npdf

TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE: A STUDY OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES

TOWARD INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

by

Regina L. Sims

DOUGLAS DEWITT, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

TRACEY LACEY, Ph.D., Committee Member

BERNELL KELLY, Ed.D., Committee Member

Harry McLenighan, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

July 2008

3311409

3311409 2008

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of regular and special

education teachers toward inclusion and how their attitudes impact the

implementation of inclusion into the regular education classroom. The study was

conducted in the Biloxi Public School District in the city of Biloxi, MS. There were

four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high school and one high

school involved in the study. The instrument utilized for the study was the Opinions

Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI), a six-point Likert

attitudinal scale, developed by Dr. Richard Antonak and Dr. Barbara Larrivee (1995).

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, John W. Sims, Jr., and my

children, Brianna Arielle Sims, Alyssa Gabrielle Sims and John W. Sims, III. They

are my strength, encouragement, and motivation. I thank God for giving me the

strength, drive and will to persevere through this entire dissertation process.

iv

Acknowledgments

This dissertation has been a long, tiresome journey but I give thanks to God

for enabling me to persevere through this process. I would also like to thank my

family for being my biggest supporters throughout this dissertation process. Each of

them has played a major role in the completion of my dissertation, so I am forever

grateful to them. First, I would like to acknowledge my husband, John, who has been

relentless in his efforts to keep me motivated and focused throughout this process. He

was my strength when I was tired and about to give up. He has always believed in me

and my abilities.

Next, I would like to acknowledge my children, Brianna, Alyssa and Trey;

they have provided me with tremendous support. They were always asking for

updates on where I was in the dissertation process and keeping up their grades in

school so that I would not have to worry about them. In addition to my husband and

children, I would like to acknowledge my mother, Dora Conley, who has been my

number-one cheerleader. She has always been a proud mother and encouraged me to

do my best. She would frequently ask, “How much longer do you have before you are

finished?” I would also like to acknowledge my in-laws, John and Verna, who kept

the kids so that I could attend the colloquia. A special thanks to all of them!

My committee has done a great job in supporting me throughout the process.

Their suggestions and expertise helped to develop and enhance this dissertation. I

would also like to thank the superintendent, administrators and teachers of Biloxi

v

Public Schools who participated in this study. Thank you for sharing your opinions in

my research study.

vi

Table of Contents

Dedication ................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1. THE PROBLEM.................................................................................... 1

Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study .......................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem........................................................................................ 10

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 12

Rationale ................................................................................................................. 15

Significance of the Study........................................................................................ 16

Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 16

Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................. 19

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 21

Introduction............................................................................................................. 21

Historical Overview................................................................................................ 21

Review of Related Legislation and History of Service Delivery............................ 24

Court Cases Impacting Individuals with Disabilities.............................................. 29

Education in the Least Restrictive Environment .................................................... 32

vii

Successful Implementation of Inclusion................................................................. 34

Resistance to Inclusion ........................................................................................... 39

Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion............................................................................ 41

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 47

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 48

Introduction............................................................................................................. 48

Methodology/Design of the Study.......................................................................... 49

Results..................................................................................................................... 54

Population and Sample ........................................................................................... 59

Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 60

Research and Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 62

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 63

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 64

Ethical Issues .......................................................................................................... 65

Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................... 68

Summary................................................................................................................. 68

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS............................................................................................ 70

Introduction............................................................................................................. 70

Description of the Sample....................................................................................... 73

Differences in Perceptions about Benefits to Integration ....................................... 74

Differences in Perceptions about Integrated Classroom Management ................... 80

Differences in Perceptions about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities....... 85

viii

Differences in Perceptions about Special vs. Integrated Education ....................... 90

Summary................................................................................................................. 95

CHAPTER 5: SUMMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 97

Introduction............................................................................................................. 97

Summary of the Study ............................................................................................ 97

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 119

APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT.............................................................. 130

