No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Education of Students With High Support Needs: Teachers’ Perceptions of Possible Best Practices, Reported Implementation and Training Needs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2016
Abstract
Teachers of students with severe disabilities in three NSW Department of School Education regions were surveyed to obtain their views on a set of 42 statements reflecting possible “best practices” in the education of students with severe disabilities. Teachers were also surveyed regarding their reported extent of implementation of each practice, their training needs and the perceived barriers to implementation. A total of 99 responses were received, 83 of which were appropriately targeted. Results indicated that teachers agreed for the most part with the statements but reported they were not always able to implement fully every practice for reasons such as inadequate staffing, lack of time, insufficient funds and inadequate access to therapy services. Teachers indicated that their greatest needs for inservicing were in the areas of managing challenging behaviour and teaching communication and social skills.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1998
References
Atkins, K., Campbell, R., & Hartley, V. (1987). A comprehensive analysis of Mississippi Public School Educational Programs for School Age Children and Youth with Severe Handicaps.
Hattiesburg, Ml: Mississippi University Affiliated Program, University of Southern Mississippi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 334).Google Scholar
Arick, J., Falco, R., & Brazeau, K. (1989). Prioritizing inservice needs for educators of students with severe handicaps in heterogeneous integrated settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 371–380.Google Scholar
Ayres, B., Meyer, L., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84–93.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N.
Arthur, M., & Linfoot, K. (1992). Meeting teacher needs in communication programming for students with severe intellectual disability: The Creating Communicative Contexts Manual. Special Education Perspectives, 1, 35–43.Google Scholar
Corporate Information Services, NSW Department of School Education. (1995). Statistical bulletin: Schools and students in New South Wales mid year 1994. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of School Education.Google Scholar
Eichinger, J., & Downing, J. (1992). An administrator and teacher perspective on Program Quality Indicators for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 17, 213–217.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, A., & Sailor, W. (1990). Integrating students with severe and profound disabilities: A review of research. In
Gaylord-Ross, R. (Ed.), Issues and research in special education (pp. 110–172). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, P., Haring, K., Farron-Davis, F., Staub, D., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., Karasoff, P., & Sailor, W. (1992). Educational practices in integrated settings associated with positive student outcomes. San Francisco, CA: California Research Institute, San Francisco State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 056).Google Scholar
Izen, C., & Brown, F. (1991). Education and treatment needs of students with profound, multiply handicapping, and medically fragile conditions: A survey of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, W., Kleber, R., Wade, J. & George, R. (1989). Results of the survey: “Optimal Practice Inventory for the Severely Handicapped including Deaf/Blind”. Tene Haute, IN: Indiana State University. Blumberg Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 174).Google Scholar
Meyer, L., & Eichinger, J. (1994). Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with disabilities (3rd ed.). New York: School of Education, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Meyer, L., Eichinger, J., & Downing, J. (1992). Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. (2nd ed.). New York: School of Education, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Meyer, L., Eichinger, J., & Park-Lee, S. (1987). A validation of Program Quality Indicators in education services for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NSW Department of School Education (1988). Curriculum statement for the education of students with severe intellectual disability. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of School Education.Google Scholar
Parmenter, T., & Mattock, D. (1992). Special education evaluation 1992: The effectiveness of secondary school support classes for students with a mild intellectual disability. Sydney, NSW: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Rees, R., Kelsall, C., Blackwood, G., & Ward, T. (1992). An examination of instructional time provided to severely and multiply handicapped students: Factors which contribute to maximizing instructional time. Paper presented at the 16th National Conference of the Australian Association of Special Education, Perth, WA.Google Scholar
Scott, B. (1990). School-centred education: Building a more responsive state school system. Milsons Point, NSW: The Management Review, NSW Education Portfolio.Google Scholar
Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1996). Collaborative teams: Reality bites. Special Education Perspectives, 5, 3–8.Google Scholar
Williams, W., Fox, T., Thousand, J., & Fox, W. (1990). Level of acceptance and implementation of best practices in the education of students with severe handicaps in Vermont. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 120–131.Google Scholar