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

Building capacity for diversity in three
elementary schools through inclusive practice

Judy Lupart, Jessica Whitley, Janine Odishaw
University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta, Canada
judy.lupart@ualberta.ca

Abstract

Although the philosophy of inclusive education has been widely promoted in Canadian schools, inclusive education practice has been far from the ideal in a majority of them. Policies and school organization systems that conflict, lack of teacher preparation and support, and different understanding and knowledge about inclusion are but a few of the barriers associated with ineffectual inclusive education practices. Creating customized learning environment in schools requires an integrated, collaborative partnership between educators, parents, and students. The common goal is that every child has the right to learn in their neighborhood school and to be supported in their learning and literacy development to the fullest extent possible. In this paper we provide results from a set of surveys, framed within an inclusive approach to school development (i.e., Actively Building Capacity for Diversity – ABCD), administered in three urban Western Canadian elementary schools.

The Diversity, Individual Development, Differentiation surveys (DIDDs) were administered to five participant groups (i.e., administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, students), and the data provides an initial baseline profile of the school learning community.   The results of the Phase 1 DIDDs surveys will be reported along with significant areas of convergence and divergence among participant groups. After the results summary has been compiled and disseminated to all school community partners, a decision for continued school improvement research support based on principles of inclusion is made.   Phase 2 of the ABCD project involves the formation of a core action team with representation of all school community participant groups and the research team.   This team will lead in systematic school improvement initiatives and serve as liaison to the larger school community.   Measures of school change will include follow-up analyses of school development priorities at the beginning and end of the school year, yearly target group questionnaires, and yearly recording of student literacy achievement. Implications for these particular schools, lessons learned and future directions are provided.

The field of special education has, within the past few decades, seen numerous promising developments in both theory and research (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Skrtic, 1995).   Significantly, programs and intervention approaches that have traditionally been offered in separate segregated special programs are gradually being incorporated into the general education system. Accordingly, the regular classroom teacher has been expected to assume the primary responsibility for serving the individual learning needs of special students within the regular classroom. This shift has had a direct impact upon school organization and service delivery in educational communities throughout the world (Timmons, Lupart, & McKeough, 2002; UNESCO, 1994). The increasing expectations for schools to expand their programs and services for a broad, more diversified student population demand that educators have an adequate awareness and knowledge base to serve the learning needs of all students. Because approaches to making the necessary school transitions vary substantially from school to school, we can more effectively meet the challenges faced by schools in transition by pooling the knowledge, strategies, and programs amassed in multiple school contexts (Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson, 1998).  

Inclusion of students with challenging needs in regular classrooms continues to be controversial practice for many educators.   Following the earlier integration and mainstreaming movements in the schools, the notion of inclusion has evolved into something very different from the traditional “dual systems” of education in which students are divided in regular and special education categories (Lupart, McKeough & Yewchuk, 1996).   Leading proponents of this contemporary movement want to see schools transformed into effective, unified learning communities where inclusive education practice promotes the full learning potential of all students (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; Lupart, 2000).   Nevertheless concern has been voiced, by educators in particular, over the availability of human physical resources, conceptual misunderstanding, and associated financial implications of inclusive education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 19994; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995; Lupart, 1998).    Whether regular classroom teachers believe they have the responsibility and ability to teach children with special needs is an unresolved issue that continues to debated (Bunch, 1992).  

Across Canada, legislation in the form of provincial Schools Acts mandates school systems to create learning contexts where all learners can develop their individual potential and acquire the knowledge and skills to contribute to society and achieve personal goals. This means schools must create programs, environments, and supports that foster success for all learners. Canadian school culture and climate has changed markedly, over the past two decades, however. Faced with an increasingly diverse student population and the multiple demands this presents, and in the face of mounting financial shortfalls, educators are in an unenviable position. The challenge of dealing with diversity is a formidable one. Currently in Alberta , 16% of the total population is identified as belonging to a visible minority. These demographics reflect the population of students in Alberta schools, and this figure also approximates national figures of 17% of the population as a visible minority (Statistics Canada, 2003). Moreover, in addition to ethnic background, diversity encompasses other differences that create challenges (e.g., language, ability level, behavior, and poverty). These differences as well as similarities must be shared and highlighted to facilitate the integration of students, with the ultimate goal of creating supportive and safe school climates. Our aim, in this research, is to bring this ongoing dialogue to the attention of our participating educational communities, and to offer a venue for sharing scholarly work focused on dealing with diversity in Canadian schools.  

