• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Exploring Secondary Special Education for Mild Mental Impairment: A Program in Search of Its Place

Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 2004, 03:00 CST

ABSTRACT

This study explored the current state of secondary special education in Michigan, focusing on students with mild mental impairment (MMI) and learning disabilities (LD). A survey was mailed to 378 secondary special education teachers. The survey asked questions pertaining to demographic data, curricular approaches and instructional environments, provider satisfaction and perceived effectiveness, and teacher preparation and professional development. Six findings were revealed: (a) lack of secondary experiences in preservice preparation; (b) low levels of vocational education for students with MMI and LD; (c) differential instructional environments and curriculum depending on size of district; (d) low rates of inclusion; (e) lower levels of satisfaction for programs for students with MMI; and (f) the need for curriculum for students with MMI.

RESEARCH ON MILD MENTAL IMPAIRMENT (MMI) has dwindled during the past 2 decades (Edgar, 1987; Keogh & MacMillian, 1996). Currently, as a field, we know very little about what type of educational programming students with MMI receive in the areas of curriculum and instruction. A recent review of Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, from 1997 to 2003, revealed that only nine studies explicitly referenced students with MMI, and only one was found to directly reference MMI and curriculum. Although numerous articles explicitly referenced moderate and severe mental impairment, it appears that many others aggregated all levels of mental impairment together.

As research interest in students with MMI has declined, the field is left with little information about what curricular approaches and instructional environments are used for students with MMI. The limited research on what counts as curriculum and instruction for secondary students with MMI, learning disabilities (LD), and emotional impairment (EI) is a national need (Epstein, Polloway, Patton, & Foley, 1989). Without a clear understanding of the range and types of instructional programming made available to these students, it will not be possible to develop and define the research- validated practices that are required by recent federal legislation (i.e., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) and state policies (Branstad et al., 2002).

CATEGORIES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

According to state data, Michigan has 7,840 students with mild mental impairment (MMI), formerly referred to as "educable mentally impaired" (EMT; Michigan Department of Education, 2001). This group represents about 11% of the total population of special education students in the state, which places it as the third largest special education category in Michigan. The two categories with larger percentages consist of students with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional impairment (EI), the two categories traditionally considered "mild impairments" or "mild disabilities" (Michigan Department of Education, 2001).

Despite the fact that the population of students with MMI constitutes the second largest category nationally, little current research is conducted on this population at the secondary level when considering curriculum and instructional environments. The trend toward moving away from research on students with MMI began in the 1980s; however, the situation has not improved in the past 2 decades. Edgar (1987) referred to the population of students with mild mental retardation as the "forgotten ones" (p. 558). He stated that at one time, researchers conducted the most investigations on MMI, but now this group of students receives little attention. Students with mild mental retardation or impairment are either combined with students with LD and EI and behavior disorders and considered to have a "mild impairment" or are aggregated with students with moderate and severe mental impairment (Edgar, 1987; Jones, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

The aggregation of students with MMI with students with other disabilities (i.e., LD and EI) in research and in school programs remains apparent today. A probable cause of combining students with MMI and students with LD arises from a hypothesis, started in the 1970s and 1980s, that few educationally relevant differences exist between these two special education categories (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977). Overlap between the two categories was found in the areas of characteristics, etiology, and relevant educational methodology. Polloway, Patton, and Smith (1997) further contended that for students who do not go on to attend postsecondary education or training, obvious overlap occurs between students with MMI and students with LD.

What occurs in schools today reflects the perceived similarity of these two groups, as students in these categories are taught together in classes and programs, particularly with the cross- categorical or noncategorical movement during the 1970s and 1980s, which still exists today (Polloway et al., 1997). However, despite the claims by some researchers about the close relationship between these two disabilities, the definitions and, hence, the classifying criteria of MMI and LD remain distinct. A learning disability requires that an individual has average IQ but has achievement scores that differ significantly from what is expected based on his or her IQ. The criteria for mild mental impairment require that an individual has an IQ 2 to 3 SD below the mean and also exhibits significant difficulties in two or more areas of adaptive functioning (Hardman, Drew, & Egan, 2002; Polloway & Smith, 1999).

Polloway, Epstein, Polloway, Patton, and Ball (1986) felt that limited research exists to support the strong association between students with MMI and those with LD, but caution must be applied to assumptions regarding similarities in instructional needs between these two groups of students. Where similarities do occur between these two groups is in the etiologies; a large number of cases of both disabilities have unknown causes or have known causes commonly attributed to biological or neurological reasons. Polloway et al. (1997) indicated that commonalities occur in curricular approaches for students with LD and MMI who do not plan or desire to attend either a 2- or a 4-year postsecondary education program. They felt that the educational needs, particularly in terms of curriculum, for students with LD who do not plan to attend college are not different from those of students with MMI.

Differences between students with MMI and students with LD in terms of learning styles and effective approaches are not adequately known. Whereas researchers have demonstrated behavioral approaches to be effective with both populations, more recent approaches, such as cognitive approaches, have not been adequately studied in students with mental impairment (Ormrod, 2003; Polloway et al., 1997). Some researchers have studied strategy instruction for this population, but most of them focused on students with LD, and other areas of the cognitive or constructivist perspectives are still absent (Beckman, 2002). Moreover, approaches that have recently begun to be researched for students with LD, (e.g., the sociocultural model) have not been empirically evaluated with students who have MMI.

Although some researchers and practitioners in the education field contend the similarities between students with MMI and LD warrant similar or identical educational programs, services within the community for postschool recognize these disabilities as distinct and offer substantially more services to students with MMI (Polloway et al., 1997).