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations on Five Subscales.......................................74

Table 2. Independent Samples t test on Benefits of Integration by Group

(Special Education vs. General Education) .........................................................75

Table 3. Benefits of Integration (Exploration).............................................................79

Table 4. Independent Samples t test on Integrated Classroom Management

by Group (Special Education vs. General Education) .........................................80

Table 5. Integrated Classroom Management (Exploration).........................................84

Table 6. Independent Samples t test on Perceived Ability to Teach

Students with Disabilities by Group (Special Education vs. General

Education) ............................................................................................................85

Table 7. Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities

(Exploration) ........................................................................................................89

Table 8. Independent Samples t test on Special versus Integrated General

Education by Group (Special Education vs. General Education) ........................90

Table 9. Special vs. Integrated Education (Exploration) .............................................94

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Box plot of benefits of integration................................................................76

Figure 2. Bar graph of benefits of integration, individual responses...........................78

Figure 3. Benefits of integration, group means (bar graph).........................................78

Figure 4. Box plot of integrated classroom management ............................................81

Figure 5. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, individual

responses ..............................................................................................................83

Figure 6. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, group means....................83

Figure 7. Box plot of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities ..................86

Figure 8. Bar graph of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities,

individual responses.............................................................................................88

Figure 9. Bar graph of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities,

group means .........................................................................................................88

Figure 10. Box plot of special vs. integrated general education..................................91

Figure 11. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, individual

responses ..............................................................................................................93

Figure 12. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, group

means ...................................................................................................................93

1

CHAPTER 1. THE PROBLEM

Introduction to the Study

There has been a national concern regarding the growing number of students

with disabilities who are being educated within regular education classrooms (Villa,

Thousand, Nevin & Liston, 2005). According to Smith (2001), despite progress in

special education, many issues still exist. The focus of this study is the issue of

inclusion. Inclusion seeks to provide students with disabilities a quality education in

classrooms alongside their nondisabled peers by providing accommodations and

modifications to maximize their potential for academic success (Bryant, Dean, Elrod

& Blackbourn, 1999; Zinkel & Gilbert, 2000). This dissertation focuses on the

perceptions of regular education and special education teachers toward inclusion. Its

focus is to gain a deeper understanding of how their attitudes impact the

implementation of inclusion into the regular education classroom.

The 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) made

inclusion a controversial topic. According to McBrien & Brandt (1997), P.L. 94-142

required a free and appropriate education with related services for each child in the

least restrictive environment possible, and an Individualized Education Program (IEP)

for each qualifying child. In 1991, the bill was renamed the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the revision broadened the definition of

disabilities and added related services. A change in the language of this

reauthorization legislation stipulated that students with disabilities be educated in

2

general education classes to the maximum extent possible. The passing of IDEA and

its reauthorizations, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,

1990, 1997, 2004), an increasing number of students with disabilities were placed

into general education classrooms rather than in “pullout” special education programs

(McLeskey, Henry & Axelrod, 1999). These students often spend a majority of the

school day in general education settings (Klinger, Vaughn, Hughers, Schumm &

Elbaum, 1998) in an effort to provide them instruction to the maximum extent

possible in the least restrictive environment.

The reauthorization of Public Law 94-142 has had a significant impact on the

education of students with disabilities. Although IDEA did not specifically require an

inclusion program, it does require that a disabled student must experience an

inclusive classroom setting. An important part of inclusion is a commitment to

educate students with disabilities in quality, age-appropriate, general education

classrooms. Additionally, inclusion is intended to create classrooms in which students

with disabilities are accepted and have a sense of belonging. (Salend, S. J. &

Garrick-Duhaney, L. M., 1999).

Since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, federal legislators have

become increasingly concerned that students with disabilities have access to general

education curriculum. Access to the general education curriculum means that special

education students spend increased time in the regular education classroom (Villa,

Thousand, Nevin & Liston, 2005).

