Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Global Attitudinal Perspectives Toward Inclusion

Dr. Mary Jane Hayes
Austin Peay State University
hayesm@apsu.edu

Introduction

            Teachers and preservice teachers are influenced by many societal factors prior to entering a classroom.   As members of their communities and societies, they are subject to the same influences that affect all public attitudes toward the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society.   There is a body of research that has focused on teacher beliefs, recognizing that some beliefs are based on fact where others are rooted in misconceptions.   One theme emerges, that attitudes can and do influence teachers’ behaviors in the classroom.   Understanding this, in order for inclusion to be successful, general educators must be receptive to the principles and subsequent demands of inclusive education.   Inclusive schools and classrooms must start with the philosophy that all children can learn and belong in the mainstream of school and the community in which they live.

            Inclusion is not just an American educational policy for the education of students with disabilities.   Nor has research into the attitudes and beliefs of pre- and inservice teachers only been conducted in the United States.   Therefore, we will explore some of the research worldwide that illuminates global attitudinal perspectives on inclusion.   As such, we will be more able to understand the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and preservice teachers toward inclusion of students with special needs that illustrates how similar we are globally when it comes to educating all children.   A review of the following studies will demonstrate how the concept of inclusion of students with disabilities in classrooms with their nondisabled peers is a global concern that impacts education and the training of future teachers.

Foreign Studies

Forlin (1997) conducted a collaborative research project between six teacher training universities in Australia and South Africa.   The focus of this study was the acceptance and social integration of preservice teachers toward persons with disabilities.   Forlin’s rationale for such a study was founded on the premise that “attitudes of teachers toward people with a disability are of the utmost importance if equitable access is to be ensured for all children” (p. 3).   Forlin used a 20-item survey named the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (IDP), developed by Gething in 1991, which was designed to yield scales for general discomfort toward people with disabilities (Gething, 1991 as cited in Forlin, 1997).   Examining variables for age, gender and English as a Second Language (ESL), only a negligible effect was reported.   It was noted that preservice teachers who had completed more of their education indicated the highest levels of discomfort.   Another interesting finding examined levels of discomfort between preservice teachers who had completed a compulsory course in special education and those who elected to take a special education course.   Although the effect was small, there was a noticeable difference in levels of discomfort.   The preservice teachers who elected to take a class in special education had more favorable attitudes toward people with disabilities with less discomfort.   Forlin’s study gave no demographic data concerning ethnicity in Australia or South Africa.  

Forlin, Douglas & Hattie (1996) conducted a study in Western Australia that focused on the attitudes of teachers toward the inclusion of students with either physical or cognitive disabilities.   Findings revealed that 86% of the total respondents (n=273) agreed with part-time placement of students with mild cognitive disabilities in the general education classroom, while only 25% agreed with a full-time placement in this setting.   For physical disabilities, findings were more favorable, with 95% in favor of part-time placements and 53% favoring full-time general education placements.   The numbers decreased dramatically depending on the severity of the disability, indicating a marked decline in the willingness of educators to include students with cognitive or physical disabilities in the general education classroom.   Teaching experience was also a factor.   Educators who were the most experienced (more than 11 years) were the least accepting of inclusion for students with physical or cognitive disabilities.   Teachers in the mid-range of experience (6-10 years) were the most accepting group for cognitive disabilities.   Teachers with the least experience were the highest group for acceptance for students with physical disabilities.   No demographic data were provided for ethnicity.

            In 1977, Law 517 was passed in Italy, which called for the elimination of special schools and classes for students with disabilities to be replaced with inclusive practices for all students in general education classrooms (Cornoldi, Terreni, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1997).   Cornoldi et al. felt that the information gained from surveying teacher attitudes in Italy after 20 years of inclusion could be informative regarding inclusive reform efforts in the United States.   Italian teachers responded positively in personally supporting inclusion (77.6%).   Results were not positive in regards to adequacy of support for inclusive practices citing insufficient time (only 18.6% agreed), training (22.3% agreed), personnel support (10.7% agreed) and instructional materials support (8.1% agreed).   Age of the teacher had a significant effect ( p < .05) on total teacher attitude.   “Teachers 40 years or younger reported significantly more positive attitudes than teachers over 40 years old, t (391) = 3.67, p < .001” (p. 352).