A similar argument can be made against aggregating data on students with MMI with the two other subcategories of mental impairment-moderate and severe. The variability of skills and IQ among students with mild, moderate, and severe mental impairment remains large. As previously indicated, the typical IQ falls in the range from 55 to 70 for students with MMl, from 40 to 55 for students with moderate mental impairment, and below 40 for students with severe mental impairment (Hardman et al., 2002). Although data tend to reflect an aggregation of all three subgroups as mental impairment or retardation, distinct educational programs and curricular approaches typically exist for each subgroup. For example, the vast majority of students with MMI are expected to live independently or semi-independently and hold steady jobs in the community, whereas individuals with moderate and severe mental impairment often require assisted care throughout their lives. These differences in expected outcomes require significant differences in educational programming, arguing against the aggregation of data for individuals with qualitatively different needs.

Aggregating data for students with MMI with data for either LD or moderate and severe mental impairment makes effective, targeted, and informed decision making difficult. Failure to disaggregate these data within the population of MMl affects the quality of research and raises serious questions about the validity of findings. The result of this lack of disaggregation is uncertainty in the efficacy of curricular programming and service delivery options.

RANGE OF CURRICULAR ALTERNATIVES

Curric\ulum issues for students with MMI are important because conflicts arise in the research, and among practitioners, as to what students with MMI receive in terms of curriculum. Some contend that as a result of the inclusive education movement, students with MMI receive a general education curriculum and question its appropriateness (Childs, 1981; Keogh & MacMillan, 1996; Polloway & Smith, 1983). Furthermore, despite the more stringent definition of the category of MMI since its change in 1973, the curriculum and programming have failed to adjust themselves to this "new EMR" ("educable mentally retarded") population (Polloway, 1985; Polloway, Patton, Epstein, & Smith, 1989). The change in 1973 lowered the high end of the IQ range from 80 to 68 or 70, depending on the intelligence test, for the definition of educable mental retardation and also added the necessity of a significant discrepancy in two areas of adaptive functioning (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002; Polloway, 1985).

Curriculum in special education has been conceptualized in numerous ways. Bigge (1988) outlined six approaches or options for the special education curriculum. These included (a) an identical curriculum, which uses the general education curriculum and implements the same standards, but with special services or accommodations; (b) a parallel curriculum, which also uses the general education curriculum but reduces the complexity; (c) a lower grade level curriculum; (d) a practical academic curriculum, which uses a different but related curriculum through substituting skills to achieve the general curriculum; (e) a life management curriculum, which involves a unique curriculum; and (f) other curriculum, which uses a variety of components in which students may need knowledge.

Sabornie and deBettencourt (1997) outlined another way to view secondary education curriculum models for students with disabilities. They also proposed six options: (a) a basic skills model, involving remedial instruction for basic skills; (b) a tutorial model, focused on assistance with specific academic course content; (c) a compensatory model, involving modifications or alterations to tasks or requirements; (d) a vocational model, focused on preparation for employment; (e) a functional skills model, involving a different curriculum that addresses one's ability to function in society and meet the demands of daily living; and (f) a learning strategies model, which teaches how to learn rather than what to learn.

Although Bigge (1988) and Sabornie and deBettencourt (1997) presented different ways to conceptualize curriculum models in special education, similarities and overlap do occur. Both typologies propose one model that addresses remediation, whether it is referred to as remedial instruction or parallel curriculum. Both conceptualizations also suggest a functional or life skills approach to curriculum. These two curricular approaches capture the discrepancy that exists between students with high- and low- incidence disabilities, in which students with high-incidence disabilities typically receive a remedial curriculum, whereas students with lowincidence disabilities tend to receive a functional or life skills curriculum. Furthermore, these two models present a continuum of pedagogical options that, in theory, suggests responsiveness to the individual needs of special education students across disability categories.

Despite the range of curriculum models that have evolved, few studies have assessed what is considered curriculum for secondary special education students today. Those studies that do tend to focus on special education students as a category in general or focus on students with "mild disabilities," such as LD or EI (Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002). For example, the most recent study conducted on secondary special education, by Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) in Wisconsin, collapsed the data for all special education categories researched, thus making it difficult to determine how students in qualitatively different categories are affected.

In addition to conceptualizing curriculum, knowing the curricular approach for students in special education also enables one to potentially analyze curricular models with outcome data. Determining what currently exists as curriculum for students with MMI is a necessary first step toward establishing research-validated interventions that lead Io measurable gains in students' achievement, life skills, and transition outcomes (e.g., employment status, wages, independent living, recreation).

PEDAGOGY AND INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH

Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) studied secondary special education teachers' provision of direct services to students with disabilities, their views on the types of commonly used instructional models, their perception of the effectiveness of these approaches, the relationship between the number of years of teaching experience and the use of teaching approaches, and their involvement in transition services. The results of the survey indicated that a high percentage of teachers reported using a variety of instructional approaches, including content instruction, academic remediation, transition instruction, and social-emotional instruction. The survey results found no significant relationship between the use of teaching approaches and the number of years of teaching. Conderman and Katsiyannis also found that teachers rank a more appropriate curriculum as one of the highest interventions to improve the classroom instruction, a very close second to more preparation time. However, one must remember that Conderman and Katsiyannis aggregated data on all special education categories and did not distinguish between results for specific categories.

The survey used by Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) relates to earlier survey research by Benz and Halpern (1986, 1987), Halpern and Benz (1987), and Retzlaff (1999). Each of these earlier studies examined secondary special education for students at a state level. Halpern and Benz (1987) surveyed special education administrators, high school special education teachers, and parents of high school students with mild disabilities in the state of Oregon to ascertain their opinions on the curriculum for this population in terms of its focus and content, discrepancies between availability and use, barriers to mainstreaming, and conditions required for improvement.

