Abstract
Problem and purpose. The purpose of this study was to describe the use of four recommended planning and implementation strategies: (1) policy development or modification, (2) the development of programmatic guidelines, (3) the development of job roles and responsibilities, and (4) the development of service delivery models and resource allocation procedures, used in selected California school districts implementing Full Inclusion programs. This study also investigated the type of involvement that administrators of special education, principals, and teachers had in the development of the implementation strategies for Full Inclusion. In particular the roles of leader, participant, advocate, decision maker, and evaluator were targeted in this study. Methodology. Descriptive research was the methodology used in this study. A questionnaire was developed to survey school districts in California which were identified as districts that were implementing Full Inclusion programs. The entire population of school districts (sixty-one) located who met specific criteria were the sample for the study. District administrators of special education returned 72 percent of the questionnaires. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data was conducted. Findings and conclusions. More than 50 percent of districts had developed some new policies that would facilitate the inclusion of disabled students; however, it was noted by 21 percent of the districts that they had begun to implement prior to establishing policies. Policies for program evaluation were absent in 75 percent of the districts surveyed. Generally, districts had developed programmatic guidelines and the districts had changed the roles and responsibilities of school personnel to facilitate Full Inclusion. No specific service delivery model was selected for use by a majority of the districts. Resource allocation procedures remained unchanged. Administrators of special education were most often the leaders of their district's inclusion projects, while principals' and teachers' main role was as participants in planning and implementation activities. The role of evaluator was not generally performed. It was concluded that districts implementing Full Inclusion are restructuring not reforming education for disabled students, and more technical support is needed by the State Department of Education; a clear policy on Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) needs to be developed. The four recommended planning and implementation activities do not appear to be sufficient if districts want to reform special education. Recommendations. Districts planning to design and implement Full Inclusion programs should make an effort to establish a task force to investigate the existence of necessary policies, program practices and procedures for allocating resources prior to operating their Full Inclusion programs. Special attention needs to be paid to developing program evaluation procedures and criteria. Districts need to clearly define their expectations for Full Inclusion programs and not assume that the presence of such a program will result in radical reform of the current dual educational system.