This descriptive study investigated the impact of special education policy on the school day of three disadvantaged, rural students with severe disabilities. A constant comparative method of single and cross-site data analysis revealed that the product of policy was a day with little or no instruction and limited opportunities for peer interaction. Barriers to policy implementation included shortage of personnel, weak political influence of poor families, and lack of positive service examples.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonL. E., & LazarsfeldP. F. (1969). Qualitative data as sources of hypotheses. In McCallG. J., & SimmonsJ. L. (Eds.), Issues in participant observation (pp. 163–196). New York: Random House.
2.
CondonM. (1983). Alternative instructional arrangements and delivery systems for low-incidence handicapped children.Bellingham, WA: National Rural Development Institute.
3.
De YoungA. J. (1987). The status of American rural education research: An integrated review and commentary.Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 123–148.
4.
EdgertonE. B. (1984). The participant-observer approach to research in mental retardation.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 498–505.
5.
FirestoneW. A., & HerriottR. C. (1984). Multi-site qualitative policy research: Some design and implementation issues. In FettermanD. M. (Ed.), Ethnography in educational evaluation (pp. 63–88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
GlaserB. G., & Stra.ussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.New York: Aldine.
7.
HelgeD. I. (1984). Models for serving rural students with low-incidence handicapping conditions.Exceptional Children, 50, 313–324.
8.
HelgeD. I. (1986). Sample strategies used to serve rural students in the least restrictive environment.Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA: American Council on Rural Special Education.
9.
HodgkinsonH. L. (1988). Facing the future: Demographics and statistics to manage today's schools for tomorrow's, children.The School Administrator, 8(45), 25–31.
10.
LaGrowS. J., & Prochnow-LaGrowJ. E. (1983). Consistent methodological errors observed in single-case studies: Suggested guidelines.Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 7, 481–488.
11.
McKenzieH. S., HillM., SousieS., YorkR., & BakerK. (1977). Special education training to facilitate rural, community-based programs for the severely handicapped. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 96–109). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Mental Retardation.
12.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). (1987). Implementation of the Education of Handicapped Act (Public Law 94–142). Ninth annual report to Congress.Washington, DC: Division of Innovation and Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 355).
13.
ReevesS. M. (1988, April 27). “Self-interest and the common weal”: Focusing on the bottom half.Education Week, pp. 14–21.
14.
ReppA. C., NieminenG. S., OlingerE., & BruscaR. (1988). Direct observation: Factors affecting the accuracy of observers.Exceptional Children, 55, 29–36.
15.
Schatzman,L, & StraussA. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
SingerG. J. (1984). An alternative to the institution for young people with severely handicapping conditions in a rural community.The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 251–261.
17.
SpradleyJ. R. (1979). The ethnographic interview.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
18.
SpradleyJ. R. (1980). Participant observation.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
19.
StainbackS., & StainbackW. (1984). Broadening the research perspective in special education.Exceptional Children, 50, 400–408.
20.
The Homecoming Project. (1988). The homecoming model: Educating students who present intensive educational challenges within regular education environments.Burlington, VT: Center for Developmental Disabilities, University of Vermont.
21.
WeatherleyR.A. (1979). Reforming special education: Policy implementation from state level to street level.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research design and methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