The NCLB Act of 2001 is believed by many professionals to represent the

3

most significant change in federal legislation in years (Underwood, Welsh, Gauvain

& Duffy, 2002). The core of this piece of legislation centers on assessment and

accountability of student academic performance. In order to comply with NCLB

legislation, states must develop adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards for student

progress, the goal being that all students, whether with or without a learning

disability, must reach a proficient or advanced proficiency level of achievement in

reading/language and math by the year 2014 (Underwood et al., 2002). Sanctions

have been incorporated into the law for schools who fail to meet the standards for

Adequate Yearly Progress. This law has school districts nationwide scrambling to

develop and implement programs that will ensure that students, particular special

education students, will meet these guidelines for Adequate Yearly Progress

(Underwood et al., 2002). As a result, a new focus on the benefits of inclusion for

students with learning disabilities has emerged.

McBrien & Brandt (1997) define inclusion as the practice of educating all or

most children in the same classroom, including children with physical, mental and

developmental disabilities. The National Center on Educational Restructuring and

Inclusion (NCERI, 1994) developed the following working definition of inclusive

education:

Providing to all students, including those with significant disabilities,

equitable opportunities to receive effective educational services, with the

needed supplementary aids and support services, in age appropriate

classrooms in their neighborhood schools, in order to prepare students for

4

productive lives as full members of society. (p. 5)

According to Shoho and Van-Reusen (2000), inclusion can be explained as

the provision of special education services to exceptional students in their

neighborhood schools, in age-appropriate general education classes and with the

necessary support services and supplementary aids needed for students with

disabilities to acquire an appropriate education.

Including children with disabilities in classrooms with their nondisabled peers

is one of the many changes that have occurred in the field of education in the past two

decades. However, there is still much debate surrounding the inclusion or exclusion

of children with special needs. Special education has changed drastically with the

passage of legislation and judicial decisions. These mandates have required educators

to change their practices to accommodate the needs of the students.

The United States Department of Education (2002) reported that in 1999 and

2000, 95.9% of students with disabilities were served in regular school buildings, and

47.3% were served outside the regular classroom for less than 21% of the school day.

Such numbers indicate that the number of students with disabilities taught with the

general curriculum has steadily risen, which only intensifies the problem of teachers

being adequately prepared to successfully cope with inclusion.

According to the United States Department of Education (2003), the total

number of students with disabilities included in regular education classrooms and

receiving instruction with their peers increased steadily from 1990 to 2000. The

IDEA, enacted in 1975, requires public schools to provide all eligible children with

5

disabilities a free public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate for

their needs. In 1997, Congress passed amendments to IDEA mandating for the first

time that states must collect data on the race and ethnicity of students identified as

having special education needs.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2007), between

1995 and 2005, the percentage of students with disabilities spending 80% or more of

the school day in a general education classroom showed an overall increase from 45%

to 52%. At the same time, there was an overall decline (from 22% to 18%) in the

percentage of students spending less than 40% of their day in a general education

classroom. The percentage of students with disabilities who did not attend general

schools showed little change, however, staying at approximately 4% over the 10-year

span. Between the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years, the percentage of students with

disabilities spending 80% or more of the school day in a general education classroom

increased from 50% to 52%.

The percentage of time these students spent in a general education classroom

varied by race and ethnicity. For example, white students with disabilities were more

likely than students of any other race or ethnicity to spend 80% or more of their day

in a general education classroom. In contrast, black students with disabilities were

more likely than students of any other race or ethnicity to spend less than 40% of their

day in a general education classroom, and were most likely to receive education in a

separate facility for students with disabilities. American Indians/Alaska Natives and

Hispanics with disabilities were less likely than students of any other race/ethnicity to

6

receive education in a separate school facility for students with disabilities (National

Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).

