Table Of ContentMAR u
i*96
CAN AD JANA
:x
SUPPORTING
INTEGRATION:
WORK IN PROGRESS
IN ALBERTA
Executive Summary
1995
Alberta Educaton
Special Education Branch
Digitized by the Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/supportingintegrOObarr
SUPPORTING
INTEGRATION:
WORK IN PROGRESS
IN ALBERTA
Executive Summary
1995
by
Report to the Special Education Branch
•; - W.. //^\j
of Alberta Education
G.V. Barrington, Principal Researcher education librae
Gail V. Barrington & A ssociates Inc. 11]6J j,s'pcR Ayp _
102 Discovery Place One Edmonton, albert^ ^ ts k 012
3553-31 Street N.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2L 2K7
Funded by Alberta Education
1991 - 1994
Please Note: The views and recommendations expressed in this report are those of
the researcher and not necessarily those of the Department of Education.
ALBERTA EDUCATION CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA
Alberta. Alberta Education. Special Education Branch.
Supporting integration : work in p rogress in Alberta : executive summary.
ISBN 0-7732-1832-7
Report to the Special Education Branch of Alberta Education by G.V. Barrington,
principal researcher of Gail V. Barrington & A ssociates Inc., funded by Alberta
Education.
1. Mainstreaming in education -- Alberta. 2. School integration — A lberta.
I. Title. II. Gail V. Barrington & A ssociates Inc.
LC3984.2.A3.A333 1995 371.9
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT CONTACT
Special Education Branch
Devonian Building, West Tower, 11160 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 0L2
Telephone: (403) 422-6326
Fax: (403) 422-2039
THE PRIMARY INTENDED AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT IS:
Administrators
Counsellors
General Audience
Parents
Students
Teachers
Other Service-
providers
Copyright © 1 995, the Crown in Right of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Education.
Alberta Education, 11160 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 0L2.
Permission is given by the copyright holder to reproduce the contents of this document for
education purposes and on a n on-profit basis.
Acknowledgments
Many people contributed to this project and took a p ersonal interest in making it a success. Special
thanks is extended to all the school principals, their staff members, students and family members
who took the time to be involved in the study. Their hospitality and receptivity was greatly
appreciated in what turned out to be a d ifficult year in education.
In addition, a special thank you is extended to the Special Education Branch of Alberta Education
for funding, continued interest in the project and assistance and support in collecting the data and
visiting the case-study schools.
The students described in these case studies are real. Their names have been changed to protect
them with the exception of Michal, already an advocate for students with learning disabilities, who
gave permission for his name to be used. Their warmth, humour and patience are examples to us
all.
Finally, thanks to our research team who, as always, approached the study with enthusiasm and
professionalism: Carole Brownlees, Linda Skuce and Martin Bennett.
Gail V. Barrington, PhD, CMC
Principal Researcher
.
‘
Introduction
In 1991, the Special Education Branch of Alberta Education commissioned a t hree-part study to
explore integration practices across Alberta. The research was conducted by Gail V. Barrington &
Associates Inc.. The final report, Supporting Integration: Work in Progress in Alberta (December
1995), provides a c omprehensive description of all p hases of the research, and includes conclusions
and recommendations. To obtain copies of the full report, see page 5 o f this Executive Summary.
Research Phases
♦ Phase 1 ( 1991-92), Jurisdiction Screening Survey , w as a t elephone survey of all superintendents
in the province to determine an overview of integration practices.
♦ Phase 2 ( 1992), Jurisdiction Practices , w as a m ail-out survey to superintendents and their
special education designates regarding the nature and extent of integration practices.
♦ Phase 3 ( 1993-94), Supporting Integration: Work in Progress , i nvolved the development of six
case studies of schools selected across the province and provided detailed descriptive
information obtained through on-site observation, staff, parent and student interviews and
document review.
Research Findings
Based on a l iterature review and findings from the phases of this research, factors (referred to as
Critical Integration Factors) were identified that, if p resent on a c onsistent basis, are associated
with greater success for students in an integrated environment. Brief descriptions of these factors,
grouped according to whether they are relevant at the school jurisdiction level or the school level,
follow. (For detailed descriptions of each, please refer to the full report.)