Results from the survey by Halpern and Benz (1987) suggest high agreement between the availability of curricular approaches, as indicated by administrators, and their use, as indicated by teachers and parents, in terms of traditional academics; however, this tapered off for the other curriculum areas addressed. Parents and teachers did not express consistent use levels of remedial academics, functional academics, home living skills, community living skills, personal-social skills, and vocational preparation, and parents suggested that their students used these services at remarkably low levels (between 27% and 66%). In terms of instructional environments, teachers indicated that students used the resource room most frequently, followed by the vocational education classroom, general education classroom, worksites, and selfcontained classrooms. In this study, teachers responded that the number one option for improving their classroom instruction was a more appropriate curriculum with 65% agreement, which was significantly higher than the next category of more preparation time/ less paperwork. Halpern and Benz (1987) aggregated data for those students they considered as having "mild disabilities"-students with LD, EI, and MMI. However, the overwhelming majority of responses in their survey were based on students with LD, a population that represents 50% of all students receiving special education (Hardman et al., 2002), so these findings may not reflect programming variables for students with other disabilities.

Foreman, Dempsey, Fairbairn, Conway, and Robinson (1994) examined services for students with mild intellectual disability in New South Wales, Australia, by sending a questionnaire to teachers, interviewing the teachers, and conducting classroom observations. Their results indicate that teachers use a variety of instructional approaches and a wide range of curricular approaches for these students, with most teachers using several curricular approaches. Foreman et al. found that 85% of teachers believed that there should be a specific curriculum for students with mild intellectual disability and that the content should be organized on key learning areas, functional areas, and individual needs.

In looking across these few studies that do examine special education for secondary students, several themes emerge that emphasize the need for the current study. First, there are no recent studies that have looked specifically at programming for students with MMI in the United States. second, in each study, teachers reported using a wide variety of methods, but these methods have not been disaggregated for different populations of special education students. Finally, the need for a coherent and comprehensible curriculum has been identified as a pressing need by teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. These three themes point to the need not only to further refine our understanding of curriculum and instruction for students with MMI, but also to identify variables that may influence instructional programming for these students, including preservice preparation, size of district, and professional development opportunities made available to teachers.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary research question addressed in this study is, What is the current state of educational programming for secondary students with MMI in the state of Michigan? To address the primary research question, several subquestions were also asked of the data, including,

1. Do teac\hers of secondary special education students feel adequately prepared by their preservice teacher education programs?

2. Are there differences in instructional

environment placements and the use of curricular approaches between students with MMI and students with LD?

3. Are there differences in instructional environment placement and use of curricular approaches by size of school district?

4. Are there differences in instructional environment placement and use of curricular approaches by teacher variables?

5. Is teacher satisfaction of educational programs dependent on disability type?

METHOD

Participants

Three hundred seventy-eight secondary special education teachers for Grades 9 to 12 were mailed surveys to complete, based on a population size of 593 eligible schools. Each school received only one survey from this study. Sample size was determined based on a 95% confidence level with a 3% sampling error (Fowler, 2002; Salant & Dillman, 1994). The 378 teachers were distributed proportionally across the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) classification code of school size (A, B, C, and D). Class A represents all high schools with an enrollment of 1,008 and above, Class B represents all high schools with an enrollment between 488 and 1,007, Class C represents high schools with an enrollment between 243 and 487, and Class D represents high schools with an enrollment of 242 or less. A list of schools in each class was obtained through the Michigan High School Athletic Association School Directory (2002). The list was then screened for schools in each size for eligibility, and all nonpublic and specialty schools were excluded, including parochial, charter, and academy schools. Originally, 174 schools met eligibility in class A, 162 in both class B and class C, and 95 in class D. To get a proportional representation, 111 surveys were mailed to schools in class A, 103 to schools in both class B and C, and 60 to schools in class D. Schools in all four classes who met the eligibility criterion were randomly selected, with each eligible school district having an equal chance of being in the sample (see Note). This sample selection method represents a two-stage cluster convenience sample, as schools were randomly selected at the level of schools, yet teachers were specifically selected at the next level by building administrator selection based on the characteristics supplied by the researcher.

Procedure

A letter was mailed to the high school principal in each selected school district. The letter asked the administrator to distribute the survey to the special education teacher in his or her high school who was the most appropriate individual to respond to questions on secondary special education for students with LD and MMI based on characteristics defined in the letter. These characteristics included (a) fully certified in special education, (b) taught 3 or more years in the district, and (c) had experience teaching students with MMI. This letter was to help ensure that the most knowledgeable teacherin terms of services for the two populations at his or her school-received the survey and provided the most accurate information. Included in each packet was a letter to the teacher explaining the research survey, the participant informed consent letter, and the survey (see Appendix), in addition to the letter to the administrator explaining the research project.

Two weeks after the mailing of the survey, a postcard reminder was sent to all individuals in the sample, thanking those who had returned the completed survey and asking those who had not returned the survey to please do so. Another mailing was sent 2 weeks later for any individuals in the sample who had not yet returned the survey. The postcard stressed the importance of their input and the value of their contribution. The final follow-up occurred 3 months after the initial mailing and consisted of either a phone call or an e-mail to the principals of schools who had not returned the survey.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument is a significantly adapted version of the survey used by Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) in a statewide assessment of instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Conderman and Katsiyannis adapted the survey from one developed by Brown, Browning, and Dunn (1992), which in turn replicated a statewide examination study of secondary special education by Benz and Halpern (1987). The current survey instrument (see Appendix) developed in multiple phases. The survey used by Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) formed the basis for questions. However, as the survey in the current study sought different information than the study by Conderman and Katsiyannis, particularly in terms of focusing on more specific populations within special education as well as on curriculum and instruction, many additional questions were generated. Peers and established professionals in the field supplied feedback and suggestions. Next, a draft survey was field-tested with 10 secondary special education teachers for the purpose of checking the clarity of the questions and removing or revising any that were unclear or failed to gather the intended information.