Despite mandates, some teachers still believe that they do not have to include

students with disabilities into their classrooms (Anderson, Chitwood & Hayden,

2006). Moreover, many teachers have negative attitudes and perceptions toward

including special education students in the regular education classroom. Anderson et

al. deduced that if teachers’ attitudes are positive, then the student’s experience in the

regular education classroom would be positive too, but if teachers’ attitudes were

negative, then the student’s experience would be unsuccessful.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the factors that contribute to

teachers’ perceptions toward inclusive education and to define recommendations that

would encourage teachers who are reluctant to the implementation of inclusion to

become more comfortable with the concept of inclusion.

Background of the Study

A consistent increase in the number of students with disabilities included in

the general education setting has caused numerous changes in classroom

organization, instruction, program planning, time allocation, testing and grading

(Manset & Semmel, 1997; Stough & Palmer, 2003). It has also required teaming,

collaboration and consultation among professionals (Manset & Semmel, 1997;

Minke, Bear, Deemer & Griffin, 1996). In addition, inclusive practices include

making accommodations and adaptations to meet the needs of the student with

7

specials needs (Swanson & Howell, 1996).

Today’s classroom has changed to accommodate the individual needs of all

students. Inclusion is a rapidly increasing trend in U.S. education (Davern & Schnorr,

1991; Hobbs & Wrestling, 2002). It is becoming a more common practice that

schools provide increased instructional opportunities for students with disabilities to

attend classrooms that are shared by their nondisabled peers (Klinger, 1999; Scruggs

& Mastropieri, 2001). Keefe and Davis (1998) refer to inclusion as integrating

students with disabilities into the general education classrooms in their neighborhood

schools, making necessary adaptations to provide an appropriate education. Public

Law 94-142 guaranteed students a continuum of placement options and the right to a

free and appropriate public education (Elliot & McKenney, 1998; Gartner & Lipsky,

1998; Heflin & Bullock, 1998). According to Vaughn and his colleagues (1995), an

increasing number of parents, professionals and policymakers have raised concerns

about the appropriateness of educating students with disabilities in settings that are

separate from the general education classroom.

There have been mixed findings regarding teachers’ perceptions, preparation,

and willingness to teach students with disabilities in general education settings (Deno,

Foegen, Robinson & Espin, 1996; Vaughn, 1996; Vaughn, Schumm, Klinger &

Saumell, 1995). Also, discrepancies have been found between what teachers

perceived with respect to inclusion and what they implemented in their daily

instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms (Deno et

al.; Vaughn et al.; Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Also, there has been a lack of

8

differential instruction and a lack of evidence to address the needs of students with

disabilities (Vaughn et al.).

King (2000) stated that inclusion is an important component of educational

equity; it ensures that special education students are offered identical opportunities as

all other children. The movement toward inclusion has created an emphasis on

educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Salend &

Garrick-Duhaney, 1999). However, there continues to be a challenge in providing

academic needs for students with disabilities that has developed out of expressions

and concerns of parents and educators.

Manset and Semmel (1997) stated that although the inclusion of students with

disabilities into general education is not a new concept, there is insufficient data to

examine the impact of inclusion on the learning of students with disabilities in

inclusive settings. There is also little research on the implementation of

accommodations to meet the needs of these students. There has been a lack of

uniformity as to how the needs of students with disabilities are being met during

instructional delivery, material modification, grading and program planning

(Thurlow, Seyfarth, Scott & Ysseldyke, 1997; Tindal & Fuchs, 1999). Teachers feel

challenged, frustrated and unequipped to provide appropriate instruction that meet the

needs of all students (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2000; Scott, Vitale & Masten,

1998).

In order to provide a quality education to students with or without disabilities,

there is a need to further examine the effect of inclusion (Manset & Semmel, 1997)

9

and the implementation of accommodations to meet the needs of students with

disabilities in inclusive settings (Scott et al., 1998). It is also equally important to

determine whether students with disabilities can receive appropriate instruction in

general education classrooms (Vaugh, Schumm, Klinger,Vaughn & Saumell,1995).