At the school jurisdiction level , t he following factors were found to be associated with greater
success for students in an integrated environment:
♦ adequate physical resources
♦ adequate human resources
♦ adequate training for regular classroom teachers
♦ written policy on integration.
At the school level, the following factors were associated with greater success for students in an
integrated environment:
♦ principal support/involvement
♦ teacher support/involvement
♦ parent involvement
♦ written policy/mission statement
♦ guidelines for integration
♦ formal communication systems about integration, for parents
♦ formal communication systems about integration, for teachers
♦ reduced class size where students with special needs were integrated
♦ some regular teachers trained in special education
♦ regular teachers responsible for Individualized Program Plans (IPPs)
♦ life skills programs at the high-school level
♦ annual planning time for integration
♦ weekly planning time for integration
♦ regular students prepared for integration
♦ students with special needs prepared for integration.
The researcher also draws some conclusions regarding the frequency of occurrence (how often
factors were found to be present in the study) of the above factors.
♦ Factors that were found to occur most often were:
- adequate physical resources
- adequate human resources
- parent involvement
- formal communication systems about integration, for parents
- students with special needs prepared for integration.
♦ Factors that were found to be frequently present were:
- written policy on integration (jurisdiction level)
- principal support/involvement
- formal communication systems about integration, for teachers
- life skills programs at high-school level (though may be informal)
- regular students prepared for integration.
♦ Factors that were infrequently present were:
- adequate training for regular classroom teachers
- teacher support/involvement
- written policy/mission statement (school level)
- guidelines for integration (school level)
- some regular teachers trained in special education
- regular teachers responsible for IPPs
- annual planning time for integration
- weekly planning time for integration.
♦ A f actor that was never present was:
- reduced class size where students with special needs were integrated.
Conclusions
The researcher draws the following conclusions:
♦ All six case-study schools were in a d evelopmental phase, although to varying degrees — none
yet represented a f ully integrated model. The school at the earliest stage of integration
development had seven Critical Integration Factors present, while the two schools furthest along
the continuum of integration had 15 to 17 (of a p ossible 19) factors present to some extent.
♦ The initial premise of case-study school selection — t hat these schools represented best
practices — w as supported. All six schools had more Critical Integration Factors in p lace than
the provincial norm depicted by findings in Phase 2 o f the study. At the jurisdictional level,
three of the four Critical Integration Factors were more evident. With regard to school-based
factors, seven of the 15 Critical Integration Factors were present more frequently. Some school-
based factors were poorly represented in the case-study schools.
♦ In an environment where the jurisdiction provides its critical resources, successful integration in
the school appears to hinge on teacher and principal support, and adequate time for program
development.
IV
Recommendations
The researcher concludes that programs work better when more of the Critical Integration Factors
are in p lace than when they are not. The finding that the six case-study schools have integration
models which are still developmental indicates there is more work to be done provincially in terms
of integration program development.
The researcher suggests the following:
♦ Training must be provided for regular classroom teachers prior to and once involved in
integration activities. A s trategy-based approach is likely to be most effective and teacher
visitations should be strongly encouraged.
♦ Schools embarking on an integration course must develop their own vision of what they are
trying to achieve. This vision or mission statement should then be supported by written
guidelines for integration developed by the school staff.
♦ Joint planning time must be engineered for teachers who have joint responsibility for education
of a s tudent with special needs or between a r egular classroom teacher and a t eacher trained in
integration techniques. Case-study schools have proven this can be done creatively, even
without additional funding. In addition, annual planning activities that focus on integration
strengthen programming significantly.
♦ Teachers trained in special education who are teaching in regular classrooms provide strength to
a s chool considering an integrated program. Schools should be encouraged to use the
professional expertise at their fingertips.
♦ A s chool’s integration program is g reatly enhanced and program ownership is more likely when
regular classroom teachers take final responsibility for developing and implementing IPPs.
♦ Consideration must be given to creative ways of deploying staff and of timetabling teachers’
workloads to accommodate integration issues. Examples are provided in the case studies.
♦ Further program development and research is required to explore models for addressing the
needs of students with disabilities at the high-school level, particularly in senior high school.
Further, work experience and life skills programs for students with disabilities at the high-
school level need to be reported more broadly.
