CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Individuals with intellectual disabilities have potentials that can be developed in order to
make them independent and useful in society. However, these potentials can only be
developed through proper school systems that apply appropriate placement procedures in
the various educational institutions. In the developed world school systems that affect
placement for individuals with intellectual disability for instance are well advanced in
Scandinavia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia
(Mansell, Knapp, Beadle-Brown & Beecham, 2007). In these countries, the important
factors that are considered in making actual placement decisions for an individual student
include: (a) the match between the curriculum and the student’s needs and abilities; (b)
the student’s behaviour and its effect on other students and on the individual’s own
learning; (c) the training, skills and attitudes of the staff in each possible placement; (d)
the need/availability of specialized equipment; (e) the evidence of each program’s
effectiveness; and (f) future plans and probabilities for the individual’s work and living
arrangements. In short, there are no easy or simple answers to the educational placements
for individuals with intellectual disability. Thus, there is no one answer, no one
universally appropriate placement for all individuals with intellectual disability.
Appropriate placements depend on the needs and abilities of the individual. School
placement for children with intellectual disabilities therefore involves decisions on
admitting and placing such children into a programme of study. Placement processes
involve assessment to find out whether the child is eligible for placement in special
school or an inclusive setting. In addition to the processes, factors such as significant
1
developmental delays; achievement deficits, behavioural problems, poverty, and the
disability definition (Coutinho, Oswald & Best, 2002) are considered as influential in
placing a child with special needs in an appropriate educational setting. The assessment of
children with disabilities and in particular, those with intellectual disability provides data
for diagnosis and support needs that informs their educational plan. The need therefore to
employ appropriate assessment processes and efficient placement procedures are
important in the quest of meeting the needs of individuals with disability in general, and
those with intellectual disability in particular.
Statement of the Problem
In Dzorwulu Special School, students with intellectual disabilities are placed in a
residential facility. However, some placement decisions made for student by the school’s
placement team appears to be inappropriate. This makes it difficult for teachers to manage
such wrongly placed children in their classes. It is also uncertain how the placement team
evaluates children before their placement in the various classes. The researcher’s belief is
that, the consequence of inappropriate placement processes could jeopardise skill
acquisition of students which will make them independent members of society. This
situation has prompted the researcher to find out how children with intellectual
disabilities are placed in the school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influence placement decisions, and
also to examine the procedures used to place children with intellectual disabilities in
Dzorwulu Special School.
2
Objective of the Study
The objectives of the study were to:
1. Identify the factors that influence placement decisions for children with
intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School.
2. Describe the placement procedures used in placing children with intellectual
disability in Dzorwulu Special School.
Research Questions
The following questions were raised to guide the study:
1. What factors influence placement decisions of children with intellectual disability
in Dzorwulu Special School?
2. Which professional are involve in making placement decisions in the school?
3. What procedures are used for placing children with intellectual disability in
Dzorwulu Special School?
Significance of the Study
The study examined factors that influence placement decisions, and the procedures for
placing children with intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School in Accra, Ghana.
The findings would serve as a guide for effective placement of children in special schools
and particularly Dzorwulu Special School, by outlining the procedures used in placing
children with intellectual disability. Furthermore, the outcome of the study would be
beneficial to children with intellectual disabilities and ensure that proper assessment and
placement decisions are made when admitting individuals with intellectual disabilities to
special schools. Finally, the study would serve as reference materials for future research
3
by students who would like to do further work relating to placement of children with
intellectual disability in special and inclusive schools in the country.
Delimitation
Even though there are six main public special schools for individuals with intellectual
disability in Ghana, the study covered only one. By the nature of study and the research
design adopted, it was not possible to investigate all the public special schools for
individuals with intellectual disability in Ghana.
Limitations
The present study used the case study research design with interview as the main method
of data collection. Even though the researcher wanted to conduct document analysis to
compliment data obtained from the interview, the documents provided little information.
This limitation made the researcher depend only on interviews.
Operational Definition of Terms
Intellectual disability: Intellectual disability is a term used when a person has certain
limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,
taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will cause
a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children
with intellectual disability may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and
take care of their personal needs such as dressing or eating. They are likely
to have trouble learning in school. They will learn, but it will take them
longer. There may be some things they cannot learn.
4
Assessment:
A systematic process of gathering information in order to make legal
decision. It is also a process whereby specialists from various fields
evaluate a child to determine the degree of impairment or conditions.
Placement:
Refers to the type of school, regular or special, day or boarding that is
prescribed for the child to attend.
Professional:
Some one who has in-depth knowledge of a field, whose views are
important
in
decision
making.
For
instance,
special
educators,
psychologist, audiologist, social worker and so on.
Multi Disciplinary Team: Is a group of specialists such as educators, medical
practitioners, and social workers who come together to assess, plan and
offer recommendations for educating and managing children with
disabilities.
Case Conference: A meeting of professionals after assessment to determine
collaborative measures to be taken based on the assessment outcome for
pupils with special needs.
5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides review of related literature. The review of literature has been
organised under the following sub-headings:

Theoretical framework.

Characteristics of children with intellectual disability.

Factors influencing placement decisions of individuals with intellectual disability.

Residential Schools for Children with Intellectual Disability.

Placement procedures of children with intellectual disability.

