development andevaluation, procedures and events that areperceived as positive indicators of programgrowth must be documented. These can serveas a means of gauging the program's successand sustainability over time. Table 6 lists themarkers identified by participants as indica-tors of program success and growth.

Table 7 displays the concerns of the par-ticipants before the project began. Issues ofconcern must be anticipated and addressedimmediately as inclusive programs are plan-ned and implemented.

Besides concerns, all the participants haveidentified numerous benefits of this program.These benefits are important both as part ofthe rationale for the model and for initiatingsimilar efforts in other sites; they areidentified in Table 8.

A number of issues have arisen from thesplit program arrangements between a specialeducation early intervention program and amainstream preschool and child care pro-gram, as the children spend half-days in eachsetting. Table 9 identifies the considerableimpact of a split program on all participants.In such a split program model, children are indaily transition from one program to another,and effective transition strategies must beimplemented on an ongoing basis.

Table 10 shows that a common concern isthe adjustment to the mainstream programthat is required of parents who are used todealing with special education programsalthough this is not an insurmountable prob-lem. Essentially, parents want to be like allthe other parents. Yet the parents of thechildren with special needs often expressed adesire to be given more attention and infor-mation than the parents of the typicallydeveloping children. Given the staff situa-tions in most mainstream programs, this is a

107

challenging issue that needs to be addressedby models involving integrated preschool andchild care services for children with severedisabilities. Additionally, parents often needencouragement to participate in the ongoingprogram functions for all families.

Table 11 lists the characteristics of the par-ticipating preschoolers with severe to pro-found multiple disabilities. Integration ofthese children requires careful planning andconsideration of their needs for accommoda-tion in mainstream settings in as unintrusivea manner as possible. These needs also haveclear implications for planning training con-tent for staff and for the design of effectivemodels. Additionally, how typically develop-ing children view, learn about and interactwith their peers who experience disabilitieshas emerged as a fascinating component ofthe investigation.

Many people have preconceptions of whata Montessori program is like. It was interest-ing to find that while some of these notionswere negative, the Raintree preschool wasconsistently viewed as a superior program.And, while many Montessori attributes werefeatures of Raintree that were cited as helpful,these features were not perceived as associ-ated with the Montessori approach! Clearly,attitudes about the Montessori approach mustbe considered in developing a mainstreammodel involving such a program. Table 12lists the issues that arose surrounding theMontessori, method.

One of the most critical of the emergentcomponents of this model is the role of theIntegration Facilitator. This role has consis-tently taken on increasing significance bothfor design of the specific model and from thepoint of view of personnel training and certi-fication. As the role develops and is definedin educational programs, the potential fornegative secondary effects must be consid-ered and addressed. In general, the Facilita-tor is viewed in an extremely positive mannerand seems to offer a :hild the best of bothworlds of educationthe sensitivity of one-to-one instruction, which allows for finite andprecise adjustment to accommodate learning/

performance needs, and support for member-ship in a group that has much to offer ifaccess can be gained. The danger lies, ofcourse, in setting the child apart and fosteringdependence rather than independence.

In integrative educational programs, par-ticipant:, may have differing philosophies andvalues. If those differences are not clarifiedand addressed, problems emerge that are keyconcerns in inclusive programs. Addition-ally, the issues of re-entrenchment of specialeducators and related service personnel havealso emerged as factors that were not initiallyapparent.

Finally, it is important to note that bothindividual persistence and a personal sense ofmission have a great capacity to shape pro-gram outcomes. This has been observed anddocumented repeatedly in our research. Thepower of an overtly stated value base to guidepractice has also emerged as significant. Alist of the program values can be found inFigure 1.

8

Development of Products or ToolsBased on the Qualitative InvestigationA qualitative investigation offers a particu-larly rich research and production environ-ment within the context of model develop-ment. Following is a brief description ofsome of the key products and tools underdevelopment that may provide some insightinto the variables and issues that haveemerged as critical.

Written documentation of the attitudes,concerns and perceptions of participants

Working papers and manuscripts are in pro-gress. These report the experiences and per-ceptions of each participant group (families,special educators, early educators and childcare staff, and children) concerning the tran-sition into integrated child care and preschoolservices. Following the ethnographic style ofrich and thick description that is viewed ascritical to issues of validity, these manuscriptsare being written to convey the sense of adirect report from participants. Specifically,

the manuscripts are under development aschapters so that they can be integrated into abook reflecting this transition within thecontext of the ecocultural niche model asinitially articulated by Gallimore, Weisner,Kaufman, and Bernheimer (1989) and con-sidered within the context of transitions byRice and O'Brien (1990). There is evidence ofa paradigm shift in the philosophical andtheoretical bases guiding special educationservices for families and young children whoexperience severe disabilities, in the discus-sion of the impact of the transition on theprofessional collaboration that evolvedamong participants.

