Improving Attitudes Toward the Handicapped

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 08 October 2014, At: 02:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Improving Attitudes Toward theHandicappedShirley Cohen aa Director of the Special Education Development Center andassistant professor at Hunter College, City University , NewYorkPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Shirley Cohen (1977) Improving Attitudes Toward the Handicapped, TheEducational Forum, 42:1, 9-20

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131727709338148

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131727709338148

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Improving Attitudes Toward the Handicapped

SHIRLEY COHEN

or many years special education was an isolated, marginal category of education. Seri- ously handicapped children were hidden in

institutions with little or no educational programming. Others were “sent away” to residential schools. Even those (usually) mildly handicapped children that we tolerated in our public schools were separated from the rest of the pupil population. They had their own classrooms, their own teachers, their own specialists and supervisors. Contacts between handicapped children and their “normal” peers were generally kept to the minimum. This separation often ex- tended to the special education teacher as well. Children’s references to “the yo-yo class” were paralleled by joking adult references to “the retarded teacher .”

About six years ago a major movement began which aimed at increasing the inclusion of handicapped children in regular school programs. This movement, now commonly referred to as mainstreaming, was spearheaded by the Leader- ship Training Institute in Special Education of the Bureau for Educational Per- sonnel Development, U.S. Office of Education.’ The focus of this movement was on providing alternatives for handicapped children to maximize their opportunities for getting the best education possible and leading as full a life as

Shirley Cohen is director of the Special Education Development Center and assistant professor at Hunter College, City University of New York.

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

10 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [November

their capacities allowed. Today, mainstreaming is increasingly becoming a reality in school systems throughout the country. A new body of literature has appeared on the topic of when, how, and with whom to do mainstreaming,' and major studies of the effectiveness of mainstreaming are being c ~ n d u c t e d . ~ Yet, surprisingly, very little attention has been given to the question of how to develop receptivity in the mainstream toward the handicapped children who are or will shortly be entering it. Wallach has said:

Before our handicapped children can enter the mainstream we try to prepare them in every way possible. But, we must also prepare the mainstream itself, lest our handicapped children be mis- treated and come to harm in it.4

Why have educators not given the problem of preparing the mainstream to receive disabled children more attention? There are probably several reasons. The first of these is the feeling that there is no time for this, that the time for integrating handicapped children into the mainstream of school life is now. Evelyn Deno, associate director of the Leadership Training Institute in Special Education, wrote:

The evidence obtained does not seem to support the idea that change of practice should wait until we have been able to pro- mote attitudes fully receptive to the change proposed. The wait could be long and civil rights have already been too long abridged.

The hypothesis is that strong public and administrative support for changes in practice, ac- companied by simultaneous edu- cative interpretation and com- petence building, is sufficiently validated by the programs described here to warrant the con- tinuation of the push to change practices now.

Now also seemed to be the right time for changes in administrative pol- icy in the schools, because mainstreaming in the schools is a piece of the broader movement toward nor- malizing the total lives of handicapped individuals that we have been witness- ing during the last few years. Large institutions for the retarded or disturbed are losing many of their occupants as a result of court suits brought by advocate groups. Other advocate groups have been using the courts to insure public education for all children, no matter how seriously impaired. Par- ents have become militant in demand- ing the rights to which they believe their handicapped children are en- titled. In pushing far mainstreaming now, educators were probably just one or two steps ahead of advocate groups that were prepared to fight for this concept.

Educators have probably not given the concept of preparing the mainstream to receive disabled children suf- ficient attention because attitudes are complex, abstract entities. We educators prefer the concreteness and tidiness of administrative procedures. We prefer to deal with our pupils' numerical concepts or word analysis skills, rather than deal with their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

19771 SHIRLEY COHEN 11

misconceptions, fears, or cruelties to the disabled.

Educators have also not faced the problem of developing receptivity toward the handicapped in the schools because many of them are afraid to deal with their own feelings in this realm.

