This study examined the patterns of contact among 12 students with deaf-blindness and their non-disabled age peers at school. Data revealed that students engaged in a mean of sligthly less that 90 minutes of time per day in social contact with their non-disabled age peers. Students engaged in this socially integrated time across three environments: special education; general education; and the community in general. Contact with increased numbers of age peers was found to be positively correlated with only the time spent in general education settings. Further, it was discovered that many students with deaf-blindness, including those with the highest amounts of socially integrated times, were not developing stable (repeating) contacts with any of their peers. The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to measuring valued outcomes associated with inclusive or integrated education for students with deaf-blindness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiklenD. (1988). The myth of clinical judgment. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 127–140.
2.
BrownL.LongE.Udvari-SolnerA.DavisL.Van DeventerP.AhlgrenC.JohnsonF.GruenewaldL., & JorgensenJ. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 1–7.
3.
BullisM., & OtosM. (1988). Characteristics of programs for children with deaf-blindness: Results of a national survey. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(2), 110–115.
4.
CEC ends inclusion debate with conditional endorsement. (1993, April21). Special Education Report, p. 5.
5.
GiangrecoM. F. & PutnamJ. W. (1991). Supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in regular education environments. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A., & BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 245–269). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
GilbertT. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
HaringT. G., & BreenC. (1989). Units of analysis of social interaction outcomes in supported education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(4), 255–262.
8.
HatlenP. (1989). Meeting the unique needs of visually impaired pupils. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from Joint Action Committee of Organizations of and For the Visually Handicapped, 1835 San Ramon Ave., Berkeley, CA 94707.)
9.
JenkinsJ. R.PiousC. G., & JewellM. (1990). Special education and the Regular Education Initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children, 56(6), 479–491.
10.
KennedyC. H.HornerR. H., & NewtonJ. S. (1990). The social networks and activity patterns of adults with severe disabilities: A correlational analysis. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(2), 86–90.
11.
LeBaronN. M. (1989). Social network data collection for six adults with disabilities. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
12.
LloydJ. W.SinghN. N., & ReppA. C. (Eds.). (1991). The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.
13.
National Association of State Board of Education Directors (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools (The report of the NASBE study group on special education). Alexandria, VA: Author.
14.
PeckC. A. (1991). Linking values and science in social policy decisions affecting citizens with severe disabilities. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A., & BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 1–17). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
PeckC. A.DonaldsonJ., & PezzoliM. (1990). Some benefits nonhandicapped adolescents perceive for themselves from their social relationships with peers who have severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 291–249.
16.
RomerL. T., & WhiteJ. (1994). The effect of peer mediated social competency on the frequency of social contacts of students with deaf-blindness. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, College of Education, Seattle, WA.
17.
SailorW.AndersonJ. L.HalvorsenA. T.DoeringK.FillerJ., & GoetzL. (1989). The comprehensive local school: Regular education for all students with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
SarasonB. R.SarasonI. G., & PierceG. R. (Eds.). (1990). Social support: An interactional view. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19.
SnellM. E. (1991). Schools are for all kids: The importance of integration for students with severe disabilities and their peers. In LloydJ. W.SinghN. N., & ReppA. C. (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 133–148). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.
20.
TaylorS. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(1), 41–53.
21.
WillM. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–416.