Video documentation of the attitudes.concerns, and perceptions of participantsand of what strategies should do to supportthe inclusion of the childrenThree videotapes are currently in the finalstages of post-production editing. They weredeveloped as part of an adjunct endeavorfunded by a 1990 Innovative Project awardfrom the U.S. Department of Education,National Institute for Disability Research.The overall purpose of this project was toprovide video media for professionals andfamilies who might consider developing theservice options of integrated preschool andchild care programs for young children withsevere disabilities.

The first videotape, A Circle of Inclusion(27 minutes), is an introductory video depict-ing the issues that arose during the transitionof the children into the community preschooland child care program. It provides the per-spectives of the participants, including specialeducators, mainstream program staff (bo.11administrator and teacher points of view),parents of children with disabilities who werein the program, representative parents oftypically developing children in the programand, of course, participating children them-selves.

Specifically, the content of this videotapereflects participants' perceptions as documen-ted during the qualitative investigation. Thescript was developed using a membership

check process, advocated by Cuba andLincoln (1989) as a procedure for ensuringvalidity of an ethnographic research effort.This method brings together those individ-uals whose programs, perceptions and experi-ences were investigated using participatoryobservation and interview procedures. Par-ticipants are asked to review and respond tothe documentation, case studies and reportsof the investigation. The content of the scriptwas developed from the interview transcriptsand field notes, and participants repeatedlyreviewed drafts of the script. Special educa-tion staff, mainstream early educators, andrepresentative parents all took part exten-sively in this process.

Two other videotapes were developed,The Process of Instruction (11 minutes) andThe Process of Communication (8 minutes),which depict key facilitation strategies forsupporting the successful inclusion of thechildren with disabilities. The selected strate-gies were those that had emerged as the mostcritical from the perspectives of the teachersand Integration Facilitators directly involvedin the inclusive programming.

A training handbook

Circles of Inclusion: A Handbook for Plan-ning and Implementing the Integration ofYoung Children with Severe Disabilities intoMainstream Montessori Preschool and ChildCare Programs is under development to assistothers in replicating integrated preschool andchild care programs in Montessori preschools.The handbook is a comprehensive documentbased on the qualitative and observationalinvestigations ongoing for the past two -and-one -half years. It includes specific trainingcontent and materials needed for staff train-ing activities or self study.

Checklists and planning tools

The selection of content and subsequentdevelopment of checklists and planning toolswere also guided by the qualitative andobservational investigations. Draft versionsof the following instruments have beendeveloped:

199

frITETTITI

Initiating Early Childhood Mainstream Pro-gramming for Young Children with SevereDisabilities: A Checklist for Considering andPlanning Start Lip Activities was developedto guide a program interested in pursuingintegration to attend to the 10 componentsidentified as critical to successful transition:

1. Enlist support and collaborative planning.2. Identify and secure funding sources.3. Select a program model.4. Select an appropriate mainstream

program.5. Identify and plan how children's place-

ments are to be supported in the main-stream setting.

6. Match funds to program expenses.7. Determine program logistics and make

necessary arrangements.8. Orient families of children with disabili-

ties to program.9. Plan ongoing program coordination strat-

egies.10. Assess and plan child accommodation

needs.

Facilitating the Integration of Young Chil-dren with Severe Disabilities in MainstreamEarly Childhood Programs: A Checklist forConsidering and Planning Content andActivities for Training Personnel was devel-oped to provide guidelines for planning thetraining of personnel who will be involved infacilitating the integration of a child withsevere disabilities in a mainstream earlychildhood program. Identified key areas oftraining include:

initial activitiescharacteristics of children with severe andmultiple disabilitiesfirst aid and infection controlpositioning and handlingintegration rationale and philosophyIndividual Education Programs (IEPs)basic instructional proceduresMontessori method and its application tospecial educationmainstream site classroom procedures

techniques to use with the child who has adisability in order to facilitate the child'sfull inclusion and interactions withtypically developing peerstechniques to use with the typically devel-oping children to facilitate acceptance,understanding and inclusion of childrenwith disabilitiesstrategies for practicing and monitoringIEP objectivesskills to enhance a Facilitator's role in amainstream classroomthe facilitation role outside the classroom.

The Circles of Inclusion Project: IEPObservational Matrix was developed to planfor and measure implementation of Individ-ual Education Program objectives in an inte-grated setting where more traditional datacollection measures may be too obtrusive.The matrix allows an observer to record:

the positioning or se,:ting of the child toparticipate in the activitywho initiated the activitythe skills as identified o,1 the IEPthe activities that occur in a Montessoriprogram.

Initial" Probe Teacher Satisfaction Checklistwas developed to solicit feedback on the per-formance of the Integration Facilitator andsuccess of the child's integration into themainstream classroom. This checklist shouldbe administered when the child first entersthe mainstream program and then periodi-cally throughout the school year as agreedupon by the special education teacher and themainstream teacher. A major impetus for thischecklist was documentation of problems thatcould have been addressed more quickly andeffectively if such a system had been in place.

The Integration Observation Evaluationform was developed to give meaningful andcomplete feedback to a trainee for the role ofIntegration Facilitator in this project model, orto a student learning integration facilitationstrategies in a practicum situation. The formwas designed jointly by the research projectstaff and by practicum supervision staff in the

13

area of Severe Multiple Disabilities and EarlyChildhood Special Education in the Depart-ment of Special Education at the University ofKansas.

Research Tools and Investigations Guidedby the Oualitative InvestigationCurrently, 11 studies have emerged or re-ceived impetus and direction as a result of thequalitative research conducted in this project.The studies are in various phases of progress.Two were recently completed on the commu-nicative interactions of preschool childrenwith severe disabilities in the two settings(the special education classroom and the com-munity Montessori preschool). The variablesof concern in those two studies were:

Child Profile:number of initiationscommunicative modes usednumber of participatory turnsaverage number of participatory turnsper interaction

Partner Profile:number of initiationscommunicative modes usednumber of participatory turnsaverage number of participatory turnsper interaction

Interactions:number of different partnersnumber of interactionsnumber of adult versus child partnerspurpose of interaction

What prompted these two studies was anissue that consistently emerged in the ethno-

E C

graphic study: the adaptations that need tobe made in mainstream environments foryoungsters with severe disabilities. issuespertaining to the degree of intrusiveness ofthe adaptations were of particular concern toa number of participants. Specifically, onestudy focused on the effect of an augmenta-tive communication system on child interac-tions in a mainstream setting, while the otherstudy focused on the effect of adapted posi-tioning equipment on interactions.

In these studies, the instrument CEVIT:Coding Environmental Variables andInteractions on Tape, (Thompson, Wegner,Wickham, Dillon, Kimura Sr Ault, 1991) wasemployed as a data collection tool. TheCEVIT is an observational coding systemdesigned as a research instrument for thisproject. It was developed specifically foranalyzing videotaped segments of targetedchildren's interactions during preschoolclassroom activities. As with the productsdescribed earlier, the coded variables werebased on factors that emerged as important inthe qualitative investigation.

Another component of the ongoingresearch is the verbatim transcription of theaudio content of the videotapes. The topicalcontent of the interactions is being docu-mented and analyzed, and enhances the inter-pretation of the results of the coded data.

A study is also under development toassess the effect of training strategies andmaterials on the performance of the Integra-tion Facilitators.

Finally, the entire model is being repli-cated and validated in a special educationpreschool and a Montessori preschool andchild care program in Kansas City, Kansas.

141 1

EC

Conclusion

The qualitative approach has made possible aholistic view of a complex system and offers ameans of addressing multiple components ofthe model and its impact. Issues concerningthe sustainability of the model have certainlyemerged as critical and related to anextremely complex set of factors.

Inherent in the qualitative approach is themeans to flexibly adjust Perspectives andunits of analysis. Hence. one can observe andconsider the nature of child interactions aswell as the dynamics of personnel rolechanges, features of the model that emerge assalient, and the process of system change.

The richness of an ethnographic researchenvironment for considering critical questionsfrom a grounded perspective has emerged asone of the most essential characteristics of thisapproach. Additional aspects of this experi-ence are its immense capacity to affect per-sonal and professional introspection, and itspotential for serving as the impetus for funda-mental changes in perspective. Above all, theexperience of participating in the develop-ment and qualitative investigation of a modelof full inclusion for preschoolers with severe

disabilities has been one of joy, meaning andmission. The intense quality of interactionswith colleagues also involved in this investi-gation, the ongoing reflection, the process ofanalysis, and the need for introspection andself-questioning that are part of the process ofparticipant observation within an ethno-graphic model have caused us to question ourassumptions and beliefs about how childrenare to be educated, our understanding of howthey learn, our approach to personnel prepa-ration, and our roles as researchers and edu-cators. For example, participation directlyinfluenced the first author to shift from arather "behavioral" and "teacher-directed"perspective to a much more developmentaland child-focused perspectiveone thatplaces much more emphasis on the autonomyand independent nature of the learner.

Ultimately, participation in this projecthas intensified the investigators' awareness ofthe need for a fundamental change in thenature of program services available to youngchildren, and the critical need for policyreform in educational, health and humanservice systems.

Partial Reference List

Berk, H. J., & Berk, M. L. (1982). A survey of daycare centers and their services for handi-capped children. Child Care Quarterly, 11(3),

211-214.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L.,

VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F.,Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). Thehome school: Why students with severeintellectual disabilities must attend the schoolsof their brothers, sisters, friends, and neigh-bors. journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 14(1), 1-8.

Certo, N., Haring, N., & York, It (Eds.). (1984).Public school integration of severely handi-capped students: Rational issues and pro-gressive alternatives. Baltimore, MD: PaulBrookes Publishing Co.

Foltz, J. (1990). Service assessment of specialeducation and Head Start centers for chil-dren with special needs: A descriptiveanalysis of a Kansas statewide survey.Unpublished Master's thesis, University ofKansas, Lawrence, KS.

Gaylord-Ross, R., & Peck, C. A. (1984). Integra-tion efforts for students with severe mentalretardation. In D. Bricker & J. Filler (Eds.),Serving the severely retarded: From researchto practice. Reston, VA: Council for Excep-

tional Children.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discov-

ery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Guralnick, M. (1990). Major accomplishments andfuture directions in early childhood main-streaming. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 10(2), 1-17.

Hadley, P. (1989). Social-conversational patternsof speech and language delayed children inan integrated classroom setting. Unpub-lished Master's thesis, University of Kansas,Lawrence, KS.

Klein, N., & Sheehan, R. (1987). Staff develop-ment: A key issue in meeting the needs ofyoung handicapped children in day caresettings. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 7(1), 13-27.

E C Q

Krogh, S. L. (1982). Affective and social develop-ment: Some ideas from Montessori's preparedenvironment. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 2(1), 55-62.

Lillard, P. P. (1973). Montessori: A modernapproach. New York: Schocken Books.

Mense, J. (1990). Service assessment of child careand preschool program availability forchildren with special needs: A descriptiveanalysis of a Kansas statewide survey.Unpublished Master's thesis, University ofKansas, Lawrence, KS.

Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1985). SystematicAnalysis of Language Transcripts (SALT).Madison, WI: Language Analysis Laboratory,Waisman Center on Mental Retardation andHuman Development, University of Wiscon-sin.

Odom S., & McEvoy, M. (1988). Integration ofyoung children with handicaps and normallydeveloping children. In S. Odom, & 1.4.Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infantsand children with handicaps. Baltimore, MD:

Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Odom S., & McEvoy, M. (1990). Mainstreaming atthe preschool level: Potential barriers andtasks for the field. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 10(2), 48-62.

Peck C., Richarz, S., Peterson, K., Hayden, L.,Mineur, L., & Wandschneider, M. (1989). Anecological process model for implementing theleast restrictive environment mandate in earlychildhood programs. In R. Gaylord-Ross (Ed.),Integration strategies for students withhandicaps (pp. 281-298). Baltimore, MD: PaulBrookes Publishing Co.

Rice, M., Sell, M., & Hadley, P. (1990). The SocialInteraction Coding System (SICS): An on-line,clinically relevant descriptive tool. Language,Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21,2-14.

Safford, P. L. (1989). Integrated teaching in earlychildhood: Starting in the mainstream.White Plains, NY: Longman.

continued overleaf

1, 6

13

C R

References, continued

Sailor, W., Halvorsen, A., Anderson, J., Goetz, L.,Gee, K., Doering, K., & Hunt, P. (1986).Community intensive instruction. In R.Homer, L. Meyer, & H. D. Fredericks (Eds.),Education of learners with severe handi-caps: Exemplary service strategies. Balti-more, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Sailor, W., Halvorsen, A., Anderson, J., Filler, J.,& Goetz, L. (1990). Phase I: Mainstreamingyoung children with disabilities. In W.Sailor, A. Halvorsen, J. Anderson, J. Filler, &L. Goetz (Eds.) Elemenis of communityinstruction: Methods and research. Balti-more, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Salisbury, C., & Vincent, L. (1990). Criterion ofthe next environment and best practices:Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later.

Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-tion, 10(2), 78-90.

Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Singlesubject research in special education.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Thompson, B., Wickham, D., Mulligan Ault, M.,Shanks, P., Reinertson, B., Wegner, J., &Guess, D. (1991). Expanding the circle ofinclusion: Integrating young children withsevere multiple disabilities. MontessoriLife, 1, 11-14.

Wegner, J. (1989). Opportunities for communi-cation intervention with preschool childrenwith severe disabilities. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Kansas, Depart-ment of Speech, Language and Hearing,Lawrence, KS.

14

Table 1. Descriptive information about the children with disabilities participating inCircle of Inclusion Project at the time of entry into mainstream program

Subject/Number

MainstreamTransition

Date

Age in GenderMonths

DiagnosedCondition

Assessed Development in Monthsat Entry into Mainstream Program'

cognitive social language motor

DD 10/6/86 39 F Deaf-blind 0-6b 6-18 0 g. 0-6

1 Cerebral PaLsy f. 0-6

CS 2/1/88 41 M Cerebral PaLsy 1-6 8-15 e. 3-8 g. 2-52 Microcephaly r. 3-9 f. 1-4

MA 2/1/88 56 M Deaf-blind 3-8 6-9 e. 4-6 g. 5-6

3 r. 6-7 f. 5-9

JF 2/8/89 39 M Cerebral PaLsy 3-6 6-7 e. 6-7 g. 3-64 r. 10 f. 3

CA 2/8/89 35 M Cerebral Palsy 6-9 9-15 e. 4-6 g. 65 r. 8-10 f. 3-6

GM 4/3/89 46 M Down Syn. 22-27 28-30 e. 28 g. 24

6 r. 28 f. 26

MA 4/3/89 51 F Down Syn. 36-48 36-39 e. 34 g. 26

7 r. 32-37 f. 24

SD 9/28/89 52 F Cerebral Palsy 11-12 11-18 e. 8-9 g. 6-158 Visual Imp. r. 8-10 f. 12-15

SB 9/10/90 60 F Cerebral Palsy 24-36 24-36 e. 19 g. 18-219 Microcephaly r. 36 f. 6-15

SW 9/10/90 56 F Down Syn. 30-42 32-34 e. 19 g. 18-21

10 r. 8-30 f. 28

LB 4/18/91 65 F Cerebral Palsy 12-24 10-30 18-24 g. 12

11 f. 12-15

NA 9/3/91 52 M Sp-Lang. Delay 18-24 16-24 e. 4-12 g. 12-2412 Hearing Imp. r. 3-18 f. 12-21

LW 9/16/92 45 F Cerebral Palsy 6-9 3-6 e. 3-24 g. 12-2413 Visual Imp. r. 3-18 f. 12-21

MG 9/17/91 60 M Down Syn. 27-32 25-36 e. 18-21 g. 18-4114 r. 25 f. 15-35

MB 11/27/91 62 M Trisomy 6 9-18 6-18 e. 6-9 g. 4-915 r. 3-6 1. 4-7

BS 12/9/91 48 M Cerebral Palsy 0-9 0.9 e. 0-9 g. 0-616 r. 0-9 f. 0-9

DW 12/11/91 54 M Meningitis 24 no score e. 28 g. 19-2417 Hydrocephaly assigned r. 27 f. 18-27

RH 1/1/92 38 M Developmental 18-24 18-24 e. 16-18 g. 12

18 Delays r. 18-24 f. 18-20

CB 2/4/92 64 F DeMorsier's Syn. 6-9 6-9 7-8 g. 8-919 Cerebral Palsy f. 8.9

TM 2/17/92 46 F Cerebral Palsy 1-15 0-6 e. 4-13 g. 3-920 r. 4-13 f. 3-9

a Scores obtained from developmental assessments conducted by interdisciplinary professional team in special education programb Represents a range of subscores in months (e.g., 3 to 6 months)e. = expressive language score Sz r. = receptive language score; g. = gross motor score and f. = fine motor score

Table 2. Transcribed interviews of participants in Circle of Inclusion Project

Role Number ofParticipants

Number ofInterviews

Yerage Length ofTranscribed

Interview in Pages

Mainstream Administrator 1 2 30

Mainstream Preschool Teacher 3 6 26

Mainstream Teacher Aide 1 1 28

Special Education Lead Teacher 1 2 25

Integration Facilitator 4 8 28

Parent of Child with Severe Disability 5 9 26

Parent of Typically Developing Child 8 8 8

Special Education Support Staff 3 6 25

Facilitator Focus Group Interviews 4 4 60

Table 3. Referential data: Circle of Inclusion Project

Videotapes of children in classrooms (each child is taped once or twice per week)

Participant field notes collected by FacilitatorsReports (anecdotes) from Facilitators and teachers on typically developing children'scomments/actionsAnecdotes reported by parents of children with disabilitiesAnecdotes reported by Raintree teachers and Integration FacilitatorsObservation field notes collected by project staffPeer debriefing notesJournal and telephone notesMeeting agendas and minutes for special education/mainstream staff meetingsPictures of children integrated on Raintree activity boardConstruction and adaptations of facilities (ramp, raised gardens, raised sandboxes)Presence /purchase of adaptive equipment for children (wedges, adapted pottychairs, swim rings, etc.)Parent newsletters with mention of integration projectIndividual Education Plans (IEPs)Parent notesWritten communications from physicians concerning procedures in mainstreamsettingConference programsLetters from visitors

Table 4. Research procedures employed in qualitative investigatian

Maintaining persistent and prolonged contactEngaging in participant observationConducting repeated tape-recorded open-ended interviews of participants andhaving the transcripts validated by the participantsMaintaining field notes and journalsMaintaining systematic observational recordings and logsRoutinely videotaping participating children (once or twice per week)Collecting of all referential documentsDocumenting data sources to create an audit trailPeer debriefing and constant reflection on the dataCategory building from segments of the data using constant comparison anddomain analyses to determine patterns, contrasts, and overarching themesEstablishing consistency of data units by consensus review and consistency ofcategory definitionsTriangulating multiple data sourcesEmploying thick description to portray qualitative resultsConducting membership check meetings to validate documents

Table 5. Primary categories and subcategories: HyperCard' data base

Concerns (Expressed);Anecdotes relatedFundingInitialLengthLogisticsParent involvementProceduresProgramRelationshipReplicationTransition

Eacilitating;AnecdotesCoordination tipsFacilitator trainingParent responsibilitiesStart-up proceduresTeacher trainingStrategies: instructionStrategi: interactions

Maintaining;Facilitator role factorsLogisticsMarkers for acceptanceMeeting needsProgram collaborationSystem for parent info.

Personnel:AdministratorAssistantCoordinatorFacilitatorHaworthParentRaintree

Parents.Anecdotes offeredExpand integrationFacilitator neededFamily identified needsFull day issuesFunding constraintsImportance of early

integrationIncreased educationInformation disseminationInvolvement in decisionsLogistical issuesMeetingsParents of typical childrenPersonal adjustmentProgram concernsInvolvementTeaching empathyRole in mainstream program

Benefits (To /About);Anecdotes relatedClassroom assistantsFuture impactChildren without disabilitiesParents of nondisabledParents of disabledChildren with severe

disabilitiesMainstream teacherSocietal change/acceptanceSchool age policySocial policyUnderstanding individual

differences

Montessori:Anecdotes relatedConcerns for integrationConducive to integration

Manual:Special education techniquesProcedures for integrationGeneral informationFormatDevelopmentTechniques for integration

Anecdotes;CAChanging role

SDGMJFMAMontessoriChildren without

disabilitiesParent view

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 17 2 0

Table 6. Evaluation of the model: Fall 1986 through fall 1991

f h ea-a .110

Shift from participation in the program of one teacher or Montessori director with a spe-cial interest in children with disabilities to ongoing involvement of other head teachersincluding 5 teachers so far. (Provides evidence of overall acceptance of the program and expan-

sion of the program.)Mainstream teacher appointed to officially serve as the program's Assistant Director forSpecial Education; and mainstream program director joins advisory board for early child-hood special education programs in the community. (Providesevidence of program recogni-

tion of integral program role of integration and the reqi.'-ed management activities.)

Listing of special education as a program service in t Natio. al American MontessoriTeachers' Association International Directory. (Indicates vness to be publicly identifiedwith an inclusion program.)Mainstream program administrators invest funds to increase accessibility of the preschoolfacility. Aesthetic entrance ramp built; elevated sandboxes and garden plots built to ac-commodate children in wheelchairs' inclusion in sandplay and gardening activities. (Ma-jor fiscal expenditure and structural changes to building and playground suggest:significant com-

mitment to the program and sensitivihj to enhancing inclusion beyond required standards.)

Pictures of children with disabilities involved in activities placed on bulletin board postedin mainstream program entry area along with pictures of typically developing children.(Without bringing attention to the children's disabilities or making a special announcement of their

presence in the program, the use of a regular program strategy, i.e., pictures on the bulletin board,provides evidence to all involved families and staff of the presence and acceptance of the children,their equal status and involvement in the same activities as typical children.)

Content in mainstream parent newsletter about individual children or special educationstaff: listing Facilitators with other new program staff at the beginning of the year; report-ing an amusing story about one of the children with disabilities along with other child an-ecdotes that parents are likely to enjoy; comments such as "we have added a ramp for per-sons using wheels". (Indicates that mainstream program staff view the children with disabilitiesand the integration staff as part of the program.)

Ongoing availability of release time for mainstream staff to participate in inservice andconference presentations. (Suggests willingness to be publicly identified with the program andcommitment to sharing information and encouraging others to try inclusive early childhood educa-tion.)Established mechanisms for mainstream and special education staff to share informationabout children, discuss approaches, solve problems, and set policy. (Mainstream and specialeducation staff participate in ongoing professional interactions via routine meetings, generally bi-weekly, and via program visitations and shared videotapes of children.)

Parent night for the families of children with disabilities conducted in mainstream settingby early educators and special educators in order to address parents' specific concerns andquestions. Primary response to individual parents' questions handled by mainstreamteacher for the classroom the child will join. (The availability of this orientation in addition tothe general family orientation suggests a recognition on the part of the mainstream staff of the po-tential concerns of families of children with disabilities and sensitivihj and willingness to addressthese concerns. Also offers evidence of cooperation between staffs.)

(continued on next page)

18 91

Table 6, continued. Evaluation of the model: Fall 1986 through fall 1991

y participants as evidence of the program's development and success:

Mainstream staff participation in routine staff training of new Facilitators. (Interest in de-lineating training needs, planning training strategies and conducting training suggests investmentin program content and a sense of joint ozvnership of model.)

Invited inservice and consultation provided for mainstream staff by related service staff.(Mainstream staffs request for information about specific children indicates awareness of need forspecial techniques and a willingness to learn about and employ recommended procedures.)

Mainstream staff assumes the primary role for orienting and handling individuals re-questing to observe the program. Considerable interest in the program has resulted infrequent requests to visit and observe. (Willingness to respond to this interest and present themodel to visitors suggests willingness to be publicly identified with the program and commitmentto sharing information and encouraging others to try inclusive early childhood education.)

Mainstream staff identify equipment and materials specifically to enhance participationand positioning of children with disabilities. (Awareness suggests attention to the specificneeds of children and increasing understanding of characteristics and needs of children with dis-abilities.)

Participation time for children with disabilities in the mainstream program is increased tocorrespond to the times and types of participation available to typically developing chil-dren. Shift for all children from attendance for 2 half-day preschool sessions per week toattendance for the full week of half-day preschool sessions. Beginning in September 1990,some of the children also participate in the child-care portion of the program, such aslunch, early a.m. and late p.m. program. Shift completely out of special education pre-school setting to attend mainstream program exclusively for all children for summer ses-sion and for one child during entire school year. (Increase in time for the children's scheduleshas multiple results: same program schedule eliminates the obtrusiveness of different schedules;increase in time suggests increasing confidence in and commitment to the program feasibility andrecognition of the benefits on the part of the mainstream and special education staff and families ofthe children.)

Joint effort on the part of special education and mainstream staff and families to plan andproduce 3 videotapes depicting the rationale and initial issues and concerns of the partici-pants as well as the salient strategies for facilitating the meaningful inclusion of the chil-dren. (Effort involves coming to consensus on what key issues to present and which salient fea-tures to describe of the program. Required using a membership check process (Lincoln & Guba,1985) to review and validate script-based data collected via ethnographic investigation.)

Joint effort between mainstream and early childhood special education teachers to advo-cate for a child's placement in an inclusive kindergarten setting when child transitions toanother district. Coordination of effort and sense of unity is considerable when represent-ing child prior to and at IEP conferences. (A "coming together" to advocate for a child and rep-resent the project values seemed to be the pivotal factor in enhancing relationships between stafffrom the two programs.)