            Hutchison & Martin (1999) piloted a field-based course in a teacher education program in Canada to foster inclusive beliefs and practices of preservice teachers.   Twenty-eight elementary preservice teachers wrote dilemma cases or vignettes about their teaching experiences during the practicum portion of the course.   Once the cases had been written, preservice teachers were instructed to have two peers respond to either the dilemma or vignette.   Dilemmas differ from vignettes in that they address paradoxes where one course of action may solve one problem but create another, prompting a number of solutions and making it difficult to choose one.   Vignettes merely describe critical events that prompt a teacher’s immediate attention, and a definite choice between right and wrong can be made.   Three themes emerged: (a) critical stance toward education (usually dealt with preservice teachers’ experiencing conflicts or tension), (b) questioning one’s assumptions (reflecting on hard issues relating to preservice teachers’ own practices in making adaptations for students with disabilities), and (c) recognizing ambiguities in practice (challenging the way things happen within the school and looking at how solutions and dilemmas could be dealt with differently in the future).   Of the 28 students who participated, 21 cases were dilemmas.   Hutchison and Martin reported that “writing a dilemma appeared to be a precursor to candidates’ displaying high levels of critical reflection and making accommodations for intensely inclusive courses of action” (p. 246).   In the demographic data, the researchers reported that only two preservice teachers were members of “visible minority groups in Canadian society, and two had disabilities – one had learning disabilities and one had cerebral palsy” (p. 240).

Moberg’s (1995) research findings in Finland suggest that teachers’ beliefs may play a pivotal role in information and stereotyping used in special education.   One group of teachers was asked to rate 5 sentences written by a student they knew to have mental retardation, while another group was not told that the student had mental retardation.   Results of this study revealed a correlation between teachers’ knowing about the disability and their attitudes and expectations.   The group that had prior knowledge of the disability reported lower expectations and more negative attitudes toward the student’s work than the group that had no knowledge.   This study might further suggest that inclusive attitudes may also be more negative regarding the education of students with cognitive disabilities.

            In Spain, as in other developed countries, teachers have not always been supportive of inclusion although Spanish educational policy is clear in its mandate that all children be included in general education classrooms with special education support when necessary.   Attitudinal research (Cardona, 1999) conducted in Spain using pre- and inservice teachers supported previous research in the United States that reported that teachers are less likely to support inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom because of teachers’ perceived lack of skills in working with special needs populations.   Even though “… most of the general education teachers agreed that inclusion is a right of students and a primary responsibility for teachers” (p.5).   Furthermore, most of the teachers surveyed believed that students with disabilities could create certain problems for them and therefore favored placement options outside the general education classrooms and were concerned about the elimination of the continuum of services.  

            According to Rao and Lim (1999), children with disabilities in Singapore have traditionally been educated in separate schools.   Yet, there has been a movement in general education in the past few years to integrate students with physical disabilities and autism into general education schools and classrooms.   Sadly, studies have shown that teachers in Singapore are still referring students with mild to moderate disabilities to special schools.   Research findings revealed that preservice teachers believed that students with disabilities should not be educated in the same classrooms as their nondisabled peers.   The majority of respondents reported that they would rather not teach students with disabilities.   They did not view the general education classroom as the setting where the instructional needs of special needs students could best be met.   As noted in previously mentioned studies, beliefs of preservice teachers in Singapore seemed to correlate with their perceived lack of training to teach students with disabilities and their ability to manage student behaviors.

United States Studies

             In 1975, the United States Congress passed Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act.   In 1990, 1997 and most recently 2004, the U.S. Congress reauthorized its original legislation.   A number of changes occurred which included renaming the original act to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act now known as IDEA.   IDEA mandates that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment possible, namely a general education classroom with or without special education support.   This legislation has fueled one of the most controversial issues facing American educators today, the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom.   Even though legislative reforms continue to influence inclusion on today’s public schools, it is the attitudes of classroom teachers that ultimately determine the success or failure of inclusive programs.

            After more than twenty-five years since the enactment of IDEA and social and political reforms, there is little doubt that inroads have been made into the inclusion of students with disabilities in public schools today and particularly in general education classrooms.   Each year the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) collects data from all states regarding the numbers of students in special education and in what educational setting these students are being served.   This data is subsequently examined by disability category, age, and ethnicity of the students.   The overall trend has been an increase in the numbers of students in all disability categories being served in least restrictive settings (McLesky, Henry & Hodges, 1999).   The Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reported that 95% of students with disabilities were served in regular school buildings.   Within the regular school building, three placement options exist: (a) regular/general education classroom, (b) resource classroom, or (c) a separate classroom.   To be counted in a regular or resource class, students must spend 21% or more of their day in that particular setting.   Students who receive special education and related services outside the general education classroom for more than 60% of their school day are considered to be in separate classroom settings.   Students with speech and language disabilities are included in general education classrooms at much higher rates than are students in other disability categories (81.8%) according to the annual report published in 1995.   Students with mental retardation and deaf-blindness continue to be excluded from the general education classroom more frequently than students from other disability categories although the “relative distribution of students with disabilities across the 13 disability categories did not change significantly from 1998-99 to 1999-2000” (Twenty-third Annual Report to Congress, 2001, p. II-22).    