NCLB makes it necessary to identify what teachers do and how effective they are in

making accommodations and adaptations to assist students with disabilities achieve

their expected annual achievement.

Legal support for inclusive education became apparent in the federal

regulation known as Public Law 105-17, the IDEA 1997. IDEA, specifically,

mandated the following:

Each state must establish procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent

appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not

disabled, and that special education, separate schooling, or other removal of

children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs

only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in

regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be

achieved satisfactory. (Department of Education, 2002, p. 35)

Efforts to comply with the IDEA have often resulted in litigation. According

to Yell (1998), judicial standards have become the final word on determining

placement for students with disabilities. Courts have also been called upon frequently

to settle disputes concerning the placement of students with disabilities.

Legal support for inclusion is on the rise in both the U.S. Supreme Court and

10

the lower circuit courts. For example, in Cedar Rapids Community School District v.

Garret (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayer supported schools were

responsible for the costs of providing continual care for disabled students according

to the federal law that stipulated that all children must receive free appropriate public

education (National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE],

2004). Moreover, under the Court’s interpretation of IDEA’s relevant provisions,

medical treatments fall within the parameters of the law’s related services

requirements (Brownell & Carrington, 2000).

Furthermore, in Oberti v. Board of Education (1992-1993), a two-pronged

approach was applied to determine if schools were in compliance with IDEA. In this

application, the Third Circuit Court asked the following questions. First, could

education in the regular education setting, without supplementary aids and services,

be achieved in a satisfactory manner for the disabled student? And second, if the

disabled child was removed from the regular education classroom, did the school

include the child to the maximum extent appropriate (Yell & Drasgow, 1999)? The

Third Circuit Court ruled that, in this case, the disabled student had been placed in a

developmental kindergarten without the provisions of a behavioral or curriculum

plan, adequate support services or consultation; as a result, the school system lost the

case.

Statement of the Problem

It is not known if regular and special education teachers’ perceptions of

11

inclusion have a direct impact on their implementation of the inclusion model into

their regular education classrooms.

Most educators agree that schools need to integrate students with learning

disabilities effectively into the regular education classrooms (ERIC Clearinghouse,

1993). However, because inclusion requires collaboration between regular and special

education teachers, researchers must analyze teachers’ perceptions about including

students with disabilities in regular education classrooms.

The problem with inclusive settings is that both regular and special education

teachers feel that knowledge barriers exist in inclusive classrooms (Hines & Johnston,

1997). In many cases, regular education teachers feel as if they have not been

adequately trained to work with students with special needs. Many teachers do not

know how to modify assignments for students with special needs. Hine and Johnston

define two problems with inclusion. The first is that regular education teachers

believe that they are not sufficiently prepared to handle the challenges of special

education students within the regular education classroom. Second, special education

teachers tend to believe that they are not content experts; so as a result, special

educators are often placed in the role of a consultant, rather than educator (Hines &

Johnston).

Salend and Garrick-Duhaney (1999) believe that cooperation between

educators is critical to the success of inclusion programs. However, inclusion has set

off a firestorm of debate (Kuder, 1997). Since the demand for inclusive educational

settings, educators have both positive and negative opinions on the subject. Attitudes

12

on inclusion historically have varied and reflect a variety of underlying factors

(Kavale & Forness, 2000). “Proponents claim that special education has been

ineffective and that placement in regular educational settings can be more effective

than special education for students with disabilities” (Skrtic, 1991). “Opponents

contend that the general education classroom is unprepared to meet the needs of

students with disabilities” (Rea, McLaughlin & Walther-Thomas, 2002, pg. 12).

