Abstract
Purpose. The primary purposes of the study were: (1) to identify what issues are most likely to shape the field of Special Education in the state of California, and (2) to determine how four groups of Special Education Planners perceive these identified issues in terms of Probability of Occurrence, Time of Occurrence, and Importance to Special Education. Methodology. Issues were identified through a review of the literature and interviews. A two-round Modified Delphi Technique was employed to gather data. A questionnaire was developed by the researcher and mailed to four groups of Special Education Planners, namely, Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Administrators, members of the California Association of Professors of Special Education (CAPSE), selected parents of handicapped children, and selected consultants from the California State Department of Education. Data received in the second round from the four separate response groups were statistically analyzed to determine how they perceived the Probability, Time, and Importance of the stated issues. In addition, One-Way Analysis of Variance was performed to determine whether there were statistically significant mean differences among the four groups. Findings. Fourteen of the eighty issues rated high both in Probability and Importance by three or more of the groups. The majority of the issues were perceived to occur between 1986 and 1991. Overall, a moderate degree of disagreement was evident between the four groups of Special Education Planners. The Importance category proved to be the response mode with a slightly higher degree of agreement among groups. The Parent group differed most often from the other three groups. Conclusions. (1) Issues viewed high in Importance and Probability by Special Education Planners are issues most likely to be pursued in their future planning. (2) A greater number of issues were rated higher in Importance than Probability. (3) Differences in emphasis in the day-to-day roles of the four groups may account for some differences in perceptions. (4) The groups' differences suggest that there is a need for dialogue about the issues of the future and for the inclusion of all appropriate personnel in that planning dialogue. Recommendations. (1) Special Education professionals should examine these findings in consideration of future planning. (2) Members should examine the responses within their group. (3) Particular attention should be given to the responses obtained from the Parent group because of their political potency. (4) Alternative solutions must be sought to resolve issues which attained high Importance and low Probability ratings.