            Research studies in the United States report that teachers voiced their support of inclusion in theory (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).   However in practice, teachers would be less favorable toward including students with cognitive, emotional, or behavior disorders (Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Cook, Semmel & Gerber, 1999; Synder, 1999).   American teachers also voiced a concern for the lack of inclusive support practices such as material support, training, time and personnel support.   Both pre- and inservice teachers expressed concern regarding self-efficacy.   Most responded that they did not believe they had the skills or training necessary to effectively teach students with disabilities in their classrooms (Cook, 2001; Freytag, 2001).   Other studies have found correlations between attitudes toward inclusion in the variables of age, gender, and having had prior experience with persons with disabilities.   Results of one particular study found significant differences in gender and prior experience teaching students with disabilities (Hodge, 1988).   Females were significantly more positive than their male cohorts in teaching students with disabilities.   Also, preservice teachers who had prior experience teaching special needs children reported more positive attitudes toward inclusion.   Hodges’ study did not consider ethnicity as a variable in effecting preservice teacher attitudes.   Of the total 103 respondents, only 6 preservice teachers were members of an ethnic minority.

            Hayes’ research conducted in spring of 2003 focused on diverse and nondiverse populations of preservice teachers.   Diverse population of preservice teachers was defined as those who were representative of a minority group based on race or ethnicity.   Nondiverse population of preservice teachers was one that represented the majority or dominant cultural group in American society, namely European American.   Preservice teachers at two universities in middle Tennessee were surveyed.   One university had an undergraduate population that was 81% African American while the other had an undergraduate population that was 65% European American.   Findings of the study suggest that preservice teachers in the university with the diverse population favored segregated placements more so than the students in the university with the nondiverse undergraduate population.   Preservice teachers in the nondiverse university reported having less anxiety upon learning that a student with disabilities will be in their classrooms.   They also felt more comfortable teaching children with moderately physical disabilities than did the diverse group of preservice teachers.   Although diverse preservice teachers favored more segregated settings for students with disabilities, they perceived themselves as becoming less frustrated when teaching special needs students than the nondiverse preservice teachers.   Preservice teachers in the 23-30 age group appeared to have more positive attitudes toward inclusion than preservice teachers in the age ranges of 18-22 and 40-49.   When asked about inclusive attitudes when prior experience working with children with disabilities was a factor, preservice teachers were found to exhibit high beliefs in positive academic progress of special needs students and a propensity for having little difficulty teaching students with cognitive deficits.

Conclusion

            Globally, inclusive practices tend to vary in their degree of implementation.   Often times the attitudes and beliefs regarding inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms tend to either hinder or promote its success.   Teachers worldwide seem to have mixed feelings about including students with disabilities in general education settings.   Age and type of disability are consistent factors affecting attitudes toward inclusion.   Teachers’ self-efficacy is another global variable in the inclusion equation as are classroom supports for inclusion, such as material support, personnel, time for planning, and training.   We have come a long way, but we have much to achieve as a global society that is ready and willing to fully include individuals with disabilities.

References

Cardona, C.M. (1999). What do Spanish education preservice and inservice teachers believe toward inclusion?   Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Educational Research Association, Lahti, Finland.   (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444323)

Cook, B.G. (2001, Winter). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-220.

Cook, B.G, Semmel, M.I., & Gerber, M.M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-207.

Cornoldi, C., Terreni, A., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1997). Teacher attitudes in Italy after twenty years of inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19(6), 350-355.

Forlin, C. (1997, November). Re-designing pre-service teacher education courses: An inclusive curriculum in new times. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Australian Association of Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425583)

Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: How accepting are teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119-133.

Freytag, C.E. (2001, February). Teacher efficacy and inclusion: The impact of preservice experiences on beliefs. Paper presented at the 24 th Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451180)

Garvar-Pinhas, A., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1989). Administrators’ and teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 38-43.

Hodge, S.R. (1998). Prospective physical education teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. Physical Educator, 55(2), 68-77.

Hutchison, N.L., & Martin, A.K. (1999). Fostering inclusive beliefs and practices during preservice teacher education through communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 234-250.

Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. (n.d.) Retrieved April 26, 2002 from www.ideapractices.org/law/downloads/Idea97.doc

Moberg, S. (1995, June). Impact of teachers’ dogmatism and pessimistic stereotype on the effect of EMR-class label on teachers’ judgments in Finland.  Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 141-150.

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Austin Peay State University (2002, Fall).  Information obtained by telephone from Greg Schwartz.   These figures have been reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System for publication.

Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research, Tennessee State University (2002, Fall) Information obtained on-line: www.tnstate.edu/oier/SIS530r/021.htm.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Rao, S.M. & Lim, L. (1999). Beliefs and attitudes of pre-service teachers towards teaching children with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association of Mental Retardation, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433655)

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-75.

Synder, R.F. (1999). Inclusion: A qualitative study of inservice general education teachers’ attitudes and concerns. Education, 120(1), 173-183.

Thirteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , Washington, D.C., 1995.

Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , Washington, D.C., 2001.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact