Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-01T10:17:30.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teachers’ Perceptions of Possible Best Practices, Reported Implementation and Training Needs for Students with High Support Needs: Comparisons Across Qualification Status and Teacher Location

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Mark Carter ,
Susanne E. Chalmers ,
Mark Clayton  and
Julie Hook
Mark Carter*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW
Susanne E. Chalmers
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Education and Training
Mark Clayton
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW
Julie Hook
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW
*
Address for correspondence: Mark Carter, Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Phone 61 2 9850-7880. Fax 61 2 9850-8254. Email: mark.carter@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports a further analysis of data presented by Chalmers, Carter, Clayton and Hook (in press) that examined teachers’ perceptions of possible best practice, reported implementation and training needs. Teachers of students with severe disabilities in 3 NSW Department of School Education regions were surveyed with 83 useable surveys being returned. Comparisons were made between teachers who worked in Schools for Specific Purposes (SSP) and those who working in support classes in regular schools as well as teachers with formal special education qualifications and those without such qualifications. Teachers in support classes reported a higher level of agreement with a majority of practices and disproportionately high levels of implementation when compared with teachers in SSPs. Teachers with formal special education qualifications reported higher levels of agreement than teachers without formal qualifications on the majority of items, but implementation levels were similar. There also appeared to be systematic differences in reported inservice training needs. Inadequacies in therapy services were reported as a barrier to best practice by over 50% of support class teachers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , 1998 , pp. 50 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Browder, D., Demchak, M., Heller, M., & King, D. (1989). An in vivo evaluation of the use of data-based rules to guide instructional decisions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, E., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J., Kemp, D., & Smith, C. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behavior: A user’s guide for producing positive change. Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.Google Scholar
Chalmers, S., Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (in press). Education of students with high support needs: Teachers’ perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs. Australasian Journal of Special Education.Google Scholar
Doss, L., & Reichle, J. (1991). Replacing excess behavior with an initial communicative repertoire. In Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (Eds.), Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 215–237). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.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
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
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
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
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