The first section of the survey consisted of 12 questions and requested demographic information, including school size, geographical classification, teacher gender, highest degree obtained, years of teaching experience within various constraints, teaching certification and special education endorsements held, number of students in each class or hour by category, and the setting or role of the teacher for each class of the school day in conjunction with the activities performed during that time.

The second section of the survey, comprising 11 questions, asked information about the curriculum and instruction of students with LD and MMI. Respondents identified the total number of special education students, students with MMI, and students with LD in their school and on their individual caseload. Next, teachers identified the top three instructional environments used by both groups of students by selecting among resource room, self-contained classroom, community worksite, cross-categorical classroom, general education classroom (inclusion), general education classroom with support personnel, in-school worksite, alternative school, and vocational/ technical preparation program. Teachers then categorized the curriculum for students with MMl and with LD and selected the one used the most from the following options: no established curriculum, general education curriculum made applicable to the needs and Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals of students, specific special education curriculum with unique set of materials, lower grade level general education curriculum with appropriate materials, unique curriculum that teachers have devised on the basis of the individual needs of their students, functional or life management curriculum that focuses on skills most applicable to the adult world, or vocational education curriculum. Participants also indicated which content areas the majority of students in either category received through pullout special education classes.

The third section, which consisted of five questions, requested information regarding teachers' perceived effectiveness and provider satisfaction in terms of special education services for students with MMI and LD. Perceptions of the effectiveness of the following components were asked for both categories of students: transition, social-emotional development, functional academics, content instruction, and life skills. Teachers also ranked options for improving their classroom instruction, using the following categories of improvement: more appropriate curricula, more preparation time, teaching classes to one disability label, inservice training in classroom management, inservice training in more appropriate and powerful instructional methods, and inservice training in transition instruction.

The fourth and final section, comprising eight questions, asked questions regarding teacher preparation and professional development. Participants indicated whether they had taken any courses or had practicum experience with specific categories in special education and with specific grade levels. Teachers indicated if they had professional development on specific topics and rated their perceived usefulness of these. The topics included positive behavior support, law and litigation, career preparation, specific disabilities, content area, and transition.

Data Analysis

Survey responses were coded and entered into an SPSS database file. Data were coded following the guidelines in the codebook depending on the variables and type of question. Multiple variables were created that were not directly generated from survey questions. Frequency distributions, chisquare tests of association, and t tests were used to analyze the data. Data analyses were conducted to determine (a) the impact of teacher and school variables on curriculum and instructional environments, (b) the instructional environment where the majority of students with MMI and students with LD receive their education, (c) the primary curriculum used for students with MMI and students with LD, (d) the comparison between the two populations, and (e) teacher satisfaction with overall programs and components of education for both students with MMI and students with LD.

RESULTS

Demographic Information

One hundred eighty-nine surveys were returned, which represents 50% of the 398 surveys that were mailed to secondary special education teachers in Michigan's public high schools. Of the 189 surveys that were returned, 67 were from class A schools (35.4%), 56 from class B schools (29.6%), 45 from class C schools (23.8%), and 21 from class D schools (11.1%). However, because the sample was stratified, a return of 67 schools from class A out ofa possible 111 resulted in a 60% return rate. A return of 56 from class B out of a possible 103 resulted in a 54% return rate; 45 out of a possible 103 for class C is a 44% return rate; and 21 out of 60 from class D is a 35% return rate. Thus, the highest return rates were from the larger schools, class A and class B, with the fewest returns from the smaller schools, particularly class D.

The majority of the sample respondents were women, with 82% of the teachers who responded indicating that they were women and 17.5% indicating they were men. Slightly more than 56% of the sample held a masters' degree, whereas 37% held a bachelors' degree. Another 6% indicated that they had an education specialist degree or some other degree. The mean number of years of teaching experience was 15.74, the mean number of years of teaching secondary special education was 11.52, and the mean number of years of teaching at the teacher's current position was 8.57.

In terms of endorsement, 44.4% of teachers indicated that their first endorsement was mental impairment. The second most popular first endorsement was EI (32.8%). LD was the third, with 16.4% of responses. In total, 50.8% of respondents held an endorsement in mental impairment. The mean number of special education students at schools across all size classifications was 108.51, and the mean number of students with MMI was 14.63, which corresponds approximately to the national percentages of students with MMI in relation to all students receiving special education services. The average number of students on a teacher's caseload was 16.18.

Teachers tended to respond to most items on the survey. The questions that generated the least responses were the ones that asked them for the number of students in each category (MMI, LD, and special education in general), both on their caseload and for their school. Specifically, 12 respondents did not answer the questions pertaining to the number of students with MMI, whereas only 2 did not indicate a selection for the different curriculum questions. All missing values were below 10%, with the vast majority being at or below 5%, except for those questions in which it would be expected that some respondents would not respond, such as indicating a third endorsement.

Teacher Preparedness

Teachers expressed mixed feelings in terms of their preparation in their undergraduate program for their current position as a secondary special education teacher. Specifically, 47.1% of teachers felt very satisfied to satisfied with their undergraduate program in terms of preparing them for being a secondary special education teacher. However, 19% reported that they felt unprepared or very unprepared for their current position. Furthermore, 63.5% of respondents indicated that they had undergraduate courses on both students with MMI and LD, whereas 22.2% of respondents indicated that they had only taken courses involving students with LD. Only 46% of respondents indicated that they had practicum experience with both students with LD and students with MMI. Of the 189 respondents, 65.6% also indicated that they had coursework that focused on high school (9-12) within the K-12 continuum, and 52.4% reported that they had practicum experience with this same population.

Instructional Environment

The primary instructional environment for educating students with MMI was a self-contained setting (52.4%). The second most popular was the resource room setting (29.6%), followed by inclusion in the general education setting (6.9%). Four teachers indicated that a co- taught general education setting was the most used instructional environment (2.1%), 5 indicated that it was a vocational or technical preparation program (2.6%), and for both community-based instruction and alternative school, only one response was given (0.5%). This suggests that in half the schools in Michigan, students with MMI are educated in a self-contained setting in high school. These students are not educated in separate schools but within the neighborhood schools.

In contrast, the most popular instructional environment for students with LD that respondents indicated was the resource room (42.9%). The second was an inclusion setting in the general education classroom (35.4%). The next was a co-taught general education setting (10.1%), followed by a self-contained setting (8.5%). Only one respondent indicated a vocational or technical preparation program (.5%).

A statistically significant relationship was found between school size and the most used instructional environment for students with MMI. For schools of class A size, a significant relationship existed between this factor and the type of instructional environment in which students with MMI received the majority of their instruction, χ^sup 2^(3, N = 186) = 18.692, p < .0005. Cramer's V was .317, which indicates that the relationship between these two is not negligible. Specifically, more students with MMI were reported to receive their education primarily in a self-contained setting in schools of class A than expected, fewer in a resource room, and also fewer educated primarily in a general education setting.

Examining the same variable for schools of class B size, the relationship between being in class B or not and the primary instructional environment for students with MMI approached statistical significance, χ^sup 2^(3, N = 186) = 6.854, p = .077, Cramer's V= .192. The same trend for instructional environment for students with MMI held true for class B schools, with more students being educated in self-contained settings than expected, and fewer in resource rooms and general education settings.

However, the reverse effect occurred for the two smaller school sizes, classes C and D. A statistically significant relationship existed between whether a school was class C or not and the instructional environment for students with MMI, χ^sup 2^(3, N = 186) = 10.355, p < .016, Cramer's V = .236. For schools in class C, more students were educated in a resource room and general education setting than expected, and fewer in a self-contained classroom. This opposite effect from schools of larger sizes (class A and B) was found for schools of class D size as well. Again, there was a statistically significant relationship between whether a school was class D or not and the primary instructional environment, χ^sup 2^(3, N = 186) = 10.671, p < .014, Cramer's V = .24.

Curriculum

Respondents gave a wide spread of responses on the most used curriculum for students with MMI. The highest percentage for any of the eight choices given on the survey was 23.8% (less than of the respondents), which identified a special education curriculum. Nineteen percent of respondents indicated a functional curriculum, 15.3% indicated a general education curriculum, 14.3% indicated a lower grade level curriculum, and 13.8% indicated a unique curriculum. Less than 5% of respondents indicated that there was no established curriculum for students with MMI (4.8%) or that they received another curriculum not specified (4.2%), which many indicated took place at an alternative school. Only 1.1% of respondents indicated that students received a vocational curriculum. These data suggest thai students with MMI are educated using a variety of curricular options. There is no clear agreement about what students with MMI should receive as curriculum.

The majority of students with MMI received math in special education classes (89.6%). Language arts were indicated to occur in the special education setting for students with MMI in 90.5% of responses. Social studies and science were reported to occur in the special education setting for more than 50% of respondents (66.7% and 66.1%, respectively). Study skills occurred in the special education setting in only 32.8% of the responses, electives in 18.5%, and other (unknown) in 25.4%.

In contrast to students with MMI, the most used curriculum for students with LD was overwhelmingly a general education curriculum, as indicated by almost 70% of respondents (69.3%). The second most used curriculum thai teachers indicated was a special education curriculum (12.2%), followed by a lower grade level curriculum (8.5%), and then a unique curriculum (4.8%). Vocational curriculum and no curriculum were each given as responses by 1.1% of teachers.

The majority of students with LD received math and language arts in the special education setting (79.9% and 83.6%, respectively). Just under half of the respondents indicated that students with LD received social studies, science, and study skills in the special education setting (42.3%, 45.5%, and 43.9%, respectively). Electives and other were reported to be given in the special education setting for students with LD by about 10% of respondents (10.6% and 9.0%, respectively).

The majority of respondents indicated thai students with MMI did not receive the same curriculum as students with LD. This occurred in about 71% of the responses, whereas 27% indicated that these two groups of students received the same curriculum at their high school. Students with MMI in smaller schools, such as class C and D, were more likely to receive the same curriculum as students with LD than in larger schools (i.e., class A and B). Specifically, for schools of class A, 14.9% indicated that these two groups received the same curriculum, whereas 28.6% did for class B, 37.8% for class C, and 38.1% for class D.

A statistically significant relationship was found between school size (whether a school was class A or not) and the most used curriculum for students with MMI when looking at the curriculum options of a functional curriculum, a general education curriculum, and other (which includes special education, lower grade, unique, vocational, no curriculum, and other), χ^sup 2^(3, N = 186) = 6.470, p = .039, Cramer's V= .187. Specifically, more students with MMI receive\d a functional curriculum in schools of class A than in schools of classes B, C, or D, and fewer students in schools of class A received a general education curriculum than in schools of classes B, C, or D.

No statistically significant relationships were found between other school sizes and the most used curriculum for students with MMI. Furthermore, no statistically significant relationships were found between school size and the most used curriculum for students with LD for any school size. The lack of statistical significance may be due to the low number of respondents, particularly when considering classes C and D.

Teacher Satisfaction

The majority of teachers reported that they were very satisfied with the special education services at their school. Specifically, 16.9% reported that they were very or completely satisfied, and 50.8% reported that they were satisfied. Only 6.3% reported that they were not very satisfied. However, fewer teachers were satisfied with the overall program for students with MMl at their school. Slightly more than 11% of respondents indicated that they were very or completely satisfied, and 45.5% reported that they were satisfied for programs for students with MMI. Yet 16.9% indicated that they were unsatisfied and 1.6% that they were completely or very unsatisfied with programs for students with MMl. More teachers were satisfied with the overall program for students with LD at their school. Nineteen percent were completely or very satisfied, and 48.7% were satisfied. Only 7.9% reported that they were not very satisfied, and no teacher indicated that he or she was very or completely unsatisfied.

The satisfaction that teachers reported for various aspects of the program for students with MMI was fairly consistent across the five categories that participants were queried about. Most participants were satisfied with the programs for students with MMI in terms of transition, socioemotional development, functional academics, content instruction, and life skills. However, around 10% of respondents indicated that they were not very satisfied with each of the five components. The results were similar for teachers' satisfaction with programs for students with LD; however, fewer teachers indicated that they were unsatisfied with each of the five components. The least satisfactory component of the program for students with LD was life skills, with about 20% of respondents indicating that they were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with this component.

Teachers indicated different levels of satisfaction for special education programs for students with LD and students with MMI. Specifically, the difference between the means of the satisfaction with programs for these two groups of students was statistically significant, i(356) = 3.21, p < .01. The effect size was relatively medium, d = .37. Whereas the overall satisfaction with the programs differed for the two groups, components of the programs also led to statistically significant differences in terms of teacher satisfaction. Specifically, two of the five components were statistically significant-content instruction and life skills instruction. Teachers indicated more satisfaction with content instruction for students with LD than for students with MMl, f(357) = 3.43, p < .001. The effect size indicated a moderately meaningful relationship, d = .42. Whereas teachers were more satisfied with content instruction for students with LD, they were less satisfied with life skills instruction for this population. Teacher satisfaction for life skills instruction for students with MMI was significantly higher than for students with LD, /(356) = 2.76, p < .01, d = .37, which indicated a relatively moderate relationship.

Areas of Improvement

When asked to indicate three areas of improvement out of a possible eight, the number one response from participants for their first choice of improving their practice was more preparation time (21.7%). This was followed by a more appropriate curriculum (20.1%) and improved collaboration (16.9%). However, when the top three choices were combined, the most popular response was improved collaboration, followed by a more appropriate curriculum, then more preparation time, and finally teaching to only one disability label. These findings support the results of Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) in Wisconsin-their survey found that teachers also ranked a more appropriate curriculum as the intervention with the most promise for improving practice. This was followed by more preparation time. Taken together, the results of Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002), Halpern and Benz (1987), and the current study indicate that a more coherent curriculum is needed for special education students at the secondary level-as teachers in multiple states and across multiple years and disability levels have reported, this is the first or second most important area for improvement. Furthermore, this particular research highlights the need for a constant curriculum for students with MMI.

DISCUSSION

Several major findings were revealed from the survey and warrant further exploration. These include (a) the need for a curriculum for students with MMI; (b) low levels of vocational education for both students with MMI and students with LD; (c) differential service options based on size of district; (d) low percentage of secondary classroom experience for teachers during their preparation stage; (e) low levels of inclusion; and (f ) lower levels of satisfaction with programs for students with MMI.

The need for a curriculum for students with MMI became apparent from the survey results. Clearly, there is no curricular option that is the consensus, with nearly equal percentages of teachers using the different curricular approaches. Furthermore, teachers in this survey indicated that a more appropriate curriculum was one of the top interventions for improving their practice, which replicates the results of previous studies (Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002; Halpern & Benz, 1987). Moreover, teachers reported that they were not as satisfied with the educational program for students with MMI as they were with the program for students with LD, which supports the need for a curriculum. The data from this study indicate that curricula for students with MMI are far from unified across teachers, vary depending on the size of the district, and are viewed as being less effective than curricula for students with LD.

It is imperative to look toward the future for students with MMI and understand the relationship between curriculum and their outcomes following high school, given the multitude of negative outcomes that research has shown to occur. Once curricular approaches are demonstrated to correlate with positive outcomes, they can be replicated to increase the beneficial outcomes for this population. More definitive studies would likely combine aspects of several curricular models and, over time, allow researchers to validate several differential impacts of the multiple curriculum alternatives for students with various learning profiles.

Low levels of vocational education for both students with MMI and students with LD, either as a curriculum or an instructional environment, are disappointing given the data on the number of these students who attend college (14.6% of students with any disability and only 2.5% of students with MMI; Kaye, 1997; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996). With so few students attending college, it would seem imperative that a greater emphasis on vocational education be evidenced in the data. The field of education should consider what these students are being prepared for in current educational settings (i.e., instructional environments) and determine the extent to which students should prepare for job and life skills in post secondary settings. The research on postsecondary outcomes for students in special education in general, and students with MMI specifically, indicates that greater attention should be paid to vocational and life skills (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997).

The results of the current study, which suggest drastically low levels of vocational education used for both populations of students, contradict research from 2 decades ago. In their study on secondary special education, Halpern and Benz (1987) found that a vocational education classroom was the second most used instructional environment. Sixteen years have made a tremendous difference in what is valued among the service delivery options that special education students receive in public schools. Whereas this trend should not be surprising given the greater emphasis on inclusion and higher accountability of academics, further studies are needed on the issues of what constitutes evidence-based intervention for these populations. The data, as well as recent legislation (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), point to a greater focus on academics, as opposed to other forms of education and training, such as vocational and even functional or life skills education.

The size of school districts influenced both instructional environments and curricular options. Although it may not be surprising that larger schools offer different resources than smaller schools, it illustrates that students in the same disability category will receive different curriculum and instructional environments depending on the school district in which they live. Moreover, students in both categories were more likely to receive the same curriculum if they attended a smaller school than a larger school. Students with MMI in schools of classes C and D were more than twice as likely to receive the same curriculum as students with LD than students in larger schools. A hypothesis for this finding is that smaller schools are less likely to be able to offer more curricular options-whether for financial or for other reasons. Therefo\re, with smaller schools, special education students are more likely to receive the same curriculum in the same instructional environment, regardless of disability category.

Placement options available to students with special needs appear to be a function of the resources available rather than of any evidence-based curriculum interventions. Currently, there is a lack of consensus across the state in terms of the educational programming at the secondary level for these two groups of special education students. For example, these findings suggest that in schools of class A and B, more students are educated in self- contained classrooms than students in schools of class C and D. A possible explanation is that smaller schools are not able to offer as many options on the continuum of special education services and, therefore, students are more likely to be placed in a resource room or general education setting, even though these students might benefit from a larger continuum of services.

The low percentage of teachers who had experience in working with secondary special education students prior to their first position is cause for concern. One of the cornerstones of recent legislation (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) is the goal of having a highly qualified teacher for every student. These data illustrate that just under half the teachers had experience with secondary students in undergraduate preparation prior to entering the workforce. In Michigan, secondary special education students are being educated by teachers of whom 47% had no prior practical experience.

The frequency data for curriculum and instructional environment reveal an interesting yet alarming mismatch, namely that inclusion as the instructional environment is used at much lower levels than are reported of its use as a curriculum (i.e., a general education curriculum). Less than 50% of teachers reported that the primary instructional environment for students with LD was the general education classroom, whereas only 10% of teachers responded that the primary instructional environment for students with MMI was the general education setting (either inclusion or co-taught class). However, almost 70% of respondents indicated a general education curriculum as the most used curriculum for students with LD, and 15.3% for students with MMI.

If a special education student is receiving a general education curriculum, why is he or she not in the general education setting (inclusion or co-taught)? To give a student a general education curriculum yet remove him or her from the general education setting is to place the student in a more restrictive environment. Furthermore, the data on inclusion are not consistent with the current rhetoric of inclusion and stipulations in the legislation that the general education setting should be the first setting considered. The data from this study indicate that students with MMI spend little time in inclusive settings.

The results reveal that teachers indicate lower levels of satisfaction for students with MMI than for students with LD. Although they did not indicate why, several possible explanations appear tenable. One is that the lack of an overarching curriculum for this population leads teachers to be less satisfied because there is not a general consensus on what they should be teaching and in what setting these students should be educated. Another hypothesis is that teachers feel less satisfied about the educational programming for these students as they themselves realize the disparity between what they are using as curriculum and the reality of the poor outcomes for these students in postsecondary settings (i.e., low rates of college attendance; low employment rates). Evidence for this hypothesis lies with the remarkably low levels of vocational education for students with MMI-a group of students of whom 97.5% do not attend any postsecondary education (Kaye, 1997).

CONCLUSION

To answer the research questions posed at the start of this study, the current state of educational programming for secondary students with MMI remains largely unknown. Evidence suggests that they are largely educated in self-contained settings, yet their curriculum is unclear, as no consensus was reached. In particular, there were differences in instructional environments and curriculum between students with MMI and students with LD. Respondents indicated an overall curricular approach for educating students with LD, suggesting that the vast majority spend their time either in resource room settings or general education settings, either inclusion or cotaught classes. This was in contrast to students with MMI.

Although differences were found in instructional environments and curriculum for students with MMI across school size classes, teacher variables resulted in no statistically significant relationships with these factors. Teacher variables examined included gender; degree held; number of years in teaching overall, teaching secondary special education, and teaching in current position; first endorsement held; and whether they held any endorsement in mental impairment. The lack of statistically significant relationships between teacher characteristics and instructional environments, curriculum, and satisfaction with programming may suggest that teacher characteristics do not necessarily influence the educational programming that students receive and thus that other factors are more important, such as school and district variables or local context variables.

Finally, there was a range of feelings in terms of preparedness; in general, secondary special education teachers felt somewhat prepared, although definitely less so for students with MMI. Teachers were also less satisfied with the educational programming for students with MMI. All these findings support the overall conclusion that more research needs to be done in the area of secondary special education for students with MMI.

Practical Implications

In addition to the practical implications previously discussed, the premise of this survey rested on the contention that the data for students with MMI should be disaggregated from the data on students with LD to enable a more accurate picture of the educational programming for students with MMI. The results from the survey confirm this argument, namely that we cannot continue to aggregate the data for these two populations. Teachers' responses to the questions on curricular approaches and instructional environments reveal that these two groups are receiving very different educational programs. Although more similarities between programs for students with MMI and programs for students with LD were found to occur in smaller schools, the levels still did not support the aggregation of data on these groups. Although some might believe that the two groups have similar needs when they have the same future goals, these data illustrate that the services are clearly not similar. It follows that data that combine these groups to report results will fail to give an accurate picture of either group. The field cannot truly know the educational programming for either group if aggregation continues.