Table 7. Initial concerns of participants

Participant Concern

Parents of childrenwith disabilities

Parents of typicallydeveloping children

Special Education staff

Montessori staff

Child's adjustmentAcceptance of child by mainstream staff and typical childrenAdequacy of environmental adaptationsAppropriateness of environmentChild's safety

Potential loss of needed teacher attention for their childPotential concern that there would be too many children with disabilities in

one classroom, affecting the nature of activities and interactions in thesetting

Could make the classroom seem more crowded and response to access needscould affect freedom of movement

Accessibility without intrusivenessCommunicationbetween programsLogistics and liability factorsAcceptance of children by mainstream staff and typical childrenHow to implement effective integration strategiesPotential problems with the adjustment of children with disabilities and their

parents

Effect on the program of an untrained, additional adult (IntegrationFacilitator) in the classroom

Accessibility of the settingCommunication between programsMeeting licensing requirementsFinancial feasibility of the programFear of handling children with disabilitiesLevel of comfort of children with disabilities and their parentsPotential problems with parental adjustment to the mainstream setting

Table 8. Identified benefits

Recipient of the Benefits Benefits

Community/society Increasing public awareness and educationIncreasing public acceptancePositively impacting on attitudes about mainstreaming and community

integration policy

Typical children Preparing for future encounters with disability in one's lifeIncreasing acceptance of individual differencesBecoming comfortable with people who have disabilitiesHaving an opportunity to help someoneDeveloping desirable personal qualities

Children with Expanding circle of friendsdisabilities Increasing access to normal life routines and activities

Increasing resources from program combinationImproving communication and socialization environmentsEnhancing opportunities for generalization across settings, materials and

personsAvailability of full-day child care

20 23

Table 9. Split program impact on participants

ParentsParents are asked to respond to two sets of procedures, paperwork, staff, calendars and schedules;and they must fulfill two sets of parental roles defined by both mainstream and special educationprograms.

Children with disabilitiesChildren with disabilities are asked to respond to different settings, routines, rules and staff withina single day as well as to the very different level and types of adaptation and support offered ineach setting. The level of bonding and friendships between children with disabilities and typicalpeers may be affected by time in setting. May facilitate generalization.

StaffStaff have increased demands for ongoing communication, which are impacted by the differentsettings, schedules, diverse perspectives, philosophies and training. Problems with programcompetition can occur. Special accommodations are required to adjust to schedule mismatches forstudents.

Table 10. Potential problems in matching parents' needs with mainstreamMontessori program: Variables that must be addressed in planningand conducting integration program

Source of Variable Key Variables

Needs indicatedby parents

Mainstream programvariables impactingon parental needs

Need to feel included in the full range of program activitiesNeed to feel adequately informed about activities and child progressNeed to have "adequate" teacher contactsNeed to be consulted about child's program

Larger student-to-staff ratios affect time per familyLess staff time allocated for planning and conferring with parentsNo formal Individualized Educational Planning strategiesMontessori philosophy views classroom as a child's world, involve-

ment of parents not as emphasized as in typical special educationearly intervention programs

Comment: One of the interesting results of the data is the adjustment to the mainstream programrequired of parents who are used to dealing with special education programs. Essentially, parentswant to be like all the other parents, and yet they feel a considerable need to be given moreattention and information than the parents of typically developing children generally receive.Given the staff situations in most mainstream programs, this is a challenging issue which needs tobe addressed by models involving integrated preschool and child care services for children withsevere disabilities.

Table 11. Characteristics of children with severe and profound multiple disabili-ties and related accommodation and planning requirements

Significant Child CharacteristicsSignificant discrepancy between chronological age and development

Non-ambulatoryLimited trunk and head controlPresence of primitive reflexes and abnormal toneNonverbal communicationSelf-stimulatory behaviorDroolingLimited eye contactLimited display of affectRange of medical conditions

Special Planning and Accommodation RequirementsIncluding adaptive equipment in the settingImplementing handling and positioning strategiesProviding an accessible environmentEmploying methods to normalize participationEmploying special mealtime proceduresEmploying special bathroom proceduresEmploying needed health-care proceduresUtilizing alternative communication systemsRecognizing nonverbal communicationProviding necessary staff supportIntroducing the child to typical peersResponding to questions from typical studentsResponding to questions from parents of typical students

22

Table 12. Variables related to Montessori approach

Variable One: Preconceived notions about Montessori programs

"inadequate social and language skills""fails to include certain activities"(dramatic play)"dull, monotone materials""interferes with adjustment to other programs""lacks flexibility""too academic""non-nurturing"

Variable Two: Participants viewed Raintree Montessori as an excellent program

easy to individualizeacceptance and respect of staff for the childrenoverall high-quality programhigh frequency of opportunities for social interactionexceptionally competent and caring administration and staff

Variable Three: Participants identified features of the Montessori approach thatwere related to the success of the program

cross-age groupingindividualization and independencerespect for child and focus on capabilitiesquality and nature of the materialsopportunities for choiceencouragement of helping

9 rt

23