Summary of Literature.
Theoretical Framework
This study is informed by the medical and social models of disability. It is commonly
accepted that there are two contrasting models or views of disability currently present
within modern day society. These are described as the Social and Medical Models of
Disability (Taylor, 2004). This study identifies the medical and social models of
disability, consideration of which will enhance the full realisation of the expectations of
students with intellectual disability on one hand, and the general educational goals of
individuals with disability on the other.
6
The Medical Model of Disability (Taylor, 2004):
Confined to wheelchair
Is home-bound
Can’t use hands
Can’t climb
stairs
Is seek
Can’t walk
DISABILITY
Need help
Can’t talk
Can’t see or hear
Has a bitter attitude
Need a doctor
Need institutional care
Need a cure
The medical model of disability is often referred to as an individualistic, personal tragedy
model informed by medicine and medical science (Taylor, 2004). This author added that,
the medical model of disability dominated in western societies throughout the 20th
century. This model locates virtually all aspects of disability within a clinical/medical
framework by solely focusing on the individual’s body. It especially concentrates
attention on what is different about or ‘wrong’ with the body of the disabled person, and
the way that their body functions. In this way, the person’s disability is permanently
linked with assumptions about illness and ill-health; such assumptions may well be false.
There are also assumptions which are often made about the responsibility of the medical
professionals to provide either a cure or to continually try to treat the person and to
‘normalise’ them through medical services (for instance, by repeated surgeries intended to
‘correct’ distorted limbs so they appear more ‘normal’, regardless of the effect on their
function). By providing such medical support, doctors are seen as helping to integrate
disabled people into ‘able-bodied’ society, so that they can live a ‘normal’ life. The
medical approach to disability is useful if it is used to support the actual medical needs of
7
disabled people and to improve their ability to function as independently as possible.
However, the primary criticism from the disabled people’s movement is that society gives
the medical profession considerable power over their lives, often extending into areas
which are far outside the medical arena.
The medical model identifies disability as individual physiological or cognitive
impairment which medicine can cure, treat or rehabilitate the disabled (Finkelstein, 2004).
Finkelstein (2004) further indicated that, the medical model seeks professional
approaches, services and policy processes that aimed at returning individuals with
disability to some form of normalcy in order to compete with their non-disabled peers.
With the medical model of disability, it is crucial to state that physical, sensory and
intellectual disabilities are usually defined in terms of specific comparison with the
“normal” humans (Anleu, 1999). This author added that, medical intervention and
technology, which may have little therapeutic effect can aid conformity with everyday
social activities and enhance social interaction among disabled individuals, and perhaps
their non-disabled counterparts.
Considering the medical model in this study has to do with perceived medical conditions
that students with intellectual disability present per their medical assessment reports and
used by the authorities in a residential school setting. It is worth noting that, it is
important for students to regularly undergo medical reviews and treatment. This will
enable such individuals to be medically conditioned to function effectively wherever they
find themselves. Here, the disabled person is seen as being ill or having a condition
(referred to as the disability) and is in need of some form of treatment. In this model, or
view, of disability the illness or condition is said to be seen first and the person second.
8
The emphasis here is on a culture of dependency backed up by views of disability brought
about in part by a history of segregation in our society. The method of bringing about
change for the disabled person is seen to lie within the medical and associated
professions. Increasing numbers of people now regard the Medical Model as one that
creates a negative approach and tends to offer a somewhat limiting and outdated view of
disability. However the mainstream of our society still tends to take this view. Much of
present day law, as it affects disabled people, is still based on the Medical Model.
The Social Model of Disability:
According to Oliver (1996) the Social Model of Disability does not deny the problem of
disability but locates it squarely within society. It is not individual limitations, of
whatever kind, which are the cause of the problem but society's failure to provide
appropriate services and adequately ensure the needs of disabled people are fully taken
into account in its social organisation. This model concentrates on the person as a valued
member of a very diverse society. It suggests that the disabled person is a unique
individual who has the right to the same opportunities in housing, education, transport
and facilities as anyone else. It recognises that a person’s impairment does not make them
less of a human being.
In this model the “disability” is seen as the common oppression brought about by the nondisabled world. This suggests that a person can be disabled by society and this is why
those who subscribe to the Social Model use the expression “disabled people”. It is fair to
say that much of the oppression is not deliberate but comes about because the nondisabled world has been taught consistently over a period of time that disabled people are
different and somehow not normal. Any segregated provision, such as in the work place,
in education or leisure, while very likely being offered at the highest level could prolong
9
the movement to the often expressed goal of a more inclusive society. It could also
maintain and even add to the negative reactions some of us have towards disabled people.
The solution according to this model is to bring about attitudinal, environmental and
organisational changes within present day society.
The 'Social Model' has undoubtedly been the dominant paradigm in researching and
understanding disability in recent years - "redefining disability in terms of a disabling
environment, repositioning disabled people as citizens with rights, and reconfiguring the
responsibilities for creating, sustaining and overcoming disability". According to Vasey
(1992), although the Social Model has many manifestations at its heart is a political
message about human rights, demonstrating that:
“everyone - even someone who has no movement, no sensory function
and who is going to die tomorrow - has the right to a certain standard
of living and to be treated with respect" (p. 44).
Evolving from the recognition that disabled people’s rights and status in society had been
marginalized, the Social Model redefines perceptions of disabled people by reframing
disabilities as outcomes of interaction - as a grouped entity (Barnes, Mercer and
Shakespeare, 1999). It considers disability as intrinsically connected to people and their
life choices. To contemplate disability is to consider disabled people not their condition as
the primary concern.
The social model also centred on the relationship between individuals with particular
physical and mental capacities and their social environment (Marks, 1997). It recognizes
that environments limit access and opportunities for work, education and social
participation, and that, prejudice, discrimination, and stigma are not inherent part of the
10
environment (Smart, 2001). In this vein, majority of individuals with disability are
restricted with regard to access, participation and adequate provision to quality education.
The social model is also reflective of human rights and equality. The established appraisal
of the social model is that, it was not the individuals themselves that were disabled by
their physical or mental impairments as purported by medical conceptualisation, but
organisation of society as designed by non-disabled individuals that were more
significantly disabling (Brynner, 2000; Fraser, Moltzen, Ryba, Neilson & Mitchell, 2000).
According to Brynner (2000), within the social model, the core of the problem is not with
the individual but with the oppressive aspects of social, political and economic
environments in which the disabled individuals live. Oliver (1990) identified the central
tenet of the social model of disability as a group solving process, enhanced by collective
approaches. Oliver further suggested that organisational and administrative processes
need to facilitate this process. This is because, the fundamental barrier of individuals with
disability is to be able to achieve their educational goals and also interactive in the
society.
Nevertheless, ‘Social Model’ approaches generally argue that the disabled are excluded
by unnecessary societal barriers: a wheelchair user is disabled when a building does not
have ramp access; a deaf person is disabled if a service provider does not provide a minicommunication for them to access that service. In this view, the ‘problem’ is not the
disabled person, but the lack of appropriate goods and services. This approach is most
often stated as seeing the category of disability as a social construct, explained with
reference to medical and political agendas and emphasising the historical development of
institutionalised discriminatory practices (Finkelstein 1991). Pinning this study in the
social model is to score the point that, residential placement of students with intellectual
11
disability will enhance social interaction among the students regardless of their age,
disability type, gender, severity or otherwise.
Characteristics of Children with Intellectual Disability
Individuals with intellectual disability possess varied abilities and diverse skills as their
counterparts without disability. As an entity, typical or noticeable qualities also vary
according to the degree or severity of the individual’s condition. According to Shankar
and Collyer, (2002), individuals with intellectual disability can be grouped into various
categories. These include:
The children with sensory disability, with other impairments, and Children with
intellectual disability, with impaired learning processes. All these categories, according to
Shankar and Collyer, (2002) do not have the same educational needs. Also, significant
characteristics of children with intellectual disability focus on certain key areas such as
academic, motivation, intellectual, physical or motor, social, and speech and language
(Avoke, 2005). According to this author, categories of children with intellectual disability
normally experience significant deficits in academic areas such as reading, mathematics
or arithmetic areas of their learning. Those with the mild disability are better at decoding
words than comprehending their meaning. These primary characteristics of children with
intellectual disability that affects their learning are intellectual deficit that translates to a
difference in the rate at which they acquire and use knowledge. Intellectual characteristic
cut across all the categories of such children. But the limited intellectual capacity also
depends upon the degree of the individual’s condition (Braddock, 2001).
In communication, children with intellectual disability exhibit both language and speech
problems. Generally, these individuals have impoverished language; while some do not
12
have speech at all, others use only one-word for communication, still others use twowords for communication, phrases or simple sentences while others can engage in
complex conversation (Bradley, 2001). One distinctive feature about these individuals is
articulation problems. In this respect, they sometimes omit phonemes, substitute others
or distort them. Individuals with intellectual disability also manifest serious difficulty in
writing skills. Majority have co-ordination problems and as such cannot hold pens or
pencils firmly to make the symbol. Others may not have the coordination problem, but
may lack the ability to form words and sentences intelligently. All individuals with
intellectual disability manifest memory problems. That is, they have difficulty in