The Foundations of Attitudes

While there are many different definitions of attitudes, most definitions include three aspects: an affective aspect-how the person feels about something or someone; a cognitive aspect-what the person believes about something or someone; and a behavioral aspect-how the person will tend to act in relation to something or someone.6 It is this third aspect- the behavioral readiness or set-which is of primary concern when one thinks of preparing the mainstream of our population for acceptance of the handicapped. It is these behavioral reactions which can hurt. But behavioral sets are an outgrowth of the beliefs and feelings of the individual. Beliefs and feelings are an integral part of action. For this reason we must be concerned with these less concrete, less programmatic aspects.

By the age of five or six, most children have acquired many expecta- tions, feelings, beliefs, and behavioral tendencies in relation to people. There are several factors that go into the formation of attitudes, particularly attitudes toward the handicapped. The factor which probably comes into play earliest is that of expectancy sets and their violation.

Violation of the Expected. When we

first see an individual whose facial or body features are grossly distorted or missing, most of us feel a sense of discomfort and stress. This immediate reaction to people whose appearance differs markedly from that which we have come to expect may have its basis in the early development of the individual; in fact, in the way we think.7 Hebb, in his classic work on the organization of behavior,' concluded that wariness may be provoked by the perception of incongruence with that which is familiar and expected. Recent research with infants has been inter- preted to support this concept. Kagan, for example, reports that infants' attention to stimuli representing both recently formed schema and moderate violation of these schema is high. However, smiling appears to be elicited only by recently formed schema, and not by their violation. Thus, while infants smiled at a picture of the human face, they did not smile in reaction to a picture of the human face in which the features had been ~crambled.~ What this may mean in terms of attitudes toward the handicapped is that the young child builds up a set of expectancies about people and experiences anxiety in reaction to marked deviations from them. These expectancies relate, not only to how people look, but also to how they act -their movements, manners, speech. Since young children often live in worlds which do not include the ob- viously physically or behaviorally disabled, their expectancy sets may exclude these variations. When a five or six year old comes to school, there- fore, that child is likely to bring with him developmental tendencies which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


make for wariness in relation to obvi- ously disabled persons upon initial encounter.

Exploration of Novelty. Numerous studies of children and animals have shown that most organisms are moti- vated to be active explorers of their en- vironments, even when their basic needs have been met and the only reward is mastery. Maslow described two different styles of reacting to unknown situations or events during childhood.” He observed that those children whose basic safety and security needs have been adequately met face new and novel situations as curi- ous explorers, while those children whose basic security needs have not been adequately met are generally fearful and defensive when faced with new situations. Maslow called the former children “growth oriented.” He referred to the latter children as “deficiency oriented.”

If we return to the young child who has not been exposed to seriously disabled individuals, and who experiences initial stress upon encountering such a person, we can go one step further. If this child is growth oriented, it is likely that his initial wariness toward the disabled individual will be followed by a period of exploration designed to help him assimilate this new element in his experience. This accounts for the close scrutiny and volley of questions about the disabled by many young children, following an initial period of quiet, distant observa- tion.

The Influence of Parental Values. The largest single influence on the attitudes of young children is parental values. Parents serve as models for

their children. Through their actions as well as through their words, they provide information about appropriate behavior, about rules, about what will be rewarded and punished. In fact, young children’s attitudes are often formed in the absence of direct contact between the object being valued and the child himself.” Parental communications, for example, have been shown to be at the base of young children’s rejection of members of racial minorities.

While many parents may themselves shun close contact with the handicapped, most young children have not received clearly negative communications about the handicapped from their parents. Most people are not against the handicapped. They may feel discomfort and uneasi- ness in relation to disabled people, but these feelings will often be accom- panied by compassion, guilt, and at- tempts at helpful behavior when chance encounters with the disabled occur. What young children are likely to get from their parent’s reactions to the handicapped is a mixed or ambivalent set of feelings, beliefs, and behavioral tendencies. Parental communications that contain mixed ele- ments are likely to cause or reinforce initial distancing from the object of this valuation. However, attitudes which grow out of mixed or ambivalent parental communications are likely to be open to influence, too.

