An Outcome Measure for Social Goals of Inclusion

Abstract

Teachers in rural areas are finding that more and more special needs children are being included in their K-12 classrooms to comply with the mandate for a free and appropriate public education even in isolated small school systems. For students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) this placement is meant to accomplish both the academic and the social goals in their individualized educational programs (IEP). Measuring progress in the achievement of social goals is less straightforward than measuring academic improvements. This study used a simple sociometric assessment technique to measure how much general education peers socially accepted the students with MID in the general education setting. At the time of this study, the students with MID were placed in general education classrooms using the old “mainstreaming” model for a minimal length of time in a limited number of nonacademic settings. The participants were 61 students with MID and their 286 general education peers. Preservice special education teachers were trained to use nominal sociometry to measure peer acceptance. The data were aggregated for statistical analysis. The procedure used was counting the number of students who were not named at least once as a friend by general education peers during two opportunities. The findings were that only 43% of the students with MID were named at least once by a nondisabled peer while 85% of general education students were chosen at least once. There were no differences by gender or educational level. These data can provide a baseline for school systems desiring to measure the effectiveness of inclusion programs in rural elementary, middle or secondary schools. The newer inclusion programs that increase the amount of time that students with MID spend in general education with appropriate supports should have better social outcomes when measured in a similar manner.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asher,

S.R.

, & Taylor,

A.R.

(1981). Social outcomes of mainstreaming: Sociometric assessment and beyond. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1, 13–30.

Blake,

R. R.

, & McCanse,

A.A.

(1989). The rediscovery of sociometry. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 42(3), 148–165.

Boschee,

M.A.

(1996). The effects of sociometric and nonsociometric grouping on students' social acceptance and small group verbal interaction. Exceptional Research Quarterly, 20, 23–35.

Boyer,

W.A.

(1997). Folklore or rural truth: Rural teachers have always practiced inclusion. Exceptionality, 7(1), 61–63.

Boyer,

W.A.

& Bandy,

(1997). Rural teachers' perceptions of the current state of inclusion: Knowledge, training, teaching practices, and adequacy of support systems. Exceptionality, 7(1), 1–18.

Bryant,

, Dean,

, Elrod,

, & Blackbourn,

(1999). Rural general education teachers' opinions of adaptations for inclusive classrooms: A renewed call for dual licensure. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(1), 5–12.

Chalmers,

, Faliede,

(1997). Successful inclusion of students with mild/moderate disabilities in rural school settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29 (1), 22–26).

Cook,

, Drennan,

, & Drennan,

(1997). Peer evaluation as a real life learning tool. The Technology Teacher, October, 23–27.

Fredrickson,

, & Furnham,

. (1998a). Sociometric-status-group classification of mainstreamed children who have moderate learning difficulties: An investigation of personal and environmental factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 772–283.

10.

Fredrickson,

, & Furnham,

(1998b). Use of sociometric techniques to assess the social status of mainstreamed children with learning difficulties. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124, 381–434.

11.

Hamilton,

, Fuchs,

, & Roberts,

(2000). Rates of classroom participation and the validity of sociometry. School Psychology Review, 29, 251–267.

12.

Hooper,

, Pankake,

, & Schroth,

(1999). Inclusion in rural school districts: Where is the superintendent? Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(1), 23–28.

13.

Horne,

M.D.

(1981). Assessment of classroom status: Using the perception of social closeness scale. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 200616).

14.

Iverson,

& Barton,

(1997). Analysis of risk to children participating in a sociometric task. Developmental Psychology, 33, 104–113.

15.

Leyser,

& Tappendorf,

(2001). Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121, 751–761.

16.

Ludlow,

(1998). Preparing special education personnel for rural schools: Current practices and future directions. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14 (2), 57–75.

17.

McEvoy,

M. A.

, & Odom,

S. L.

(1987). Social interaction training for preschool children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 252–263.

18.

Mendelson,

(1989). The Sociometric Vision. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 42 (3), 138–147.

19.

Pretty,

, Rapley,

, & Bramston,

(2002). Neighbourhood and community experience, and the quality of life of rural adolescents with and without an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 27 (2), 106–116.

20.

Ray,

, & Cohen,

(1995). Best friends networks of children across settings. Child Study Journal, 25, 169–189.

21.

Ritter,

, Michel,

, & Irby,

(1999). Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(2), 10–17.

22.

Sale,

, & Carey,

D.M.

(1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6–19.

23.

Salend,

S. J.

(1994). Effective mainstreaming: Creating inclusive classrooms. New York: Macmillan.

24.

Tate,

(2000). Court decisions and IDEA 1997 compliance issues that affect special education programs in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(2), 3–9.

25.

Treadwell,

, Kumar,

, Stein,

, & Prosnick,

(1998). Sociometry: Tools for research and practice. International Journal of Action Methods, 51(1), 23–41.