A move towards authentic inclusion is, in essence, a move away from conventional educational practice.   Recognizing the magnitude of this shift and the limitations of imposing mandatory inclusive school practices, many stakeholders have acknowledged the need for a collaborative effort. ABCD is a three-year project targeting 3 schools in the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) that will evaluate the impacts of collaborative processes in shaping more inclusive educational communities and improving overall educational outcomes. Participant schools are engaged in this project at one of 5 possible levels, with Level 5 involving the greatest amount of external school support. Despite the varying degrees of school involvement that define each of these levels, all schools who participate in this project agree to a minimum level of supported activities that include the following: participation in a baseline assessment of inclusive practice; formation of a core team of representative individuals who commit to monthly meetings; attending project-sharing meetings with other schools involved in the project; and attending an introductory professional development day.  

The Diversity, Individual Development, Differentiation surveys (DIDDs) are the primary means for quantifying participant schools’ growth in areas relevant for overall school functioning and specific to inclusive practices. The five surveys developed to assess school functioning target students, parents, teacher assistants, teachers, and administrators.   Questions included within these surveys address the school quality characteristics of effective schools identified by the Calgary Board of Education School Quality Review (i.e., student achievement, school culture, safety and security, student entitlement, school development, and learning and teaching). The surveys aim to assess these qualities as questions address the following themes: sense of school community and shared values (school culture); physical and emotional safety of school environment (safety and security); school commitment to growth (school development); availability of necessary resources that enable quality education for all students (student entitlement); and the curricular focus and climate of inquiry fostered within a school (learning and teaching). This model of effective schools identifies student achievement as the central point of reference for evaluating school success.   The DIDDs surveys assess various aspects of school quality, however, improved overall student achievement will be evaluated more formally by means of standardized and otherassessments of student achievement. Although the identified school quality characteristics are considered dynamic and interrelated in terms of how they impact student achievement, separate examination of each of these elements has benefit for gaining a deeper understanding of the school as a whole (Calgary Board of Education, 2000). Furthermore, interpretation of scores on the basis of these qualities will have direct meaning for individual schools in terms of their mandated purpose.

METHODOLOGY

Surveys were administered to parents, students, teachers, teaching assistants, and administration at three elementary schools in Alberta. Although all surveys were intended to address school quality and satisfaction with inclusive practices, questions on each of the surveys were tailored to the specific needs of the participants (i.e., student questionnaires differed from administration questionnaires).

The process began by sending questionnaires to all parents in the school mail-out. Parental consent forms, as well as consent for the students were included in envelopes. Parents were asked to fill out the questionnaires and return them to the school within 2 weeks, along with consent forms for both themselves and their children. The approximate time to complete the parent questionnaire was 35 minutes. Questionnaires were then given to teachers, teaching assistants, and administration to complete. Researchers were available to give directions and answer any questions before completing the surveys. Teaching staff surveys took approximately 45 minutes to complete the surveys. Questionnaires were given to students in two different procedures. For students in Grades 3-6, students who had parental consent completed the questionnaires on their own, with assistance from the researchers and teaching staff as required. For students who had learning difficulties or for whom English was not their first language, questionnaires were administered orally. For students in Grades 1 and 2, questionnaires were administered orally, with guidance from teaching staff and researchers.   Student surveys took approximately 30 minutes to complete and these were completed in one session. Because student surveys were administered orally and with guidance, a 100% response rate was achieved.

The data collected from each questionnaire were put into SPSS, Version 11.0, and then exported into EXCEL files.   Next, for each data file, items were categorized into five categories: Learning and Teaching (LT), School Culture (SC), School Entitlement (SE), Safety and Security (SS), and School Development (SD).   Thus, each data file was divided into five sub data files.   Lertap 5 (Nelson, 2000) was used to analyze each data file in order to obtain the mean percentage of the items within each category for each questionnaire.  

RESULTS

Questionnaires were administered among school children, parents, teacher assistant, teachers, and administrators at each of the three participating schools. Sample sizes for each participant group by school are summarized in Table 1.  

Table 1

Number of Participants for Each School

The mean percentage scores, and number of items within each sub-category (LT, SS, SD, SE, SC) by participant group are shown in Figures 1 to 6. As can be seen from the graphs in Figures 1 and 2, the items belonging to School Development category did not function well for grade 1-2 and grade 3-6.   The mean percentages for this category on the two questionnaires were low, and therefore the category is not included in the results.

STUDENTS

School “A” :      As a group, students appear to feel safe and secure in the school environment and definitely have strong identification with the school culture.   Young grade one and two students indicate a strong sense of belonging, enjoy participating at school and in general their responses reflect the notion that they feel that they are in a student centered community.   The learning and teaching factor for younger students indicated great satisfaction with resources in the school and a high level of comfort with assessment and achievement practices.   Some concern is noted regarding adult support in the classroom.   Older students from grade 3 to 6 expressed very good understanding of the rules as well as positive perceptions of fairness and safety, and little indication of bullying behavior was noted.   Most students expressed a sense of belonging to the school.   Consistent with this, older students reported that the school operated as a student centered school community and that they enjoyed being at school.   With regard to student entitlement, older students were in support of the need to value all students equally.   A very high level of confidence was expressed for classroom learning.   Older students felt that assessment and achievement practices were very appropriate and that teachers had high expectations for them in these areas.   Similarly, they had a good sense of their own academic competence and they felt supported by the adults in the learning community.   Resource use was one area that was low relative to the others.

Figure 1.   Mean scores for grades 1 & 2 students by school quality area.

Figure 2.   Mean scores for grades 3 to 6 students by school quality area.

School “B” :      Similar to students in School “A”, grades 1 to 2 students in school “B” report a strong sense of safety and security within the school environment. High scores for grades 1 and 2 students on sub-factors related to school enjoyment, sense of belonging, and student-centered school community indicate a positive school culture within School “B”. The learning and teaching factor addresses issues surrounding a student’s sense of academic competence, his/her perception of learning activities within the classroom, as well as parental support and home resources.   Young students strongly endorsed statements across these sub-factors. Items within the lowest scoring sub-factor pertained to parental support with school-related activities and homework.

While grades 3 to 6 students reported a positive overall sense of safety and security within the school, relatively lower scores under the sub-factor of student understanding of rules indicate some concern with regards to student involvement in the establishment of classroom rules as well as frequent changes to school rules.   Most grades 3 to 6 students indicated that they experienced a sense of belonging at the school. However, somewhat lower scores under the sub-factors of student-centered school community and school enjoyment may suggest that not all students enjoy their time spent at school, nor do all students feel “at home” within their school environment.   Under the domain of student entitlement, the overwhelming majority of students endorsed that all students, including those with special needs, should be included in their neighborhood school. Despite this positive stance with regards to inclusivity of all students, students were less certain that all students at the school were equally valued.   The final factor for grades 3 to 6 students in School “B” addressed issues pertaining to learning and teaching. High scores on the sub-factor of assessment/achievement indicate that teachers are effective at promoting achievement amongst students and at encouraging success among all students within the class. Moderately high scores related to students’ perceptions of classroom learning and their beliefs about academic competence suggest that students generally feel included in classroom activities, motivated to learn and capable of success within the classroom. The lower score on the sub-factor of parental support indicates that this may be an area to be addressed within this school community.

School “C”:     Results indicate that in terms of safety and security Grade 1 and 2 students do not feel unsafe in their school environment. With respect to school culture Grade 1 and 2 students indicated very high and consistent levels of school enjoyment and participation, a sense of belonging, and their perception of the school as a student-centered school community. Accordingly very high mean scores were evident for student entitlement, in the sense that students felt that teachers gave help to the individual students if they needed it and that there was a strong positive inclination that all students should be included in the school. For the learning and teaching component Grade 1 and 2 students highly rated the academic competence of teachers and classroom learning versus at the home level. The one area that was not as highly ranked was the area of parent support, primarily with regard to homework assistance.

For older students in Grades 3 to 6 results were based on a scale of 1-3. The first area, safety and security, sub-factors indicated that in general students were fairly confident that they understood the rules of the school, that they felt safe within the school, and that they perceived the school to be fair. The highest factor that came out in this subcategory was bullying prevention. As for school culture, Grades 3 to 6 students felt that the school was definitely student-centered and that they not only enjoyed being at school but they had a real sense of belonging. With regard to student entitlement there was some difference in the responses. In response to the question “I think that all kids, including those with special needs, should be included in my school” there was a very high level of response with a mean of 2.94. Other areas, such as “I sometimes leave the class to get extra help with my homework”, had a mean of 1.38, indicating in a positive way that students typically get the help they need in the classroom. In terms of the learning and teaching sub-area, there was a very strong indication for school library, with a mean of 2.71, and for assessment and achievement. Sample questions in the latter category would include “I try hard to get good grades”, “My teacher expects all students to do their best”, indicating students from Grades 3 to 6 had a strong sense of being successful. Other areas (parent support, classroom learning, and beliefs about academic competence) are not quite as high, although they are all in the above average range.

PARENTS

School “A”:     Results from the surveys with parents indicate a high level of agreement or consistency in the safety and security areas of the learning community.   There were no indications of difficulty in terms of school facility concerns, bullying policy practice, non-discriminatory practices and approaches to discipline.   Highest levels of positive response occurred in the area of school culture.   Clearly, parents feel there is a strong sense of belonging in the school community and they are generally very positive about the parent school relationships.   In addition, they have positive views in terms of student entitlement.   They indicated a high comfort level in terms of their children having the

Figure 3. Mean scores for parents by school quality area.

supports needed and they felt students were equally valued in the school and there was a good level of agreement with respect to support on inclusion.   As for the learning and teaching areas, parents felt that students were well supported in terms of becoming self-directed learners and in terms of satisfaction about the academic successes of their child.   They felt that the instructional assessment approaches were good and that their child experienced good learning support in the classroom.   Relative to other areas, learning and teaching and school development were less positively perceived.   Nevertheless, these areas were still positively rated.

School “B”:     Similar to results from School “A” and School “C”, parents of children attending School “B” consistently reported general satisfaction across the sub-factors of safety and security that address the school facility and how the school addresses non-discriminatory practices, approaches to bullying, and management and discipline. With regards to school culture, parents most often agreed that their child was valued by the school and enjoyed his/her time spent at school. They further reported a positive relationship between themselves and the school, where they felt comfortable approaching teachers and had adequate opportunity to become involved in the school. The lowest score within the school culture domain dealt with valuing and supporting diversity and the initiative taken by school members to make the school community more inclusive. Moderate scores (i.e., between 3. 2 and 3.4) under the domain of student entitlement indicate that parents are, for the most part, in favour of inclusive school practices. Parents within School “B” generally perceive the resources within the school to be adequate, and they report moderate satisfaction in terms of how the school addresses issues of equality and fairness and how their child’s unique learning needs are handled. Like parents of children attending School “A” and School “C”, parents at this school evaluated the learning and teaching domain somewhat less positively than other areas of school functioning.   Here, parents were generally satisfied with their child’s academic achievement, how this achievement was assessed, and how teachers supported the learning of all students and how they promoted self-direction amongst students within the classroom. Parents at this school did not report on the area of school development.

School “C”:     We find that for safety and security, parents are fairly consistent in recognizing that the school has implemented nondiscriminatory practices. They do not have any major concerns in terms of school facility. They recognize that bullying policy and prevention is well in hand and in general parents are very satisfied with the approaches that are taken to management and discipline. With respect to the school culture factor, parents consistently ranked their child’s sense of belonging very high –   on a scale of 1-5, at 4.13 – and they also perceived the parent-school relationship to be extremely positive, with a mean of 4.12. A slightly lower mean score was indicated for valuing and supporting diversity. Parents were also asked to indicate the type of classroom events and activities that they attended: most prominent were special school events like concert, carnival, dance, at 96.6%, with a similar percentage for parent-teacher conferences. In contrast there was very low response for organized competition with other schools, such as sports or academics, with a rating of 5.6. Responses for student entitlement were slightly lower, with the mean scores in the 3.45 range. In terms of equality and fairness parents had a mean score of 3.47; for their beliefs a slightly lower score of 3.37; and in terms of resources the questions relating to, for example, “There is a good choice of alternate programs within this school”, “The computer facilities at the school are adequate”, they gave a rating of about 3.46. For the question “Does your child attend your neighborhood school?” the yes response rate was 94.4% and in response to “Does your child require extra support at school?” the response was 20.5%. The highest area identified for extra support was in the category of learning disability, and then attention deficit, and when asked to indicate satisfaction levels, low levels of satisfaction were indicated for behavior disorder and English as a Second Language. Higher levels were indicated for areas of physical disability and learning disability. In terms of satisfaction with various supports, highest levels of support were indicated for occupational or physical therapy, other therapies, and individual education plans, and lowest level of satisfaction indicated for medical services. In regard to learning and teaching, parents generally responded positively to this theme area. The areas that were most highly rated were the parents’ perception of their child’s academic success, with a mean of 3.95, and supports to promote students’ self-direction and active participation in learning, with a mean of 3.94. Slightly lower but still very much in the positive range, was teacher support of student learning, with a mean of 3.78, and range of instructional and assessment approaches was the lowest with a mean at 3.65. Parents were asked a number of questions about homework and 100% indicated that they review or help their child with his or her homework, that the children have a specific room to complete homework, and that parents have high expectations. Interestingly, in response to the question “Does your child have a specific routine for the completion of homework?” only 30% indicated that this was so. Academic expectations were perceived to be right on target; however, parents indicated, in the percentage of 34.4, that the amount of homework is too little.

EDUCATION ASSISTANTS

School “A”:     For education assistants the school development area was perceived to offer adequate opportunities for collaboration and that there was good support from administration and good allocation of resources.   Several opportunities for professional development activities were indicated.   Education assistants were consistent in their very high rankings for the majority of sub factors within the safety and security area.   They indicated that practices were generally non-discriminatory.   They felt that bullying was actively discouraged within the school community and that within the school and the classroom there was good behavior management and disciplinary problems were adequately addressed.   Relative to other areas, collaboration in management and discipline was lower.   With respect to school culture, clearly education assistants were resoundingly positive in all areas.   They showed a highly favorable response for the believe that the school operates as a school centered school community that school community and parent school relationships were very, very strong.   There was significant support in valuing diversity and they felt that not only was there a good professional atmosphere for them to work in, they were highly satisfied as professionals.   Educational assistants indicated that they had good access to resources.   However, some concern was evident with regard to special equipment, a lack of computer software and computers.   In the area of learning and teaching, education assistants indicated a very high level of satisfaction in terms of general instructional practices, their involvement in differentiating instruction, being able to work with the teacher and other professionals and in there perceptions of fair assessment and adequate demonstration of student achievement.   It is of interest to note that parental involvement with education assistant was more likely for good behavior and good academic performance.   Education assistants were less consistent in their responses concerning homework and philosophy and classroom practice.   Taking all school quality areas into consideration, education assistants were highly satisfied in the areas of student entitlement and school culture.

Figure 4. Mean scores for education assistants by school quality area.

School “B”:     Consistently moderate scores were found in the school development area as evaluated by education assistants. In the area of working together, these scores may indicate the need for improvement surrounding collaboration between education assistants and other teachers within the school, and the need for further sharing of skills and knowledge amongst school staff.   Relatively low scores within the sub-factors of administration and allocation of resources, and professional development opportunities, also suggest that education assistants may benefit from more meaningful professional development activities, and from increased and improved allocation of resources throughout the school.

Under the domain of safety and security, education assistants at School “B” were very positive in their perceptions of how the school handled non-discriminatory practices and the efforts taken to ensure the prevention of bullying. The education assistants were less positive in how they described classroom and school behaviour management and discipline issues at the school, and in how well staff, parents and students collaborated to improve management. Some variability was also seen across sub-factor scores related to school culture. A very high score related to valuing and supporting diversity indicates that education assistants actively encourage inclusivity within the school and take responsibility to promote the celebration of difference amongst students. Similar to the perceptions of parents within this school, education assistants agreed that there was open communication between parents and teachers, and that the school was actively involved within the community. Despite high scores within the professional atmosphere sub-factor indicating respect and good cooperation amongst teachers and administrators, lower scores related to professional satisfaction indicate that not all education assistants find their professional role satisfying.

Education assistants reported moderately high scores under the domain of student entitlement, specifically as this relates to access to resources. The library and special equipment for students with special needs were two areas that education assistants identified as lacking resources. Lower scores in student entitlement domain were found with regards to education assistants’ values and beliefs surrounding inclusion.

Relative to other factors, education assistants had somewhat less positive perceptions of the learning and teaching within School “B”. Relatively low scores related to general instruction and differentiating instruction indicate that there may be a lack of collaborative teaching approaches within classes, and that the differentiated instruction and focus on the individual needs of students with special needs may need development. Moderately high scores within the assessment and achievement sub-factor suggest that education assistants promote a less competitive, more individualized and differentiated approach to assessment. Relatively high scores under philosophy and classroom practice also suggest that education assistants have a generally positive perception of their influence on students and on the notion that all students can experience success in the classroom.

School “C”:     Regarding safety and security, education assistants were most positive with respect to bullying policy and prevention, followed next by a perception of high levels of nondiscriminatory practices. Education assistants perceive that classroom behavior management and discipline as well as school behavior management and discipline were adequately provided, with a mean score in both categories at 3.50. The lowest score in this particular theme area was collaboration in management and discipline, with a mean score of 3.0. With regard to school culture, this was generally very positively viewed. Highest scores went to a positive perception of school community relationships, at a mean of 4.17, and professional satisfaction, so education assistants feel like they an authentic and valued part of the school community. As far of student entitlement, education assistants indicated fairly high rating for inclusive values and beliefs, with a mean of 3.47, and a perception that there was very good access to resources. Specific resources that were identified as being very positive included library, special equipment for special needs students, manipulatives for math instruction, and audio-visual equipment. Ratings in the area of learning and teaching were highest for philosophy and classroom practice and for homework. Mid-range ratings were noted for differentiating instruction and assessment and achievement, and the lowest rating was for general education. This included questions such as “There are too many interruptions during the school day”. When queried about the proportion of time that education assistants spend on different types of activities, the highest ratings were indicated for working with individual students. In the area of school development, education assistants gave highest ratings to administration and allocation of resources. Lower ratings, with a mean of 2.86, for professional development opportunities and a mean of 2.67 for working together indicate that these as areas that may require some special attention.

TEACHERS

School “A”:     For the teachers, in the area of school development, responses indicated ample professional development opportunities as well as a positive perception of school administration and allocation of resources.   One area that appears to need some improvement would be in regard to working together in terms of collaboration and joint problem solving particularly with district level school staff. Consistent high mean scores (i.e., over 4.0) within the safety and security area indicate that teachers perceive a strong sense of safety and security within the School Learning Community.   Based on this, it appears that school and classroom behavior management and discipline is seen to be well in hand at the school.   Similar to other participant groups, teachers viewed the school culture to be extremely positive.   They felt that the school reflected a student centered school community and that parent, school and school community relationships were very strong. Teachers also endorsed questionnaire statements that suggest a strong, positive sense of valuing and supporting school diversity within the school.   Less satisfaction was expressed for professional atmosphere and professional satisfaction.   In terms of student entitlement, the teachers felt that there was an attempt to minimize pulling students out of the classroom for support and gave a very positive rating for inclusive values and beliefs.   The area of access to resources wasconsidered to be less well developed.   Two sub-factors within the learning and teaching school quality areas indicated a high degree of satisfaction for teachers; working with teaching assistants and philosophy and practice concerning student learning.   Other areas within learning and teaching such as general instruction, being able to differentiate instruction and the procedures for homework were viewed to be satisfactory relative to other areas.   Teachers expressed concerns in the areas of assessment and the involvement of parents.   Responses regarding support services used by teachers indicate that the preferred support personnel includes speech and language therapists, school psychologists, learning resources consultant and language arts consultants.  

Figure 5. Mean scores for teachers by school quality area.

School “B”:     In the area of school development, teachers endorsed statements suggesting that members of the school staff were involved in setting school goals and developing plans for the assessment and evaluation of students. Furthermore, relatively high scores within the working together sub-factor suggest that teachers and education assistants collaborate to address the progress of particular students and to share expertise amongst one another. Teachers had somewhat less positive perceptions related to the role they played in the allocation of resources at the school and in the availability of needed resources. Finally, moderate scores related to professional development indicate that professional development opportunities had only a moderate degree of influence on teachers at School “B”.

Teachers at School “B”, like the education assistants at this school, reported a very strong sense of school functioning in the area of safety and security, specifically as this related to promoting non-discrimination amongst students, and bullying prevention. Relative to EA, teachers had a somewhat more positive perception of classroom and school behaviour management and discipline. However, like the education assistants, lower scores on the sub-factor related to collaboration in management and discipline suggest that increased cooperation amongst teachers and between teachers and parents might help to improve issues of management and discipline within the school. Based on teacher reports, it also appears that the culture at this school is very positive. Scores indicate that the school is very student-centered, that teachers and students support diversity, and that respectful and open relationships exist between teachers and students. High mean scores under the sub-factors of parent-school relationship and school-community relationship further suggest that teachers and other staff at the school are effective at engaging parents in the school community, and that the school is actively involved within the community. Teachers’ perceptions of the professional atmosphere at the school were positive suggesting that there exists a supportive community amongst teachers, administrators and other school staff. This positive professional atmosphere likely contributes to the high degree of professional satisfaction reported amongst teachers. Moderate scores (i.e., means between 3.4 and 3.7) on sub-factors related to student entitlement suggest that equal access to necessary resources may not be available for all students at the school. Furthermore, they suggest that the values and beliefs of teachers may not always be in line with the notion of full inclusion.

In terms of the learning and teaching area, teachers at School “B”, like teachers at School “A” reported a high degree of satisfaction with regards to working with education assistants and the philosophy and practice concerning student learning. As well, teachers at this school had positive perceptions of the type and range of assessment practices employed at the school. Somewhat less positive were teachers’ evaluations of school functioning with regards to general instruction, differentiating instruction and homework. General instruction addresses issues such as how teachers approach lessons and how equipped teachers feel when implementing new curriculum. Moderate scores related to differentiating instruction may reflect a need to develop the resources and abilities of teachers to individualize instruction for a diverse body of students.

School “C”:     Responses for the teacher questionnaires under the safety and security domain were very high and ratings were noted for the areas of nondiscriminatory practices, bullying policy and prevention, and classroom behavior management and discipline. Lower ratings were found in the areas of school-wide behavior management and discipline, and the lowest, with a mean of 3.21, for collaboration in management and disciple, again indicating an area that may require special attention. Teachers noted that particular behavior management problems that they experienced included excessive student lateness, one or more students disrupting the class, and verbal conflicts among students. Ratings for school culture by teachers were notably high. All aspects of this particular area were very highly rated (i.e., mean scores over the 4.0 range). This includes school-centered school community, parent-school relationships, and school-community relationships. Valuing and supporting diversity was the highest, with a mean of 4.48. Professional atmosphere and professional satisfaction were all highly rated, indicating that teachers found the school culture to be very positive. When asked about the percentage of parents participating in different activities, highest percentages were noted for parents participating in parent-teacher conferences and participating in student-led conferences. In the area of student entitlement, inclusive values and beliefs had a mean rating of 3.36, and a higher rating was given to access to resources, with a mean of 3.78. Specifically the resources that were found in the library were the most highly ranked. In the area of learning and teaching, teachers rated philosophy and practice concerning student learning the highest, with a mean of 4.17. Other areas, including homework, assessment and achievement, working with education assistants, and differentiating instruction were rated in the moderate range, and the lowest rating was for general instruction. This would include questions such as “I provide clear information about learning expectations within a lesson or a group of lessons”. In terms of what proportion of time is spent on various instructional activities, teachers indicated a fairly even distribution of activities from whole class teaching, small group instruction, working with individual students, etc. The lowest ranking was in terms of having students mark their own work. It is of interest to note that when teachers considered various assessment procedures, they ranked the Provincial Achievement Tests as the lowest and gave more attention to procedures such as portfolios, oral questioning, observations, assignments and homework, and teacher-made tests. In the area of school development, teachers felt that working together had a high rating with a mean of 3.58, and there was a similar high rating, mean 3.44, for professional development opportunities. A lower ranking was indicated for the administration and allocation of resources. When rating the degree of influence of various professional development activities, highest ratings were given to in-service presentations and workshops, individual study such as university courses, and other conferences.

ADMINISTRATORS

SCHOOL “A”:            In comparison to other participant groups, administrators were consistently more positive in all areas of school quality.   With respect to school development, administration perceived a high level of working together and good allocation of resources.   They indicated a high percentage of use of provincial achievement tests for curriculum instruction and assessment.   In addition, provincial achievement tests had a strong impact on school goals.   As a group, administrators attended numerous workshops and ranked school professional days and other conferences highly in terms of degree of influence.   The area of safety and security revealed consistent high mean scores in every sub-factor area including non-discriminatory practices, bullying policy and practice, collaboration in management and discipline, and school and classroom behavior management and discipline.   Essentially these high scores reflect a high level of confidence in existing policies and procedures.   Similarly, school culture is viewed as very positive.   All mean scores are well above the 4.00 mark indicating that administrators see the school as predominantly student centered with strong parent school community relationships.   However, their low rating for the question concerning whether they would be an administrator again given the choice suggests that the demands are wearing and abundant in contemporary schools. Responses revealed a high valuing of student diversity.   Administrators perceived the school as offering a very professional atmosphere along with a high degree of satisfaction.   Administrator responses indicate very high mean scores for student entitlement as well.   At this particular Elementary School there is an attempt to admit students within the local community school and to minimize pulling students out of the classroom, along with strong inclusive values and beliefs and that there is good access to resources.   Finally, learning and teaching questions reveal that administrators are happy or satisfied with parental involvement and the procedures and policies for homework.   Relative to other school quality areas, administrators are less positive in regard to philosophy and practice concerning student learning.   On a scale of 1 to 4, administrators consistently indicated a mean score of 3.0 for assessment, delivery and planning of curriculum.   However, on assessment they felt that the comments on student report cards described academic behavior and growth very clearly as well as attitude behavior and work habits.   Areas of priority for this school year include writing computer technology, physical development, social responsibility, personal responsibility and inclusion.

SCHOOL “B”:            Similar to School “A” and School “C”, administrators at School “B” were consistently more positive than other informants (e.g.., education assistants, teachers) in their evaluation of school functioning across the school quality areas.   With respect to school development, administrators had a strong sense of the influence of professional development opportunities on their own practice. Very high scores under the sub-factor of working together indicate that teachers and parents play an important role in shaping the structure of classes (i.e., teacher assignment and student placements) and that school staff work collaboratively with one another. Like reports from teachers and education assistants at this school, administrators at School “B” also indicated the need for improvement in the area of administration and allocation of resources. In the area of safety and security, very high scores across the sub-factors of non-discriminatory practices, bullying prevention and practice, collaboration in management and discipline, and classroom and school behaviour management and discipline, suggest very positive functioning in terms of efforts undertaken to ensure the well being and safety of students.

School administrators had positive perceptions of the culture at School “B”. The two administrators who completed the questionnaire strongly endorsed statements pertaining to their own professional satisfaction. They reported strong ties between the school and parents, and between the school and the community, more generally. High scores indicate that the teachers and other school staff value and support diversity amongst teachers and students. Relatively lower scores under the sub-factor of student-centered school community suggest that relationships between teachers and students may not always be the ideal. While administrators at this school had very positive perceptions of student entitlement as this relates to students’ access to resources, somewhat lower scores under the sub-factor of inclusive values and beliefs suggest that administrators may not always support the full inclusion of students with special needs within the regular classroom.

Finally, across sub-factors related to learning and teaching, high scores from administrators indicate a positive and strong sense of school functioning in terms of their philosophy of student learning, effective implementation of curricula and differentiation of instruction for learners of different abilities and with regards to how well teachers and education assistants work to promote the learning of students. The assessment of student learning was also thought to adequately capture student’s success and progress.  

Figure 6. Mean scores for administrators by school quality area.

School “C”:     For administrators, the area of safety and security showed a high level of satisfaction in all categories. Nondiscriminatory practices had a mean of 4.67, bullying policy and prevention, 4.33, collaboration in management and discipline a mean of 4.25, and school behavior management and discipline a mean of 4.50. The discipline problems noted more frequently included one or more students disrupting a class and verbal conflicts among students. Again in the area of school culture, very positive ratings were noted. All areas, including student-centered school community, parent-school relationships, school-community relationships, valuing and supporting diversity, professional atmosphere, and professional satisfaction, were over a mean of 4.0 or greater. Under student entitlement administrators had higher rankings for access to resources, with a mean of 4.29, and a lower mean indicated for inclusive values and beliefs. With regard to learning and teaching, none of the administrator respondents indicated that they had teaching duties. When asked to indicate areas that were emphasized in general in the school, highest ratings were noted for reading, writing, problem solving in math, physical development, social responsibility, and democratic participation. With respect to the adequacy of various activities related to curriculum, a moderate rating was indicated for planning of curriculum, delivery of curriculum, and assessment of curriculum. All were rated with a mean of 3.0. Community resources that were typically utilized included museums, hospitals, libraries, and transportation centers. In the area of school development, school administrators put a high rating on the area of working together, with a mean of 4.33, and professional development opportunities were ranked at a mean of 3.75. A lower rating, mean 2.89, was indicated for administration and allocation of resources. Specific issues were noted in terms of the year’s budget for the use of support personnel such as curriculum consultants, psychologists, and speech and language therapists.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the collective findings of the three schools examined in this project indicate strong and positive school functioning across most school quality areas as perceived by all participant groups. Students, parents, teachers and administrators all reported a positive and welcoming culture within the school. Furthermore, high ratings of the safety and security area across participant groups, suggest that the schools promotes respect among teachers and students, and that policies are in place to ensure of the safety of its members. In general, participant groups had moderately good reports of learning and teaching, suggesting that efforts are made to effectively engage students and to assess them fairly. Less positive ratings of the school development area suggest that some focus could be paid to professional development opportunities made available to education assistants and teachers, and that the administration and allocation of resources might be improved upon. While student groups were in general very positive with regards to student entitlement and the inclusion of all students within the school and classrooms, parents, education assistants, teachers and administrators were less likely to endorse statements related to strong inclusive values and beliefs. Nevertheless, the schools are committed to the process of continuous growth and development, and they are using this baseline research to direct their efforts over the next three years.   At this time the DIDDs process will again be undertaken to assess the impact of school improvement and inclusion initiatives.

References

Andrews, J., &   Lupart, J. L. (2000) The inclusive classroom:   Educating exceptional children.(2 nd Edition),  Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.

Bunch, G. (1992). Teacher attitudes to full inclusion. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1 & 2(2), 117-137.

Bunch, G., Lupart, J., & Brown, M. (1997). Resistance and acceptance: Educator attitudes to inclusion of students with disabilities. Faculty of Education, York University. Toronto.

Friend, M., Bursuck, W., & Hutchinson, N. (1998). Including exceptional students: A practical guide for classroom teachers   (Canadian Edition). Scarborough, ON: Allyn & Bacon.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-309.

Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, Texas:Pro-ed.

Lupart, J. L.   (1998).   Setting right the delusion of inclusion:   Implications for Canadian schools.   Canadian Journal of Education, 23(3), 251-264.

Lupart, J.L., McKeough, A., & Yewchuk, C. (Eds.). (1996). Schools in transition: Rethinkinhg regular and special education. Toronto, ON: Nelson Canada.

Lupart, J. L., & Webber, C.   (2002). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education systems to inclusive schools.   Exceptionality Education Canada, 12(2 & 3), 7-52.

Skrtic, T. M. (1995).The organizational context of special education and school reform. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.) Special education and student disability: An introduction. (pp. 729-791). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Timmons, V.,   Lupart,   J. L., & McKeough,   A.   (2002) Schools in Transition: International perspectives on inclusion.   Exceptionality Education Canada, 12(2 &3), 3-6.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. World conference on special needs education, Salamanca. Paris.

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