There is a broader-based response that parents model for their children which is relevant here-the response to that which is different in any form. Response to the differences of the disabled is part of a larger picture. The young child is exposed to a multitude

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


of parental reactions to that which is novel and unexpected. The child in- teracts with parents about such encounters. If parents themselves react to that which is different with fear and withdrawal, the child will learn this response set.

Suppose that a child experienced initial stress upon encountering a markedly disabled individual. If this child’s parents had already communicated to the youngster either a strong fear of differences in general or a specific fear of the disabled, the child’s second natural reaction-exploration in the service of assimilation- would likely be aborted. If, on the other hand, the child’s parents had served as models for the acceptance of differences, a period of exploration would take place which would likely result in accom- modation to the handicapped individual and his disability.

The Structure of Attitudes in Chil- dren. What is clearly different about the attitudes of adults in relation to those of children is the greater differentiation, complexity, and interrelated- ness of adult attitudes. A six or seven year old has rudimentary or incipient attitudes. As Allport wrote, “A bigoted personality may be well underway by the age of six, but by no means fully fashioned.”12 During the school years, feelings, beliefs, and action tendencies will become increasingly differentiated and integrated.

It is the differentiation, complexity, and integration of attitudes that creates rigidity and resistance to change in adults; if an attitude is part of a system, change in the part may produce dis- equilibrium throughout the system. Because young children’s attitudes

have not yet been woven into a firm, interlocking pattern, they are more ac- cessible to influence.

Communications That Hurt

If we accept the premise that most children, at the time they begin school, are still open to influence in terms of their attitudes toward the disabled, the next question we must ask is: What in- fluences are they exposed to in school? Unfortunately, some of these influ- ences reinforce rather than weaken tendencies toward negative attitudes. Educators are members of society, and as such, they often reflect and convey the values dominant in that society. Sometimes, without awareness or in- tent, they convey messages which further deprecation of the disabled.

In the past, schools did little to broaden children’s expectancy sets, to encourage the perception of similarity in terms of a wide range of character- istics, or to stimulate enjoyment of differences. Homogeneous classes, ability groupings within classes, rewards for doing something better than one’s peers, and rewards for uniformity all reinforced developmental tendencies that lead to denigration of the disabled. If to be valued depends upon doing as well or better than one’s peers (rather than mastering a task at one’s own developmental level), then we are, by definition, degrading most disabled children.

Handicapped people tell us about the excuses which administrators have used to keep them out of their schools. The orthopedically impaired child who was kept out of school because she could not negotiate the three steps to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


the lunchroom unassisted, the deaf student who was advised not to apply to a college because she would not be able to lip-read and take notes at the same time are common e~amp1es. l~ These reasons offered by administrators may come from a conscious desire to keep the handicapped out, but they may also reflect a rigidity in thinking which results from a general uneasi- ness at being with the disabled.

Not only words, actions also communicate values. The school as an in- stitution communicates values by the nature of its organization. When handicapped children are kept in special classes in one area of the school building and participate only rarely in activities with other children, an attitude is being communicated to the other children, namely: “These children are different. They belong apart and separate from others.”

The messages conveyed by the organization of instruction will either be reinforced or weakened by the behavior of the teacher. The disabled tell us about teachers who resented their presence, refused to provide the extra assistance they needed to participate in the work of the class, and humiliated them in the presence of the other pu- p i l ~ . ’ ~ Fortunately, most handicapped individuals have also had helpful rela- tionships with teachers. The same individual who may have experienced shame and rejection at the hands of one or two teachers may report active support in the classroom from others.

Teachers reinforce negative messages when they avoid contact with the special classes for handicapped children in their school, then show discomfort in the presence of disabled

individuals. They reinforce negative messages when they make such comments as: “Why did you make so many mistakes? Are you retarded?”; or “Are you deaf? I just told you that.” Without being aware of it, teachers are stimulating negative associations to the disabled by such comments.

Teachers tell children about their own rejection of the handicapped by excluding the handicapped from the content which they teach. Again, this is often an “unthinking” exclusion, but attitudes are in large part communicated through unthinking behavior. When a science teacher is teaching children about the functioning of the senses, why not include content about people who cannot see or hear? When a health education teacher is teaching about the muscular system, why not discuss problems in the functioning of this system, as in cerebral palsy? When an elementary school teacher is teaching about jobs and workers, why not show pictures of disabled workers or discuss jobs which the disabled do carry out competently? Teachers who do this are the exception.

Peer Attitudes. There are many research studies which deal with adult attitudes toward the handicapped. Un- fortunately, very few of these studies have specifically focused on the attitudes of school personnel. It is prob- able that, until the idea of mainstreaming came to the fore, few re- searchers appreciated the value of such information. However, while research on the attitudes of school personnel is extremely limited, research on the attitudes of children toward their disabled peers is not. In general, the results of studies on the attitudes of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


children toward their handicapped classmates indicate that handicapped children are less accepted than are other children.

Bryan, using a sociometric techni- que, found that learning disabled children in grades three through five are not accepted by their classmate^.'^ Similar results were obtained by Cen- ters and Centers in reaction to an amputee child. l6 Billings, using projective techniques, found that elementary school children hold unfavorable attitudes toward their crippled peers.” Two studies conducted by the Re- search Institute for Education Pro- blems in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found that educable mentally retarded children in ungraded elementary schools were rejected significantly more often in sociometric question- naires than were other children.18 The Gottlieb study found, in addition, that closer contact was associated with greater rejection, i.e., retarded children in an unwalled school were rejected more often than retarded children in the walled school; integrated educable mentally retarded (EMR) children were rejected more than segregated EMR children. Two studies of educable retarded ado- lescents integrated into junior high school classes found that these children were less accepted than their classmates on a sociometric scale.19 The Monroe and Howe study, moreover, found that acceptance did not increase with length of time since integration.

These results on the nonacceptance of handicapped children in the schools are supported by the findings of Rich- ardson in a number of studies con-

ducted in an integrated camp.2o Not only were the visibly and nonvisibly disabled boys in this camp less accepted than their normal peers, but the close contact between bunkmates did not diminish the negative effect of a visible impairment.

Recently, some results have been obtained which do not support the body of data pointing to rejection of the handicapped by their peers. These results appear to indicate that, under selected conditions, handicapped children will be accepted by their peers. Kennedy and Bruininks, for example, found that hearing impaired children integrated into regular first and second grade classes were not less favorably rated on sociometric indices than were their hearing classmates,21 a finding which contradicts most earlier research data on the acceptance of hearing impaired children. Jones, Lavine, and Shell found that, while some blind children integrated into regular classes in grades four through six are rejected, others are quite popular.22 Anecdotal reports and case studies coming particularly from the also support the finding that disabled children are accepted by their peers under selected conditions. The discrepancy between these latter results and the larger body of data may reflect differences in the conditions and supports which accompany contact between children with and without disabilities.

Changing Attitudes

Recent laws passed by Congress as- sure all children an education, and recent court decisions insure enlarge- ment of educational alternatives for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


handicapped children. These laws and court decisions will prevent us from keeping disabled children separate and isolated. Administrative procedures which allow for increased integration of disabled children into regular school programs will provide opportunities for the development of better understanding and acceptance. However, these measures will not automatically bring about improved attitudes toward the disabled, a naive assumption which many educators appear to be making. Direct contact is of critical importance in improving attitudes between groups of people, but it is not, in itself, enough. If racial integration is used as an example, there is evidence that direct contact between groups can increase negative attitudes. The conditions under which direct contact will probably lead to more positive attitudes are: cooperative engagement in the pursuit of common objectives, under equal-status conditions or as functional particularly when the significant adults involved serve as models for positive attitudes and ac- tively reinforce such attitudes.

How often are these conditions present when we mainstream today? Probably not very often. Mainstream programs are attempting to mandate equal status conditions for some handicapped children, particularly those with mild handicaps and those with physical handicaps whose in- tellectual abilities are intact. Beyond this physical cohabitation, and beyond procedures which communicate the right of some handicapped children to be in regular school programs, however, lies the more subtle task of devis- ing means for engaging children in

cooperative pursuits under the guid- ance of adults who model and reinforce acceptance. This task can be negotiated, but it requires effort and skill. Some beginning steps are being taken to enable general educators to serve as models and reinforcers of helpful behavior toward the handicapped. Much less is being done to foster helpful interreactions between nonhandicapped children and their handicapped peers.

Pe r sonne l Training. In-service training for teachers, administrators, and supervisors can begin now. This training can take the form of courses, conferences, workshops, and discussion groups. While formal courses often do little to change the affective compo- nent of attitudes, they may well influence the behavioral tendencies of the trainees. Knowing what assistance blind children may need and how to offer it may make teachers less resistant to having blind pupils in their classrooms. Learning about how children in wheelchairs have been successfully educated in regular classrooms may lessen the reluctance of administrators to consider organi- zational restructuring in relation to the disabled pupils in their schools.

Conferences are effective ways of communicating where the major educational institutions stand on an issue. The very fact that a state education department or a city school system would organize a conference on fostering positive attitudes toward the handicapped says that the power structure within the educational world perceives a need for change. This usually implies that rewards will be in the offing for such change.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Workshops and discussion groups, because of their greater sense of in- timacy and the active role which participants are expected to play, have greater potential for affective change. Several examples of workshops or training sequences designed to develop empathy for the disabled already exist. A module called “interpersonal per~eption,”’~ produced as part of a project at City University of New York, has been field tested at several colleges and is being readied for dissemination. It contains a number of simulations designed to develop empathy for children with various kinds of impair- ments. Ballou and Todd produced a workshop to develop sensitivity to developmental disabilities.26 The Regional Instructional Materials Center for Handicapped Children and Youth at Michigan State University produced a workshop training kit which included simulations designed to develop empathy for children with communication handicaps.” The Council for Excep- tional Children has produced a pack- age of four workshops for teachers in support of mainstreaming.’* The first of these workshops focuses on attitudes. Studies of training programs which use simulation to develop empathy for the handicapped generally find resultant improvement in attitudes. 29

One way to make all of these personnel training approaches more likely to produce affective change is to include parents of the handicapped as participants, presenters, and group leaders. The first-hand communications of these parents are often very “moving,” i.e., they change the feelings of people. The participation of

disabled individuals is also sometimes extremely effective in producing change. Of course, not every disabled person or every parent of the disabled is the right person to help this process, a reality which calls for care in selec- tion.

The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Educa- tion has supplied a much needed im- petus for the idea of preparing regular educators to relate helpfully to children with handicaps through its program of “Dean’s Grants.” These grants are awarded to institutions of higher education for the purpose of remodel- ing regular teacher preparation sequences to include training in working with disabled children.

Reaching Children: A Curricular Approach. Several social studies cur- ricula designed for elementary grades include themes of respect for differences between people. This general theme is then applied to racial and cultural differences. This procedure could easily be employed to include differences which relate to physical and mental disabilities. A separate unit on the disabled could also be devel- oped within the social studies cur- riculum. Social studies is the study of man and his adaptation to his environ- ment. Once we accept the disabled as included with the label “man” rather than as something less than fully human, we will find many opportunities to include illustrations of the disabled in our social studies programs.

In science and in health education too, we can find many opportunities for studying about disabilities and im- pairments. The study of the sensory mechanisms can include the study of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


malfunctions of the sensory mechanisms. The study of the body and how it works can include the study of problems involving the development and functioning of body parts. The study of disabilities and people with disabilities can be pursued in appropriate ways at all levels from kindergarten upward.

Will such instructional approaches produce more acceptance for the handicapped? The answer seems to be yes. Rejection of contact with the handicapped very often stems in part from not knowing how to relate to them in terms of their disability, a factor which can be reduced through an instructional approach. Fear of the handicapped is also often fed by lack of information or misinformation. Again here, the use of disabled individuals as resource people, both in the context of the study of disabilities and in other contexts, would increase the effectiveness of an instructional approach. Lazar, Gensley, and Orpet designed a four week instructional program to be used with eight year old gifted children to stimulate more positive attitudes toward the di~abled.~” Both the children’s comments and their scores on the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Test revealed a significant change in response to the instructional program.

In spite of the promising possibilities of curricular approaches to increasing understanding and acceptance of the disabled, few such approaches appear to be in operation. Aside from the program described by Lazar, Gensley, and Orpet, the only other examples of curricular ideas reported prominently in the literature are those which a mother of a handicapped child devel- oped out of her family experience^.^^

There is a major gap here which needs to be addressed.

Integration Plus. Mainstreaming may mean that children in regular classes will come into contact with one or two disabled children. Assuming that the milieu is right, these children will probably be accepted by their peers as classmates. Sometimes real friendships will develop. While one-to- one contact may be a very effective method of establishing acceptance of individual disabled children, it is not likely, in itself, to affect the way children react to the disabled in general. One has only to think of the concreteness of children below eleven or twelve years of age, and their poor ability to transfer or generalize learn- ings, to understand why contact with one or two disabled children is not likely to influence their reactions to other disabled individuals. What this means is that the optimal approach to fostering positive attitudes toward the handicapped would combine direct contact in supportive, integrated settings with a curricular approach to the understanding of disabilities and the people who have them.

Parents. While “the child is the father of the man,” in order to influence the child, we often need to reach the men and women who are his parents. Par- ental opposition cannot only sabotage integration plans, it can subtly sabotage the receptivity of young children to the influence of the school in relation to the disabled.

Parents want to know that their children and their children’s education will not be hurt by the entrance of the handicapped into the mainstream. The only way to provide this assurance is to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


build-in the needed program and personnel supports. But over-and-above this reality-based concern is the fear, the revulsion, the discomfort men- tioned earlier. Parents need the same kind of workshops, discussion groups, and conferences as school personnel.

Conclusion

We are entering a period that cries out for creative development in educational programming to foster positive attitudes toward the disabled. The spread of the concept of mainstreaming has created both a need for this kind of programming and a receptivity toward it on the part of general educators. This task may represent a significant challenge for educators in the next decade.

Notes

1. M. C. Reynolds and M. D. Davis, Excep- tional Children in Regular Classrooms (Min- neapolis: Leadership Training Institute/Special Education, University of Minnesota, 1971).

2. G. J . Warfield, Mainstream Currents: Reprints from Exceptional Children, 1968- 1974 (Reston, Va.: The Council for Excep- tional Children, 1974).

3. M. J. Kaufman, M. I. Semmel, and J . A. Agard, Project Prime: An Oueruiew (Wash- ington, D.C.: Bureau for Education of the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, 1973).

4. S. Wallach, Statement read before the New York State Senate Select Committee on Mental and Physical Handicap, New York City, November 21,1974.

5. E. Deno, “Where Do We Go from Here?,” in Instructional Alternatives for Excep- tional Children, ed. E. Den0 (Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1973), p. 176.

6. D. Krech, R. S. Crutchfield, and E. L. Ballachey, Individual in Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).

7. S. A. Richardson, “Reactions to the Handicapped: A Review of Theory and Research,” in Fostering Positive Attitudes Toward the Handicapped in School Settings, ed. S. Cohen (New York: The Special Educa- tion Development Center, City University of New York, 1975).

8. D. 0. Hebb, The Organization of Be- havior (New York: Wiley, 1949).

9. J. Kagan, B. A. Henker, A. Hen-Tov, Levine and M. Lewis, “Infants’ Differential Reactions to Familiar and Distorted Faces,” Child Development 37 (1966):519-32.

10. A. H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1962).

11. H. M. Proshansky, “The Development of Intergroup Attitudes,” in Review of Child Development Research, vol. 2, ed. L. W. Hoff- man and M. L. Hoffman (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966), pp. 311-71.

12. G. W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley, 1954). p. 297.

13. L. Blumberg, “The Case for Integrated Schooling,” The Exceptional Parent 3

14. M. Berkowitz, “Why me?,” (Paper writ- ten for a graduate course at Hunter College, City University of New York, 1974), mimeographed.

15. T. H. Bryan, “Peer Popularity of Learn- ing Disabled Children,” Journal of Learning Disabilities 7 (1974):621-25.

16. L. Centers and R. Centers, “Peer Group Attitudes Toward the Amputee Child,” Journal of Social Psychology 61

17. H. K. Billings, “An Exploratory Study of the Attitudes of Noncrippled Children Toward Crippled Children in Three Selected Elemen- tary Schools,” Journal of Experimental Educa- tion 31 (1963):381-87.

18. J. Gottlieb and M. Budoff, “Social Ac- ceptability of Retarded Children in Non-graded Schools Differing in Architecture,” Studies in Learning Potential 2 (1972):l-17; and H. Goodman, J. Gottlieb, and R. H. Harrison, “Social Acceptance of ‘EMRS’ Integrated into a Non-graded Elementary School,” American Journal of Mental Deficiency 7 6

19. C. N. Rucker, C. E. Howe, and B. Snider, “Participation of Retarded Children in Junior High Academic and Non-academic Regular Classes,” Exceptional Children 35 (1969):617-23; and J. D. Monroe and C. E. Howe, “The Effects of Integration and Social

(1973):15-17.

(1963): 127-32.

(1972) :412-17.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

20 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM

Class on the Acceptance of Retarded Ado- lescents,’’ Education and Training of the Men- tally Retarded 6 (1971):21-24.

20. S. A. Richardson, L. Ronald, and R. E. Kleck, “The Social Status of Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Boys in a Camp Setting,” Journal of Special Education 8 (1974): 143-52.

21. P. Kennedy and R. H. Bruininks, “So- cial Status of Hearing Impaired Children in Regular Classrooms,” Exceptional Children 8

22. R. L. Jones, K. Lavine, and J. Shell, “Blind Children Integrated in Classrooms with Sighted Children: A Sociometric Study,” N e w Outlook for t he Bl ind66 (1972):75-80.

23. M. Alexander, “Let Me Learn with the Other Kids,” Learning 1 (1973):18-21.

24. Proshansky, “Development,” p. 353. 25. L. Ruderman, Interpersonal Perception

‘(New York: Center for Adcanced Study in Education, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, 1973).

26. B. Ballou and T. W. Todd, “Under- standing Developmental Disabilities: A ‘Sen- sitization’ Workshop Program,” Children To- day 2 (1973) :28-29.

(1974) :336-42.

27. S. J. Levine, Workshop Training Kit: Teaching Children With Communication Dis- orders (Lansing, Mi. : Regional Instructional Materials Center for Handicapped Children and Youth, Michigan State University, un- dated).

28. B. Aiello, Mainstreaming: Teacher Training Workshops on Individualized Instruc- tion (Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1975).

29. R. Glass and R. S . Meckler, “Preparing Elementary Teachers to Instruct Mildly Handi- capped Children in Regular Classrooms,” Ex- ceptional Children 39 (1972):152-56.

30. A. L. Lazar, J. T. Gensley, and R. E. Orpet, “Changing Attitudes of Young Mentally Gifted Children Toward Handicapped Per- sons,” Exceptional Children 37 (1971):

31. E. Pieper, “Preparing Children for a Handicapped Classmate,” T h e Instructor 84

600-602.

(1974) :128-29.

educational bORUMI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 02:

14 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Improving Attitudes Toward the Handicapped