DOCUMENT RESUME EC 142 456 AUTHOR Hargrcve, Erwin C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 217 585 EC 142 456 AUTHOR Hargrcve, Erwin C.; AndOthers TITLE Regulations and Schools:The Implementation ofEqual Education for HandicappedChildren. INSTITUTION Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville,TN. Inst. for Public Policy Studies. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education(ED), Washington, PUB DATE Mar 81 DC. GRANT NIE-G-79-0037 NOTE 304p.; Print is light inparts and may not reproduce well. EDRS PRICE MF01/PC13 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Administrator Role; Boardof Education Policy, *Compliance (Legal); *Disabilities; Elementary . Secondary Education; *FederalLegislation; Federal State Relationship; IndividualizedEducation Programs; Mainstreaming;Program Implementation; *School Districts;State School District Relationship; Surveys IDENTIFIERS *Education for AllHandicapped ChildrenAct ABSTRACT The study examines the implementation of P.L.94-142, the Education for AllHandicapped ChildrenAct, in one metropolitan school system. The firstsection details the background, enactment, judicial and legislative and politics of implementationof the law. Chapter 2 reviews theoriesand research about educational change, and the conditions for describes the study'sresearch design in which 9 sample and7 case study schools district and implementation were selected from 67 in the criteria designated.The school district from which the schoolswere chosen is examined in which touches the third chapter on merits and disadvantagesof the administrative structure, the history ofspecial education in implementation strategies the district, and employed. The next twochapters focuson implementation factors inthe elementary and selected, with overview secondary schools of each of the school'sstudent population, administrative climate,teacher morale, and special education. rate of referral to Among findings were thathigh performingschools shared a commitment andability to meet individual as well as a differentiated needs of children program structure; and that schools were shown to secondary be very limited in thespecial education services they offeredand in the handicapped A final chapter summarizes populations they served. implementatonprogress and problems in the following areas: childfind/referral; provision least restrictive environment; of services in the staffings and individualizededucation programs; the school district;the general experience the federal, state, of P.L. 94-142; and local role; andstrategies of leadershipat the local level. Amongthe study's conclusions found to change are that ways must be grass root routines; completefederal delegation to the states of responsibilityfor implementing the abdication of federal law would be an responsibility; andimplementationmay be only indirectly, if at all,related to favorable (CL) outcomes for children. U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION co CENTER tERIE Trhs document has been rebrorloGectas re, elven iron' thO person or onjaveratIon or J11100 t Vhnor changes h rye been made tornpro,e te,)O0, n 01.13 111/ e--4 Prenrs of VOW of othmons stated vn INS(10(11 c\J mem (10 not nes essdr Iv represent ottCrat ME oosaron Ur 001105 uJ REGULATIONS AND SCHOOLS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EQUAL EDUCATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN Erwin C. Hargrove, Scarlett G. Graham, Leslie E. Ward, Virginia Abernethy, Joseph Cunningham, and WilliamK. Vaughn INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Vanderbilt University March 1981 "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHIS MATERIAL HAS BEENGRANTED BY -7/ TO THE EDUCATION, RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTERMAIM." REGULATIONS AND SCHOOLS: THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF EQUAL EDUCATION FOR HANDICAPPEDCHILDREN Erwin C. Hargrove, Scar lett G.Graham, Leslie E. Ward, Virginia Abernethy, Joseph Cunningham,and William K. Vaughn 1 INSTITUTE E FOR PUBLICPOLICY STUDIES Vanderbilt University March 1981 The contents of this report were developed with support ofa grant (C-79-0037) from the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department ofEducation. The views expressed are those of the authors only; thereport does not represent the policy of the Department and no endorsement shouldbe assumed. el () Copyright 0 Erwin Hargrove March 1981 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ?REFACE iii FOREWORD 1 Chapter I. BACKGROUND, ENACTMENT, ANDIMPLEMENTATION OF P.L. 94-142 . 6 Empirical Research and Professional Thougt. 6 Judicial History 11 Legislative History 17 The Politics of Implementation 27 II. MODELING THE SCHOOL SYSTE' 46 The World of the School 50 School Systems and Schools 58 Higher Government, School Systems and Schools 64 Research Design 70 Criteria c.,f Implementation 79 THE SCHOOL SYSTEM 87 The History of Special Education in the District 98 Strategies of Implementation 100 Implementation in the Second Year 107 Strategic Perspectives 114 A Bird's Eye View of theDistrict 119 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 126 Isolating the ImplementatiOnProcess in the Schools. 127 Criteria of Implementation 128 Overviews of SixteenSchools 140 Indepe:Ident Variables 151 The Independent Variables in the Schools 156 Analysis 165 Post Script 172 V. SECONDARY SCHOOLS 176 o Secondary Schools as Educational Organizations 178 Implementation Differences in the Secondary Schools. 179 Performance Criteria in the Secondary Schools 182 Performance Differences Among the Secondary Schools. 183 Secondary Schools and Organizational Factors Influencing Implementation 201 VI. PICTURES OF THE FUTURE 205 Child Find/Referral 208 Provision of Services in the Least Restrictive Environment 209 Staffings and Individualized Education Programs 210 The School District 211 The General Experience of 94-142 214 The Federal Role 219 The State Role 226 The LocAl Role 228 Strategies of Leadership at the Local Level 233 Con,:lusion 242 APPENDIX Survey Questionnaires 249 APPENDIX II Interview Schedules 264 0 Preface Tnis study is the result of the hap;:collaboration of :nree political scientists, an anthropologist, a special educator anda statistician. For more than two years, we havebeen a research family with hign moments ofdis- covery and serendipity, andtense moments of disagreement and argument. But our cohesion has permittedus to face and resolve disagreements in ways that, we hope, have improved the book. The research was supported by the Program forResearch on Organizational Processes in Education of the National Instituteof Education. We are very grateful to Dr. FritzMulhauser, the director ) of that program, for hissub stantive intellectual help at every stage ofour work. We would wish all scholars to be so fortunate. Three individual consultants were of special help at differenttimes in our work: Professor Ronald Corwin of The Ohio StateUniversity, Professor Ricrard Elmore of TheUniversity of Washington and Dr. James Marver,then of SRI international. Mesdames Mary Leblon, Janice Jones and DianaShrum were marvelous secretaries at different stages in thework. Ms. Sv.san Van Riper was a skillful and thorougheditor. Mrs. Lottie Strupp keptcur budgets in order with great efficiency. We would liketo thank the hundreds of subjects of this study,who are not identified, for theircourteous and continuous cooperation. We hope that this bookwill be of interest to persons interested inthe implementation of policy ingeneral and special education in particular. The responsibility for itserrors and limitat:ons are, of course, ourown. E.C. Hargrove S. G. Graham L. E. Ward V. Abernethy J. Cunningh,,m W. K. Vaugh.1 March, 1931 1 Foreword There is a "missing link" in the implementation of federalsocial pro- grams that have a regulatory component.' Local governments must comply with the law, as expressed in federal regulations. But, full compliance in social programs often requires organizational change inthe institutions which deliver services that is beyond the capacityof the law, regulations and federal administrr(torsto create. In some regulatory programs, compliance does not recluiremuch organiza- tional change. For examp12, the Voting RightsAct of 1965 required southern states to register black citizens as voters. This was a one-timeact of com- pliance which could becomethe new norm. Furthermore, if the states didnot comply, the Justice Department could remove loLalvoting registrars and sub- stitute its own, It was thus within the capacity of the federalgovernment to carry out the law. There was no missing link. lost federal regulatory and social legislation doesnot provide for this federal capacity. Pious and rhetorical statutory phraseology disguisesa shortcoming which not even the imperious tone of bureaucraticregulations can ,orrect. Thi: isa case study of the implementation of P.L. 9,-1=.2 (The Educa- tion of Al. Handicapped Children Act bf 19'5) which Locuseson the "missing link" in one metrIpolitanschool system,: 'e m lit=ik is not easily identified. Paul Berman and Milbrey ilth...ire the distihcticn between the adoption of a program bya s:hc)ol sy-;t:m Ast.t its actual imblemontution.3 The are wri:1-ig about curricular w.6,:11, wore promulgated, p., notrocIdired, h the :ederal?..ice 0; 0.t..1::01. tchools formally a,loptnew curricular mav fail 2 implement them, in thesense that the new ideas and proceduresare never incorporated into practice. Berman and McLaughlin describea process of - "mutual adaptation" between thenew program and local norms as a necessary characteristic of implementation. Adoption of a program isnever automatic. This means that federal intentmay be modified in practice if implementation is to take place. However, the were not mandated and itis quite I possible that curricular innov tionis stye gthened by mutual