The field must continue to assess what is appropriate curriculum for secondary students with MMI and what counts as curriculum. In the era of using evidence-based educational tools, it is imperative that the same standard be applied to students with MMI, suggesting that with the range of curricular options being used, it is feasible that not all are supported by research-if any exists-to show their ability to improve the outcomes for students with MMI. Furthermore, teachers, parents, and researchers must examine what is the ideal curriculum for secondary students with MMI. If a general education curriculum is the desired curriculum, teachers and researchers must analyze how to better gain access for this population (e.g., by providing student helpers). However, if a functional curriculum is deemed to be the ideal curriculum, then critical components of this curriculum must be studied, and an examination of the best instructional environment to ensure success with this curriculum needs to be undertaken.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of the survey and research design that warrant attention. One limitation of this research is the return rate, which has been considered by some to be insufficient. In particular, there is controversy about return rates and how far one can generalize findings with a 50% return rate. The purpose of this study was to explore secondary special education and illuminate some trends, challenges, and suggestions for future research. This study focused on a single state, Michigan, and, therefore, the ability to generalize the results to other states is limited. The outcomes for students with disabilities are a national concern, as are the challenges posed by the No Child Left Behind Act to show accountability for all. It seems logical that if states want to determine whether an educational program works, they must first know what it is.

This survey on secondary special education for students with MMI and LD was mailed together with another survey on secondary special education, which addressed highincidence disabilities and teacher preparation. The joint mailing of these surveys may have negatively affected the return rate of this survey, as some participants chose to respond by commenting that they had already filled out one (i.e., the one on high-incidence disabilities and teacher preparation) when contacted during follow-ups. Another limitation is that the data consist of self-reports by teachers, and the accuracy of self- report data needs to be taken into consideration, particularly when considering such variables as school setting (urban, rural, suburban, etc.) and the types of curriculum that students receive. The possibility exists that teachers may report whatthey believe the researcher wants, what they feel their district would want them to say, or something that would make them look like better teachers and, thus, preserve their self-concept.

Future research should explore the topics of curriculum and instructional environments for secondary students with MMI and LD. In particular, a multistate or national project to examine the components of the survey is in order. A Webbased survey could be created, based on the same content, to assess if the concerns raised about secondary special education for students with MMI are a national trend. Specifically, a qualitative analysis should be conducted to further explore the contradictions between the results from this study and what is believed to be current common practice, such as the discrepancy between teachers' reports of the use of a general education curriculum and the placement in the general education setting as an instructional environment. Furthermore, a more qualitative approach should be taken to analyze the curricular approaches and instructional environments thai respondents reported, both to serve as a check of the selfreports and to tease out differences among the same curriculum and instructional environment options. Specifically, an in-depth examination of programs from respondents should be completed to obtain a better understanding of a special education curriculum (the most used curriculum for students with MMI) as well as a unique curriculum.

Future research should also examine how different curricular options and instructional environments relaie to outcomes for students with MMI and LD in order to highlight the best practices for these populations. Specifically, correlations should be examined between such outcomes as employment, independent living, and life satisfaction and the different curricular approaches and instructional environments used for students with MMI.

Further research should also explore the areas in which the results from this study refuted the findings from previous research. For example, low rates of vocational education were reported for its use both as a curricular option and as an instructional environment, which contradicts research from 2 decades ago. Research should be conducted to assess why this decrease in vocational education for students with low rates of postsecondary education attendance has occurred.

Furthermore, research should continue to untangle the effects of aggregating special education categories. Studies on the educational programming for secondary special education students should be conducted in a disaggregated fashion. The aggregation of data for secondary students willi MMI may be serving to mask the unique needs of this population of special education students. The data from this study clearly demonstrate that these students are educated in different instructional environments and receive different curricular approaches. In the current era of accountability, the time may have come to reexamine what counts as effective practice for a population of students who do appear to have become the "forgotten ones."

APPENDIX

INVESTIGATING SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND LEARNING DISABILITIES

APPENDIX

INVESTIGATING SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND LEARNING DISABILITIES

APPENDIX

INVESTIGATING SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND LEARNING DISABILITIES

NOTE

The number of surveys sent was based on a proportion from the number of eligible schools in each class, with the sample size to represent a 95% confidence interval with a 3% sampling error with a 50/50 split, which means "the population is relatively varied" (Salant & Dillman, 1994).

REFERENCES

American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Definition and fact sheets on 2002 AAMR definition of mental retardation. Retrieved August 18, 2002, from http://www.aamr.org/Policies/ faq_mental_retardation. shtml

Beckman, P. (2002). Strategy instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED474302).

Benz, M. R., & Halpern, A. H. (1986). Vocational preparation for high school students with mild disabilities: A statewide study of administrator, teacher, and parent perceptions. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,9, 3-15.

Benz, M. R., & Halpern, A. (1987). Transition services for secondary students with mild disabilities: A statewide perspective. Exceptional Children, 53, 507-514.

Bigge, J. (1988). Curriculum based instruction for special education students. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Branstad, T., Acosta, A., Bartlett, S., Berdine, W., Butterfield, P., Chambers, J., et al. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education.

Brown, C., Browning, P., & Dunn, C. (1992). secondary special education programs in Alabama: A statewide survey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 681)

Childs, R. E. (1981). Perceptions of mainstreaming by regular classrooms teachers who teach mainstreamed educable mentally retarded students in the public schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 225-227.

Conderman, G. J., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 169-179.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable? Exceptional Children, 63, 555-561.

Epstein, M. H., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Foley, R. (1

Source: Remedial and Special Education; RASE

More News in this Category