recalling past learning experiences and events (Crockett, & Kauffman, 1999). Citing Bos
and Vaughan (1991), Champan (2002) suggested that poor memory problems,
manifested by individuals with intellectual disability, may actually be due to sensory
problems or the fact that these children have poor rehearsal techniques. It is however,
noted that when learning experiences are appropriately delivered to individuals with
intellectual disability they do not show any significant difference in long term memory
as their non-disabled peers (Conners, 2003).
Another difficulty manifested by children with intellectual disability, as suggested by
Sharp and Pitasky, (2002) is attention problems. Although many non-disabled children
manifest attention problems, children with intellectual disability manifest more severe
attention problems. Such problems manifest in three areas; focus, span and selectivity.
That is, fixing attention on the most relevant stimulus, staying on it for a while and
cutting off irrelevant and other competing stimuli, selecting the most relevant stimulus to
focus on. Individuals with intellectual disability are easily distracted. They have
difficulty allocating their attention properly.
13
Factors Influencing Placement Decisions of Individuals with Intellectual Disability.
Placement decisions are usually made after identifying the strengths and weaknesses of
pupils with intellectual disabilities. Mooney and Fitzpatrck, (2003) noted that the
placement of children in residential setting is largely determined by the availability of
places at the time the placement is required. The age of the child was also reported to be
an important consideration. These authors also added that, behavioural problems also
influence the type of placement provided for children. If a child was assessed as a risk to
him/herself or others, residential care would be considered the most suitable, irrespective
of the age of the child. Smith (1998) also posits that even though placement decisions
identify a student as being different, if it turns out that the needs of the student cannot be
met, or if that environment impedes learning, then that placement is not appropriate. It is
the belief of many people including some professionals in special education that
individuals with intellectual disability cannot learn to do very much and as a result,
teachers do not try very hard to teach them.
Historically, children with intellectual disability have been placed using samples of
assessment and psychological reports (Avoke, 2005). The indication is that, a number of
formal tests were used as a basis for making placement decisions into the schools. The
tests used included Raven’s Colour Progressive Matrices, Seguin Boards, Chronoscope
reactions and other test that yielded I.Q scores. Children were then categorized into
groups based on their performances on these tests. There was also evidence of the use of
informal strategies and approaches that relied on case history and social skills of the
individuals.
14
Champan (2002) mentioned that, the type of behaviours measured by intelligence tests for
instance, include discriminating skills (finding a stimulus that goes with another) motor
skills (building block towers and tracing path through a memory) and abstract reasoning.
Oppong, (2003) citing Hammil and Larsen (1987) mentioned that the use of intelligence
test scores as the main basis for classifying children with intellectual disability is
questionable. This is due to the controversy over intelligence test measures and the extent
to which a child’s background experiences influence his or her performances. Elliot
(2000) however is of the view that, assessment and placement decisions which must
involve general assessment and placement decisions that incorporate general intellectual
ability on a number sub-scale such as the memory, vocabulary, numeric verbal reasoning
and spatial ability. The situation in those countries has since moved on, but traditional
assessment procedure has been indicated as still rooted in the placement of children with
intellectual disability into residential schools.
Residential Schools for Children with Intellectual Disability
Mooney and Fitzpatrck, (2003) viewed the placement of children in residential settings as
a last resort. Some of the reasons given for this view included: the presence or likely
threat of violence from other residents; exposing already vulnerable children to further
abuse; the presence of offenders or other disruptive children; the older age profile of
children in the residential setting; distance from schools and the difficulty in maintaining
parental contact, and; residential accommodation generally operating at overcapacity.
According to Mooney and Fitzpatrck, (2003), residential schools are institutionalized and
lack flexibility. Other types of residential special education schools for extremely
behaviourally challenged children are available, but not as widely as those for other
categories of children. Children, who require constant, one‐to‐one specialized behavioural
15
monitoring and intervention such as self‐injurious behaviour, provide a challenge that
most parents and traditional special education settings find difficult to meet. However, a
child with such problems is only able to have their needs met in a residential school
setting, often far from their home and families (Bond, 2004).
Placement Procedures of Children with Intellectual Disability
The issue of placement is a decision that both parents and professionals make jointly
about the education of a child with special needs. The overall objective of this placement
decision is to improve the educational opportunities of the child in order to enhance his or
her progress through school (Meleen, 1992). As in the United States, upon completion of
assessment, the Individualized Education Plan meeting and approval for placement,
representatives of the school and parents are responsible for developing a final placement
plan.
Assessment of Individuals with Special Needs for Placement
The word assessment may mean different things to different professionals, and it also
involves different detailed procedures. In the United Kingdom, for example, the 1981
Educational Act specifies a clear formal procedure for the assessment of children, which
includes tests of ability and attainment, as well as assessment of the child’s attitude
towards school, home, learning, friends and the pupils difficulties (Gersch, 1992).
According to Palmer, Fuller, Arora and Nelson, (2001), before a decision on placement of
a student is made, several skills must be considered in order to help determine placement
in a least restrictive environment. Depending on the disability, and the possible
placements, some students should be able to accept and respect authority, to follow
directions, and accept assignments without disagreement. Some placements require that
students demonstrate appropriate management of turn in class, the ability to raise their
16
hand to gain recognition of the teacher, and have minimal time spent in time-out. In other
settings, students are expected to come to class prepared and with appropriate materials.
Still, other situations call for the student to be able to demonstrate the ability to organize
their needed material and have the ability to work independently or with others, as
instructed (Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001).
Successful assessments require the input of more than one individual, because one person
alone cannot determine eligibility and the need for services. Qualified personnel are
responsible for determining the nature and extent of a child's handicapping condition once
that child has been referred to special education. Apart from the initial assessment, these
personnel also periodically review (at least every three years) the progress of, and reevaluate each child that receives special education services (Garrick Duhaney, & Salend,
2000). These periodic reviews are designed with the individual student in mind and
should take into account performance, behaviour, and immediate needs at the time of reassessment.
According to Iacovou (2001) all assessments should be conducted by multi-disciplinary
teams that consist of qualified personnel with different backgrounds, including specialists
from areas of any suspected handicapping conditions. Assessment procedures that require
the use of specialized instruments or equipment should be performed only by persons
trained and qualified to use those instruments.
Following completion of the assessment procedures, the assessment team submits a
written report. This report entails several different pieces of information to indicate: (1)
whether the child has a specific learning disability; (2) the basis for making the
17
determination; (3) the relevant behaviour noted during the observation of the child; (4)
the relationship of that behaviour to the child's academic functioning; (5) the
educationally relevant medical findings, if any; (6) whether there is a severe discrepancy
between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and
related services; and (7) the determination of the team concerning the effects of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantages (Matlock, Fielder, & Walsh, 2001 ).
The written report of the assessment team also includes information pertaining to specific
needs of the individual. Needs concerning transportation, counselling (if needed) for the
student and/or family, and scheduling or classroom modifications are addressed in the
report. Throughout the evaluation process, assessment personnel are responsible for
informing parents of results for any procedure that required parental permission. In
addition, the placement team provides the parents with ample opportunity to take part in
the meeting to determine eligibility' for special education and related services (Cooper &
Rascon, 1994). When there are major inconsistencies between previous assessment results
provided by the parents and the results of the current assessment, the assessment team
shall determine the necessity of a third-party evaluation of the student. In the view of
Meleen (1992), eligibility can only be determined after concluding that a child does have
a disability and that, the disability may be partially or fully responsible for his or her
ineffective progress in regular education. Both of these conclusions point to the fact that
the child has an educational need to be placed in special education. According to Meleen
(1992), eligibility for special education and related services is determined by a committee
that reviews the findings of the assessment team. It is the obligation of this committee to
guarantee that no single assessor or determining factor decides eligibility for services and
18
that parents and school personnel have a general "picture" of how the child performs in
the school environment.
The process of determining eligibility is similar to that of assessing the student, because it
requires observation of the student's performance, review of records, and collaboration
with experts in the field of the student's disability (Meleen, 1992). By analyzing the
student's progress in regular education versus his or her knowledge, skills, and
social/emotional development, the committee is able to establish whether a student’s
disability warrants special education services. The decision making process, according to
Gonzalez, Aheam and Osher, (1994) require members of the committee to recognize that
"effective progress" refers to a range or specific baseline of achievement. When a child
has been determined eligible to receive services, the student and the types of services
required may only be described in terms of his or her instructional needs, not the
handicapping condition, label, or criterion (Gonzalez et al., 1994).
Placement Processes for Individuals with Intellectual Disability
According to Meleen (1992), the planning committee is challenged with the task of
developing allied educational programs and services that address the goals and objectives
of each student. For this to succeed, the committee must consider academic achievement
goals, social and physical developmental goals, and the classroom management needs of
the student. After placement of a student into a special education program, supportive
services may be offered. Meleen (1992) further suggested that, supportive services
address the following needs of student:

adaptive physical education,

special transportation,
19

optimal participation,

audio-visual needs,

special medical, psychiatric and other services, and

specific management techniques for the student (p. 3).
Students are generally placed in one of the following programmes: (1) regular
classrooms; (2) resource room; and (3) separate or self-contained (special) classroom
(Menlove, Hudson, & Suter, 2001).
Resource rooms are specialized supplemental instructional programs designed for
students that require services outside of the regular or special classroom. Instruction in
this setting may be given in small groups or on a one-on-one basis and must constitute at
least 21%, but not exceed 50%, of the school day (Davis, 1994). Davis further states that,
special programs are designed for students whose educational needs cannot be met, even
with related services or resource room programs. These programs include students that
require special education services for more than 60% of the school day outside of the
normal classroom activities.
It is important to realize however that, the objectives of the regular classroom apply to the
special classroom. Only the method of presentation of these services differs (O'Neil,
1988). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 pertains to students that have mental
or physical impairment that presents limitations for a major life activity. These activities
may include such things as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, and learning. These
students are entitled to special education services that meet their particular needs
(Meleen, 1992). Depending upon these needs, schools have several options that they may
use independently or that they may combine to develop the best options for the identified
20
student. The student may have curriculum modifications including specialized instruction,
adaptive equipment and/or assistive technology. Students may have personal aides to
assist in any way, even with health-related accommodations.
Furthermore, Meleen (1992) suggested that students who are physically impaired may
need extra-curricular activity, accommodations or even transportation to and from school.
Other students still may need more services than can best be provided in separate schools,
residential facilities, or home/bound hospital environments. Separate schools are
specialized facilities that provide services to students with disabilities for more than 50%
of the school day. Public or private residential faculties can provide similar services for
the same amount of time and can be at the pubic expense.
Donovan and Cross, (2002) pointed out that in countries such as the United States of
America, it is mandatory that after reviewing all relevant diagnostic evaluation and
assessment results, the placement team makes placement recommendation. Parents or
guardians are informed on the placement options, type of instruction and support services
that are recommended for their children.
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
In the United States of America, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and its earlier regulations provide little information about people who makes the
placement decision, except that a student's parents must be involved in the process
(Waterman, 1994). According to the IDEA "each local educational agency or state
educational agency shall ensure that the parents of each child with a disability are
members of any group that makes decisions on educational placement of their child”
21
(Waterman, 1994). However, when the IDEA was amended in 1997, the Committee on
Labour and Human Resources made it clear that the IEP team should make the placement
decision.
Davis (1994) explained that, following assessment and determination of eligibility, an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) committee meets to develop the placement,
decide on placement alternatives for the student, and ensures a least restrictive
educational environment. The members of this team should include an administrator or
other specialist familiar with the program, the student's teacher, and one or more of the
student's parents or their representative (Cooper & Rascon, 1994). The purpose of the IEP
meeting is to develop specific goals and objectives on the basis of information provided
by the assessment teams and to develop the IEP document which attends to these goals
and objectives and the methods of attaining them (Otos, Kilcrease, & Brazeau, 1992).
In another instance, Otos, Kilcrease and Brazeau, (1992) also indicated that the specific
purpose of the IEP document is to serve as a method of communication between school
personnel and parents. An IEP provides opportunity for mutual agreement between school
personnel and parents concerning the child. The IEP may also be used as an evaluation
device for charting progress and as a management tool to guarantee that educational
needs are being met. The collaboration of committee members without presence of
parents constitutes a violation of parents' rights (Cooper & Rascon, 1994). The written
reports on goals and objectives then are submitted to the case manager for organization
and final document preparation. At the IEP meeting, parents have the right to question all
objectives, proposed modifications, and make additions or deletions. In addition, parents
22
may supply their own goals and objectives for their child to be considered during the
meeting.
The hand-written formal IEP document is provided to the parents at the meeting. The IEP
document is considered a contract between the school and parents or as a lesson plan, and
provides a specific list of goals for each individual student.
According to Waterman (1994), an IEP document should contain the following elements:

information on present levels of performance,

statement of goals and objectives,

activities to be provided to student,

time constraints of the program,

criteria and evaluation procedures,

vocational needs of the student,

information on assistive technology, and

Transition services to be provided (p. 5).
There are many suggested ways of conducting the lEP meetings in a professional and
friendly manner (Otos et al., 1992). Some basic suggestions for and IEP meeting are to
introduce those in attendance, to explain the purpose of meeting, and to invite all in
attendance to openly interact so that the best plan may be created. Be sure that parents are
aware of their rights. Often times these must be explained rather than just handing them a
booklet and hoping that they understand. A typed agenda is accepted by both the parents
and others at the meeting, it can be used as an outline of the procedure for the meeting
that will help keep everyone focused and aware of what needs to be accomplished. The
person who addressed the student explains the process and summarizes the student’s
progress since the last IEP meeting. In their view, these authors think that, everyone who
23
attends an IEP meeting should be allowed to provide their perspectives on the overall
desired outcomes for an individual student.
As stated previously, a complete re-assessment should be performed every three years.
It is important that the parents be notified of every procedure to occur during evaluation
and review. Parents have the right to due process in all matters concerning the child and
are entitled to mediation conferences and fair hearings (Langdon &, Parker, 1982).
According to Gorn (1999), the emphasis on the IEP team’s role in placement is new to
most countries. When making the placement decisions, the IEP team must draw upon
information from a variety of sources (for instance, aptitude and achievement tests or
assessment reports, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural
background, adaptive behaviour among others). Moreover, the team should ensure that all
information is documented and considered. As indicated by Gorn (1999), the IDEA
regulations stipulate that, no one factor should dominate the placement decision; rather,
all factors should receive equal consideration. Clearly, the IDEA requires that placement
decisions be made in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. All the evidence gathered
during the evaluation process must be carefully considered prior to determining
placement.
Moreover, the student's individual educational needs and preferences drive the decision
making process. Although, a student's educational needs are primary factors to consider
when making placement decisions, an IEP team may also consider the potential harmful
effects of student's placement on his or her peers. That is, the team may consider the
effect the presence of a student with disabilities in a general education classroom would
have on the education of other students in that classroom. A student who disrupts the
education of others due to behaviour problems or because of needing constant teacher
24
attention may not be appropriately placed in a general education classroom. When
weighing this factor, however, IEP teams must first consider the use of supplementary
aids and services to accommodate students.
Just as Huefner (2002) indicated, one would agree that placement should be done taking
into account certain factors as mentioned earlier, authorities such as the U.S. Department
of Education has also issued policy directions suggesting that those factors should not be
the sole determining criteria used in placement decisions. This policy direction as given
by the U.S. Department of Education indicated that it was not appropriate for IEP teams
to make placement decisions based on the following factors: (a) category of disability, (b)
severity of disability, (c) availability of educational or related services, (d) availability of
space, or (e) administrative convenience. This means that these factors are not legitimate
reasons for choosing a particular placement. For example, placing a student with
emotional and behavioural disorders in a classroom for students with emotional and
behavioural disorders just because of his or her disability label, without first considering
the student's individual needs, would be illegal. Similarly, placing a student in a resource
room because a school does not have a self-contained placement, even though the
student's individual needs indicate that he or she needs a self-contained placement, would
not be permissible. By this policy, it is also illegal for a school to place all students with
disabilities in general education classrooms, a so-called full inclusion policy, if that
setting is not appropriate for a student's individual needs.
As Bateman and Linden (1998) aptly stated:
“there is not now and has never been a requirement in the IDEA that
all children with disabilities be included or mainstreamed in the
regular class” (p. 13).
25
Personnel Involved in Placement Decision Making
The personnel that form the team of professionals from the various fields who participate
in comprehension student evaluations and make decisions about special education
eligibility and placement are: special education teacher, school psychologist, school
counsellor, school nurse, parents and any other professional deemed necessary.
Gersch (1992) explained that to complete comprehensive statements on the assessed,
reports are sought from a variety of professionals including educational psychologist,
social workers, speech therapist, head teachers, and other specialist teacher. Also, Elliot
(2000) noted that skilled assessment by educational psychologist, for instance, offers the
promise of a more detailed understanding of the learner’s strength and weaknesses that
can serve as the basis for subsequent intervention. It is also important to note that all the
services a child needs cannot be met by one person alone, but rather a broad array of
personnel from different disciplines that ensures the efficient use of the resources
available (Star & Lacey, 1996). It is therefore necessary to involve various professionals
to perform the following roles:
School nurse: Initial vision and hearing screens, checks medical records, refers health
problems to other medical professionals.
Special education teacher: Consultant to regular classroom teacher during pre-referral
process; administers educational tests, observers in other classrooms, helps with screening
and recommends services.
School psychologist:
Administer individual intelligence tests, observes student in
classroom, administers projective instruments and personality inventions: may be under
supervision of a doctoral level psychologist.
26
School counsellor:
May serve as an objective observer in pre-referral stage, may
provide direct group or individual counselling, may schedule children’s and help with
planning of children school schedules.
Medical Specialist: The medical specialist represents both practitioners and researchers.
Those contributing to field include paediatrics neurology ophthalmology, Otology,
psychiatry; pharmacology, endocrinology, and nursing particularly school nursing. By
education and practice, medical specialists are causes oriented always searching for the
source of health problems (Ocloo, Agbeke, Avoke, Oppong, Hayford, Gadagbui, Boison,
& Essel, 2002).
Parents:
Active members of the special education team; provide input for IEP works
with home school academic and behavioural programme.
One must always consider parents as vital contributing members of multidisciplinary
team. They have known their children for a long period of time. The parents’ input and
help can be extremely supportive of enriching the understanding of the child’s problems
(Ocloo et al., 2002).
Summary of Literature
Literature reviewed in this study touched on the characteristics of children with
intellectual disability; factors influencing placement decisions of individuals with
intellectual disability and placement options available to such children; and placement
procedures for placing individuals with intellectual disability.
Available literature indicates varied characteristics of individuals with intellectual
disability, which includes sensory disabilities with other impairments and those with
impaired learning problems. Decisions affecting the placement of individuals with
27
intellectual disability, according to literature have to be made considering factors such as
the type of disability presented and also the placement options available. Literature also
identifies students’ assessment records and other related documents such as students’
medical records. Placement according to Arora and Nelson, (2001) is to be done
considering students’ abilities and expectations. Arora and Nelson further indicated that
proper procedures for placing such individuals should be documented. These procedures
have to be followed if appropriate placement is to be done. Finally, placing individuals
with intellectual disability in an educational setting needs to be done by professionals
specially trained to make placement decisions for children with disability.
28
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter deals with the research methodology that was used for the study.
It describes the research design, population, sample and sampling techniques, research
instruments, validity and reliability of instruments, procedures for data collection and data
analysis.
Research design
The case study research design was adopted for the study. According to Ary, Jacobs and
Razavieh (2002) case study investigates a single individual or a single discrete social unit
such as a family, club, social institution, community, or gaining in-depth. Avoke (2005)
citing Robson (2002) also describes a case study as involving an empirical investigation
of particular contemporary phenomenon within its real context using multiple sources of
evident. Avoke (2005) further explained that a case study involve an in-depth study of
instances of phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the
participants involved in the phenomenon. Even though case studies are very subjective,
they produce more in-depth comprehensive information and good source of hypothesis.
The choice of this design, therefore afforded the researcher the opportunity to examine indepth the placement processes of children with intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special
School.
Again, the design enabled the researcher to explore factors that inform placement
decisions for children with intellectual disability in the school under study. Finally, the
design provided a platform for gaining insight into the assessment and placement
29
processes applied in Dzorwulu Special School to establish whether they were appropriate
or not.
Population
The population from which the study sample was drawn included the staff of Dzorwulu
Special School, Accra.
Sample and sampling technique
The sample consists of five (5) participants including the headmistress, the assistant head
teacher, the school placement co-ordinator, and two (2) teachers. Purposeful and random
sampling techniques were used for selecting the sample. The purposive sampling,
according to Creswell (2005), is a non-probability sample which is selected on the basic
assumption that, with good judgement one can handpick elements of cases in a population
for a study according to one’s interest and need.
The headmistress, assistant head teacher and the school placement officer were selected
purposively because, they were school personnel who were directly linked to placement.
The two teachers were randomly selected as neutral participants. The researcher used
these techniques with the view that only those who are directly involved in the placement
and teaching of children with intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School
participated in the study.
30
Research Instrument
In this study, two research instruments were used to generate data. These were interviews
and document analysis. The choice of these instruments was based on the nature of data
required to address the research questions.
Interviews
Semi-structured interview guide was prepared by the researcher (Appendix E). The guide
had two (2) sections. The first section focused on the bio-data of the participants, while
the second covered the following areas:

Characteristics of students in Dzorwulu Special School.

Factors influencing placement decisions of children with intellectual disability in
Dzorwulu Special School.

Professionals involved in placement decision making in Dzorwulu Special School.

Procedures for placing individuals with intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special
School.
The interview with each participant lasted between 15-20 minutes.
Document Analysis
The documents examined included the assessment reports, student’s personal records and
the admission reports of some selected students. These records were used because they
contain vital information that informed admission and placement decisions of students.
Records of the selected students were selected randomly in order to have a fair idea of the
placement processes. Data gathered from the documents were used as complementary
information to corroborate the interview responses.
31
Validity
The validity considerations for this study was to ensure that the instrument used really
measured the key issue (placement procedures in Dzorwulu Special School) that it was
intended to measure. This was done by the collection of data through the administration
of the interview schedule and critical analysis of views expressed by the respondents
which ultimately revealed the findings. In order to strengthen validity, attention was paid
to the sampling procedures. Attempts were also made to give clear definitions of the key
words and concepts in the interview schedule.
Reliability
After the completion of the interview, typed interview transcripts were given back to the
respondents to cross check the ideas presented. The respondents read through to make
sure that all the questions were answered before they were collected by the researcher.
These procedures enhanced the reliability of the data obtained.
Data Collection Procedure
Access
After the research proposal was approved and the instruments adopted, an introductory
letter from the Department of Special Education of the University of Education, Winneba
(see Appendix A) was sent to the school in order to solicit their cooperation and
assistance. The participants were subsequently informed about the researcher’s intention
to conduct such a study. Upon sending the introductory letter, a pre-visit was made to the
school to arrange meetings with the participants. The arrangements were made to meet all
the respondents within one week. During the pre-visit, all the participants were given
letters of informed consent (Appendix C) to sign if they accepted to participate in the
32
study. They were dully informed that their participation was voluntary and were free to
abstain or even withdraw if they felt so. The participants were also assured of the
confidentiality of the information to be gathered. After data had been collected, an
appreciation letter was written and sent to the school and participants to thank them for
their cooperation in the study (see Appendix D).
Data Analysis
Data was analysed descriptively. Data from both interview and the documents were put
under themes to reflect the research questions. Some of the interview data were presented
verbatim. This allowed the researcher to clearly understand what the interviewee said.
Responses for each research question were discussed subsequently with supportive
relevant literature.
33
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter deals with the presentation of analysis and discussion of findings of the
study. Some of the views expressed by the respondents (the head teacher, assistant head
teacher, school placement co-ordinator, and two teachers) were presented verbatim.
Analysis of data
In this section, the results are presented and analyzed with brief comments. In the
subsequent part of the section, detailed discussion is made to reflect the research
questions raised for the study.
Research Question 1: What factors influence placement decisions for children with
intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School?
In terms of which factors influence placement decisions in the school, the headmistress
indicated that:
The type of disability and its severity that a student present is one
factor that is considered in taking placement decisions. Students’
educational, assessment and health reports are examined by the
placement committee, which helps the team to take informed
decision on how and where to place the student.
The views of the headmistress suggests that, even though the severity of students’
disability are considered, what in her view directs placement decisions more is the
assessment records of the students.
The assistant head teacher, on his part said:
Even though the school has a residential facility, not all categories of
disabilities are admitted. Children who are profoundly retarded for
34
instance are not admitted. Placement depends on the students’
assessment reports and relevant documents such as students’
educational history and the medical history.
The responses of the other respondents, especially the school placement co-ordinator and
the two teachers were similar to those expressed by the headmistress and the assistant
head teacher. The school placement co-ordinator and the teachers for instance said:
Factor such as students’ educational and health records are consulted.
Students’ social, emotional, and physical growth and development
which are sometimes captured in the students’ assessment reports are
vital in making placement decisions on behalf of students.
The teachers further said:
We believe parents’ desires and expectations, when feasible are
sometimes considered. However, if the placement team think they
won’t work, they advise parents to accept whatever option was
appropriate for the student.
Research Question 2: Which professionals are involve in making placement
decisions in the school?
This question sought to find out the personnel that were involved in making placement
decisions in the school. In this endeavour, responses from all the participants revealed
that Dzorwulu Special School indeed has some professionals who meet regularly to make
placement decisions. The Headmistress reported that:
Those who make all the placement decisions include herself, the
professionals involved in placement decision making in Dzorwulu
Special School.
According to the assistant head teacher and the teachers, professionals that are involved
in making placement decisions are not permanent. This is evident in their responses that:
Apart from the headmistress, the assistant head teacher and the school
placement co-ordinator, other professionals become part of the team
depending on the suspected cases that come before the school
authorities.
35
These views are similar to those expressed by the headmistress. The main ideas indicate
that there were only three permanent team members. The inclusion of other professionals
depended on the judgement of the permanent members.
Research Question 3: What procedures are used for placing individuals with
intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School?
In respect of Research Question 3, respondents’ views were sought about the procedures
for placement of students with intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School. The
headmistress indicated that:
Before students are placed, they are assessed. The assessment
Report then guides the placement committee. After examining
the assessment reports, the placement committee meets to decide on
the students’ placement.
The assistant head teacher on his part held that:
The placement committee monitor the students’ progress for
sometime and suggests other options when necessary. This situation
mostly occurs in placing the student wrongfully in a class.
In his response, the school placement co-ordinator said:
In placing students, the placement committee discusses the students’
assessment reports and finds out which placement options that are
available to meet the students’ needs.
Again, the views of both teachers were similar to those expressed by headmistress, the
assistant head teacher and the school placement co-ordinator. The teachers stated that:
The placement committee examines and discusses the students’
educational and medical reports before placing them. The students
are monitored to see if they fit their placement settings.
These, in the researcher’s opinion reflects best practices that is expected of placement
teams or an Individualized Education Programme team that has the responsibility to
36
appropriately place individuals with disability where they best fit in an educational
setting.
Discussion of Findings
In the earlier part of this chapter, results were presented and analyzed to reflect the
research questions with only brief comments on them. In this part, the findings are
discussed into detail under themes generated from the research questions. From the data it
was noted that students in Dzorwulu Special School are mainly intellectually disabled.
Some of the students however manifest additional limitations such as inattention and
hyperactivity, emotional or immaturity and social relationship problems among others.
Placement of Individuals at Dzorwulu Special School
The results reveal that with factors such as type and severity of a disability are considered
in making placement decisions for the students at Dzorwulu Special School. Again, it
was apparent that assessment reports of students greatly influence placement in the
school. As the headmistress explained, the type of disability and its severity and students’
educational, assessment and health reports are considered. This is understandable,
reviewed literature suggest that all placement decisions must be determined individually
for each child taking into account various factors such as assessment and medical reports
of students. When such decisions are faulty, the individual is wrongly place (Snyder,
2005; Shankar, & Collyer, 2002)
Further, the findings also revealed that factors such as social, emotional, physical growth
and development are considered when making placement decisions for students with
intellectual disability in Dzorwulu Special School. This is in line with suggestion by
Elliot (2000) also suggests that, assessment and placement decisions must incorporate
37
general intellectual ability on the basis of memory, vocabulary, numeric, verbal reasoning
and spatial ability.
In terms of involvement of professionals, it was revealed that the school has a
multidisciplinary placement team that makes placement decisions for students. The team
included: the headmistress, the assistant head teacher, a placement co-ordinator, two
other teachers, psychologist and other relevant professional needed at any given time.
However, apart from the headmistress, the assistant head teacher, and the placement
coordinator, the other members are not permanent members of the team. In fact,
membership of the team is determined by the nature of the cases that are to be
considered. This is in agreement with the view by Mowbray, Megivern and Holter,
(2003) who suggested that, individuals and professionals forming a placement team must
be identified based on the objectives of such teams.
Additionally, the placement team usually meets to make decisions on students’
educational programmes. During such meetings, the team discusses students’ assessment
reports. This is in line with Losen and Orfield, (2002) that decisions concerning
educational programmes for students with disabilities are a prerogative of a multidisciplinary team, hence, such decisions must involve parents. Also, at Dzorwulu Special
School, students are monitored to ensure that the placement options selected for them are
appropriate. However, Turnbull, et al., (2010) postulate that in the USA, schools are
mandated to use the Individualized Education Programme to decide educational
placement, and to review that placement at least annually. It also requires that,
educational placements are in the school the student would normally attend, and as close
as possible to the student's home, unless other factors determining that was not possible.
38
According to Mowbray, Megivern, and Holter, (2003), procedures for placing individuals
with intellectual disability are well grounded when all parties (e.g. the placement team,
including parents and the students themselves) feel part of the process. These procedures
must be clearly documented and comprehensive. Contrary to the views of Mowbray, et
al., (2003), no specific document was found that clearly spelt out guidelines for
placement in Dzorwulu Special School.
39
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
This chapter provides the summary of findings, conclusion, recommendations and
implications for further research.
Summary
This study investigated placement procedures for students with intellectual disability in
Dzorwulu Special School. The study also examined the types of disability students’
manifest and factors that influence placement decisions of students in the school. The
study adopted the case study research design. Five (5) participants were involved in this
study. The purposeful sampling was used in selecting the sample, with a semi-structured
interview schedule as the main tool for collecting data for the study. Documents were
also analysed to compliment the interview data. The outcomes of the study were as
follows:
1. In view of factors that influence placement decisions of students with intellectual
disability in Dzorwulu Special School, the results showed that students’
assessment reports; educational and medical history; social, emotional and
physical growth and development reports were used to inform placement
decisions.
2. In terms of professionals that make placement decisions, it was evident that five
or more professionals were normally involved in making decisions. The
composition of the team depended upon the cases.
On the issue of placement procedures, the results showed that, no specific procedure was
documented. The placement team only meets to discuss students’ records and then decide
on where and how to place a particular student.
40
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the researcher found that, the only official placement
option available in Dzorwulu Special School is a residential facility for individuals with
intellectual disability. However, class placements are done considering the abilities of
students as reflected in their assessment and other relevant records. Critical analysis of
the results suggests that, placement decisions by the placement team were mostly
influenced by the results from these records. Finally, the results suggested that, no
specific placement procedures were documented. The team meets, discusses students’
records in accordance with the promising practices and takes placement decisions.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher recommends that, placement
procedures in the school should be properly documented. What the placement team
should consider in placing the students should also be clearly stated. The placement
teams in special schools for individuals with intellectual disabilities should also be well
constituted.
Areas for further studies
The results of the current study suggested a number of directions for further study. It will
serve a useful purpose if a study is conducted to find out what procedures are available in
all special schools, both public and private in Ghana.
41
REFERENCES
Anleu, S.R. (1999). Deviance, conformity and control, Longman Australia, Melbourne.
Archer, A., & Gleason, M. (2002). Skills for school success: Book 5. North Billerica,
MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education
(6thed.). London: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Avoke, M. (2005). Rudiments of special education. Accra: Salt and
Light & Co.
Avoke, M. (2005). Special education needs in Ghana: Policy, practice and research.
Winneba: Department of Special Education. University of Education.
Bailey, J. (1998). Medical and psychological models in special education, Inc. Clark, A.,
Dyson and A., Millward (eds). Fheorizing Special Education inside the
classroom, London: Routledge.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. & Shakespeare, T., (1999) Exploring Disability: A sociological
introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge Oxford Malden.
Bateman, B., & Linden, M. (1998). Better lEPs (3rd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Bond, G.R. (2004). Supported employment: Evidence for an evidence-based practice.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27, 345–357.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and
participation in schools; entire for studies in inclusive education. Bristol.
Braddock, D. (2001). Public financial support for disability programs at the close of the
20th century: A working paper. Denver, CO: Coleman Institute for Cognitive
Disabilities.
Bradley, A. (2001). Understanding positive communication. Kidderminster: BILD
Publications.
Brynner, J. (2000). Risks and outcomes of social exclusion: insight from longitudinal
42
data. London: OECD.
Champan, I. (2002). Implement these methodologies in general education multilevel
classrooms. The Special Educator; 17(21), 5.
Conners, C. K. (2003). Functional impairment in ADHD: The therapeutic target.
Contemporary Pediatrics, Suppl, 1, 4-6.
Cooper, K.L. & Rascon, L. (1994). Building positive relationships on the border with
parents of special students: effective practices for the lEP Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council
on Rural Special Education, Austin, TX.
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., & Best, A. L. (2002). The influence of socio-demographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as
having learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 49-59.
Creswell, J.W. (2005). Education research. Berkely: Carlisle Communications
Limited.
Davis, S. (1994). 1994 update on inclusion in education of children with mental
retardation. Arlington, TX: The Arc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 378 760).
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special education.
Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Elliot, J.G. (2000). The psychological assessment of children with learning difficulties.
British Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 59-66.
Finkelstein, V. (1991) Attitudes and Disabled People: Issues for Discussion.
New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Finkelstein, V. (2004). Disability, impairment or something in between? In J. Smith,
43
S. French, C. Barnes & C. Thomas, (Eds.). Disabling barriers enabling
environment (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Fraser, D., Moltzen, R., Ryba, K., Neilson, W. & Mitchell, D. R., (2000). Learners
with special needs in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2nd ed.). Palmerton North:
Dunmore Press.
Garrick Duhaney, L. M., & Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive
placements. Remedial and Special Education, 21 (2), 121-128.
Gersch, I. (1992). Pupils involved in the assessment of special educational needs in T.
Cline (ed). The assessment of special Educational Needs: International
perspective. New York: Routledge.
Gonzalez, PA., Aheam, E.M., & Osher, T.W. (1994). Eligibility determination in
special education: a review of state regulation pertaining to protecting in
evaluation Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 519).
Gorn, S. (1999). What do I do when ... The answer book on special education law
(3rd ed.). Horsham. PA: LRP Publications.
Huefner, D. S. (2002). Getting comfortable with special education law: A framework for
working with children with disabilities. Norwood. MA: Christopher-Gordon
Publishers.
Iacovou, M. (2001). Research on smaller schools: What education leaders need to
know to make better decisions. Arlington: Educational Research Service.
Kupper, L., (Ed). (1993). Questions and answers about the IDEA. NICHY News
Digest (2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 273).Langdon,
H., &
Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.) (2002). Racial inequity in special education.
44
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Marks, D. (1997). Models of disability. Disability rehabilitation, 19(3), 85-91.
Mansell, J., Knapp, M., Beadle-Brown, J. and Beecham, J. (2007) Deinstitutionalisation
and community living – outcomes and costs: report of a European Study. Volume
2: Main Report. Canterbury: Tizard Centre, University of Kent.
Matlock, L., Fielder, K., & Walsh, D. (2001). Building the foundation for standardsbased instruction for all students.Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 6872.
Meleen, P.J. (1992). Eligibility guidelines for special education Boston, MA.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 363 056).
Menlove, R.R., Hudson, P.J., & Suter, D. (2001). A field of IEP dreams: Increasing
general education teacher participation in the IEP development process.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 28-33.
Mooney, E. & Fitzpatrick, M., (2003). Determinants of residential & foster care
placements research report. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services &
Public Safety
Mowbray, C.T., Megivern, D., & Holter, M.C. (2003). Supported education
programming for adults with psychiatric disabilities: Results from a national
Survey. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27, 159–167.
Ocloo, M. A., Agbeke, W., Avoke, M., Oppong, A., Hayford, S.K., Gadagbui, G.Y.,
Boison, C. & Essel, J. (2002). Foundations in special education: The Ghanaian
perspective. Winneba: Department of Special Education University of Education.
Oliver, M. (1990). The individual and the social model of disability. Paper presented
45
at the Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the
Royal College of Physicians on people with established loco-motor disabilities in
hospitals. London.
Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: from theory to Practice, Palgrave Press.
O'Neil, J. (1988). How special' should the special ed curriculum be'' Experts debate
merits of academics,’ life skills' Curriculum Update (Sept 1988V (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 026).
Oppong, A. M. (2003). Understanding and effectively educating the special needs
students. Accra: Salt ‘N’ Light.
Otos, M., Kilcrease, M., & Brazeau, K., (1992). Individualized education program:
a special education technical assistance document Eugene, OR: Oregon
Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
346 668).
Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views
on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children,
67 (4), 467-484.
Parker, D. (1982). Developing and bilingual individual education
plan for language minority students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 239 456).
Shankar, J. & Collyer, F. (2002). Support needs of people with mental illness in
vocational rehabilitation programs: The role of the social network.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 7, 15–28.
Smart, J. (2001). Disability, society and the individual. Maryland: Aspen Publishers.
Smith, R. (1998). Children with mental retardation: A parental guide. New York:
Woodline House.
46
Snyder, G. (2005). Telephone Interview on Educational Placement Options for Blind
and Visually-Impaired Students, October 6, 2005.
Star, A. & Lacey, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary assessment: A case study. British Journal
of Special Education. 23(2), 57-67.
Taylor, J. (2004). Care, cure and containment. Changing models of disability. New
Zealand Down Syndrome News, 21, 24-24
Turnbull, Rud Turnbull, Michael L. Wehmeyer (2010). Exceptional lives special
education in today’s schools. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional lives:
Special education in today’s schools (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Turnbull, H. R. & Turmbull, A. R (2000). Free appropriate public education:
The law and children with disabilities (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
Vasey, S. (1992) ‘A response to Liz Crow’, Coalition, September, 42-44.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D.J. (2000). The underlying message in learning
Disabilities intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional
Children, 67,pp. 99-114.
Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 139–145.
47
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
(UEW)
Our Ref:
February 10, 2010
The Headmistress
Dzorwulu Special School
Accra
Dear Madam,
INTRODUCTORY LETTER
Ms. Eyi Mawuko Gadabor a Master’s Student of the University of Education,
Department of Special Education, Winneba is undertaking research on ‘Procedures for
Placement of Individuals with Intellectual Disability in Dzorwulu Special School in
Accra”. She would need your assistance to access data from your school. I would
therefore, be grateful if you could provide her with the necessary assistance.
Your cooperation in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
48
P. O. Box 25, Winneba, C/R Ghana. Tel.: (0432) 22139/22140 Ext 138 headofdept20@yahoo.com
APPENDIX B
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH IN SCHOOL
University of Education, Winneba
Department of Special Education
P. O. Box 25. Winneba.
Central Region.
24th February, 2010.
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
Dear Madam,
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH IN YOUR SCHOOL
I congratulate you for the good work you are doing in your school. I am currently a
Master’s degree student at the University of Education, Winneba. As part of my course, I
am required to do research. The purpose for the study is to find out the placement options
and procedures for placing Individuals with Intellectual Disability in your school.
The study will cover only those responsible for placement of Individuals with Intellectual
Disability in the school. The participants will be interviewed for at least 20minutes. In
order to succeed in this endeavour, the school is kindly requested to appoint a time and
place where all teachers can meet the researcher.
All information provided for the purpose of this research will be treated with utmost
confidentiality. I hope that you will grant me permission to collect data for my study.
49
Yours Truly,
……………………
Eyi Mawuko Gadabor
APPENDIX C
INFORMED WRITTEN CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
University of Education, Winneba
Department of Special Education
Box 25, Winneba
10th March, 2010.
Dear Teacher,
LETTER OF CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
I thank you for the great work that you are doing for your school. I am a student at the
University of Education, Winneba pursuing a Master’s degree course in Special
Education. I am to conduct research in your school as one of the requirements for the
course. The purpose for the study is to find out the placement options and procedures for
placing Individuals with Intellectual Disability in Dzorwulu Special School. I am happy
to inform you that, you have been selected to participate in this study.
All information provided will solely be used for research purposes only and shall be
treated with utmost confidentiality. On your part, you are requested to decide voluntarily
by signing below if you accept to be a participant in this research. Please do not write
your name in this letter.
……………………….............
Research Participant
...........................................
Researcher
50
(signature only)
APPENDIX D
LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO SCHOOLS
University of Education, Winneba
Department of Special Education
P. O. Box 25. Winneba.
Central Region
4th May, 2010.
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
Dear Madam,
LETTER OF APPRECIATION
I am writing back in connection with data collection for my research in which your school
participated. Data collection may not usually be an easy task for researchers. In my case,
it was successful because I got maximum support and cooperation both from you as a
school head and from other participants, all of whom willingly participated in the
research.
I would therefore like to convey my sincerest gratitude to all, especially you for making it
possible for me to obtain data for my study.
May God bless your struggles in the service of our country.
Yours,
51
……………………..
Eyi Mawuko Gadabor
APPENDIX E
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR RESEARCH
PARTICIPANTS
Part One
Sex
Male
Female
What is your status?
How long have you serve in your current status?
Part Two
What are the procedures for admitting a child to your school?
How many individuals are involved in making decisions on placement in the school?
What factors influence decision on placement of the child with disability in the school?
Mention the professionals who are involved in the placement of children with intellectual
disability in the school?
52
APPENDIX F
DZORWULU SPECIAL SCHOOL
(FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES)
SCREENING REPORT FORM
P. O. Box 67
Achimota - Accra
Tel: 772997
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
NAME:…………………………………….. GENDER:…………………...
DATE OF BIRTH:……………………………………………………………
POSITION OF BIRTH:………………………………………………………
PLACE OF BIRTH/HOMETOWN:………………………………………….
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
NUMBER OF YEARS AT PRE-SCHOOL:…………………………….
NUMBER OF YEARS AT BASIC SCHOOL:………………………….
NAME OF SCHOOL:…………………………………………………….
Category: Mild
Moderate
Severe
Profound
Mobility:
Normal
Problem
Type of Problem
Gross motor
Fine motor
skills
skills
53
Speech & language
Fluency
Non-fluent Lack
Features
Minimal
Problems
to
Speech
Difficulties
Communication:
Self-Experience
Lack Self Uses Gestures
Problem
Expression
of
Gestures
Self-help skills
No difficulty
Difficulty
i) Toileting
Requires
Others
Training
ii) Eating/Feeding
iii) Bathing
Aggressive
Friendly
Tantrums
Social
54
Cooperative
Uncooperative
Others
Skills:
Both Parents
Custody
of
Only
Only
Grand
Foster
Mother
Father
Parents
Parent
Child:
ACADEMIC
SKILLS
Ability to read.
Ability to write.
Ability to count.
Lack basic academic skills.
Social skills.
PROBLEMS AFFECTING:
Aggressive
Friendly/Sociable Exhibit
Cooperative
Uncooperative
Tantrums
PARENTS
Father
NAME:…………………………………………………………………….
AGE:……………………………………………………………………….
MARITAL STATUS:………………………………………………………
NO. OF CHILDREN:……………………………………………………..
OCCUPATION:……………………………………………………………
HOMETOWN:……………………………………………………………...
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:……………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………
POSTAL ADDRESS:………………………………………………………
TELEPHONE:……………………………………………………………...
E-MAIL:……………………………………………………………………
Mother
55
NAME:…………………………………………………………………….
AGE:……………………………………………………………………….
MARITAL STATUS:………………………………………………………
NO. OF CHILDREN:……………………………………………………..
OCCUPATION:……………………………………………………………
HOMETOWN:……………………………………………………………...
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:……………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………
POSTAL ADDRESS:………………………………………………………
TELEPHONE:…..………………………………………………………….
CUSTODY OF CHILD
With both parents
With Grandparents
With only mother
With Foster parent
With only father
CASE HISTORY
DURATION OF PREGNANCY:…………………………………………
Pregnancy – Infections
Use of Medication (Prescribed, unprescribed) – alcohol use – paternal smoking
MATERNAL AGE:………………………………………………………...
PLACE OF BIRTH:………………………………………………………...
DESCRIPTION OF BIRTH PROCESS:…………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
POST NATAL HISTORY (COMPLICATIONS IF ANY):……………….
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
TYPE OF MEDICATIONS (IF ANY):…………………………………….
RECOMMENDATIONS:…………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
INTERVIEWER/ASSESSOR(S)
DATE:………………………………….
SIGNATURE:………………………..
NAME:…………………………………
56
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND RESOURCE CENTRE
FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISION)
ACHIMOTA
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Name:
Gender:
Date of birth:
Age:
Brief history:
Behavioral observations:
SELF-HELP/DAILY
LIVING
SKILLS/INTELLECTUAL
GROWTH
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
YES
Toilet trained
Cleans up after toilet
57
NO
WITH ASSISTANCE
SCORE
Wets the bed
Able to bath
Places shoes on correctly
Able to remove clothing
Able to fasten clothing
Uses spoon appropriately
Can identify parts of the body
Can copy shapes
Identities
different
money
denominations
Aware of danger
Cannot sit still
Speech is clear for age
Has delayed speech
Counts by rote to ten
Able to identify numerals
Can deliver a message appropriately
Summary:
58
Recommendation:
NAME OF ASSESSOR:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
59