According to Schuum, Vaughn, Gordon and Rothlein (1994), special and

regular education teachers often lack the skills in teaming and collaboration needed to

teach students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Phillips, Alfred,

Brulli and Shank (1990) stated that teachers develop positive attitudes over time when

inclusion is accompanied by professional development, administrative support,

classroom assistance and, for some, lowered class size. The trend toward including

students with disabilities in the general education classroom will continue to increase;

therefore; it is imperative that teachers allow inclusion to be a part of their classrooms

(Beckman, 2001).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study will be to explore the perceptions of regular and

special education teachers toward inclusion and how their attitudes impact the

implementation of inclusion into the regular education classroom.

The term inclusion has sparked much controversy among educators. The

debate continues to surround teachers’ attitudes. Salend & Garrick-Duhaney (1999)

13

report that cooperation is critical to successful inclusion programs, and have

investigated the reactions of general and special educators toward its implementation.

In order to implement successful inclusive school programs, there must be changes in

the general education classroom to accommodate those students with disabilities

(McLeskey & Waldron, 2002).

Smith (2000) states that as educators move toward educational goals for the

schools, the general direction is to serve students with special needs in inclusive

settings. Successful inclusion is an admirable trend, only possible when cooperation

from all participants is evident; it requires a team of individuals dedicated to

providing excellent education for all students (Buell, Hallam & Gamel-McCormick,

1999; Federico, Herrold & Venn, 1999; Huey, 2000). According to Huey, “Inclusion

will be successful only when all components of the educational system are taken into

account during its implementation”, (p.11).

Teachers’ attitudes are critical variables to the successful implementation of

inclusion practices. There must be a great deal of collaboration between the general

education teacher and the special education teacher in order for inclusion practices to

be successful. Both general education teachers and special education teachers must

support the principles of inclusion (Bruneau-Balderrama, 1997).

A study by Mastropieri and Scruggs (1997) revealed that although about two-

thirds of general educators supported the placement of students with disabilities in the

general education classrooms, only one-third or fewer of the teachers reported that

they had the time, expertise, training or resources to effectively implement inclusion.

14

This study took a look at Biloxi Public Schools located in Biloxi, Mississippi

and the teachers’ perceptions of inclusion, including whether the teachers (a) have

positive or negative attitudes towards inclusion, (b) have the necessary resources and

the support required in inclusive classrooms and (c) are capable of providing the

appropriate accommodations and modifications to students with disabilities. The

following hypotheses guided this study:

Hypothesis 1: There will be no statistically significant difference in perception

of strategies needed for teaching students with disabilities between general and

special education classroom teachers.

H1: H1 is false.

Hypothesis 2: There will be no statistically significant difference in the

perception of adapting instruction to students with disability between general and


H2: H2 is false.


perception of collaborative strategies between the general and special education

classroom teacher.

H3: H3 is false.

Hypothesis 4: There will be no statistically significant differences in teacher

perception of themselves as knowledgeable of strategies for managing students’

behavior between the general and special education classroom teachers.

H4: H4 is false.

15

Rationale

Historically, students with disabilities have been served in segregated special

education classes and have had very little or no contact with their nondisabled peers

(Nietupski, 1995). However, recent educational reforms in special education were

designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities. Parents, advocacy

organizations and professional initiated the inclusion trend with an admirable focus

for the rights of children (Cronis & Ellis, 2000). The rationale for inclusion is an

extension of the Regular Education Initiative (REI), which encouraged a merger of

special and education students with mild disabilities in regular education classrooms

(Nietupski, 1995).

Today, a vast majority of students with disabilities will be served in the

regular education classroom. Schools are rapidly moving toward creating inclusive

classrooms. During this transition, many experience anxiety, apprehensiveness and

hostility toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular education

classroom. Most will agree that inclusion will not be successful unless teachers accept

and embrace the inclusion concept. This study will investigate the perceptions of

teachers toward including students with disabilities in the regular education

classroom. Also, the study will look at the relationship between teacher attitude and

implementation of inclusion.

16

Significance of the Study

Inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular education classroom is a

reality that educators face today in the field of teaching. Teacher preparation is

important to ensure effective inclusive education implementation in order to educate

all children successfully. This study attempts to identify factors that influence

teachers’ negative perceptions of inclusion and recommendations for successful

implementation of the inclusion model.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were used operationally in this study:

Accommodations. Supports or services provided to help a student access the

general curriculum and validly demonstrate learning.

Adaptations. Any procedure intended to accommodate an educational

situation with respect to individual differences in ability or purpose.

Collaboration. An ongoing process in which educators with different areas of

expertise voluntarily work together to create solutions to problems impeding student

success, as well as to carefully monitor and refine those solutions.

Collaborative teaching. A proactive educational approach in which general

and special educators assess students’ academic and social needs and work together to

plan and evaluate instruction; the general educator delivers the instruction.

Inclusion. An inclusive school or classroom that educates all students in the

17

mainstream. This means that all students, including students with learning and

physical disabilities as well as those at risk, homeless and gifted are included in

integrated, regular education classrooms.

Individualized education program (IEP). A written education plan that must

be developed annually for all children with disabilities who are receiving special

education or related services.

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA). Federal legislation

mandating the provision of a free and appropriate education for students with

disabilities.

Integration. The association of students with disabilities with age-appropriate

non-disabled peers; the primary purpose of which is to promote opportunities for

social interaction with other non-disabled peers.

Learning disability (LD). A child with average or above-average potential has

difficulty learning in one or more areas (such as reading or math) and exhibits a

severe discrepancy between their ability and achievement.

Least restrictive environment. An educational setting which gives students

with disabilities a place to learn to the best of their ability and also have contact with

children without disabilities.

Mainstreaming. Some or all of the child's day is spent in a regular classroom.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This law was proposed by

President George W. Bush and enacted by Congress and the president signed it into

law. It had four principles: stronger accountability results, increased flexibility and

18

local control, expanded options for parents and an emphasis on proven teaching

methods that work.

Paraprofessional. An individual who serves as a support person to the

classroom teacher.

Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. A law

that states that the maximum extent, students with disabilities are educated with

students who do not have a disability, and that special classes, separate schools or

other removal from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or

severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactory.

Regular education initiative (REI). A preventative approach to addressing

student needs in the standard educational program through collaborative consultation,

curricular modifications and environment adaptations.

Regular education. Instruction that is content driven and focuses more on

whole-group instruction with record keeping and grades.

Related services. Other support services that a child with disabilities requires,

such as transportation, occupational, physical and speech pathology services,

interpreters and medical services.

Secondary education. Education beyond the elementary grades provided by a

high school; grades seven through 12.

Special education. Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to

meet the needs of a handicapped child. This includes (a) varied instruction and

19

environments, (b) speech pathology and (c) vocational education.

Team teaching. Involves sharing the responsibility for teaching the regular

instructional material and content for the class; teachers may divide the responsibility

for teaching different segments of the regular curriculum or may work together to

present the same information.

Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions were made for this study:

1. It was assumed that this study would benefit teachers and school

administrators who are currently practicing inclusion in educational

programs.

2. It was assumed that the research results would aid in assessing the impact

that teachers’ perceptions of inclusion have on their implementation of

inclusion in the regular education classroom.

3. It was assumed that the recommendations for the effective implementation

of inclusion would be beneficial to others in the field of education.

The following limitations were made for this study:

1. This study was conducted in the Biloxi Public School District.

2. This study was limited to four elementary schools, one middle school, one

junior high school and one high school.

3. The generalizations cannot be made from this study due to geographic

location.

20

Conclusion

Chapter One presented the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of

the study, research questions, rationale, significance of the study, definition of terms,

and assumptions and limitations of the study. Chapter Two contained the review of

literature and research related to the inclusion of students with disabilities who

receive instruction in the general education classroom. Chapter Three described the

methodology and procedures used for the study.

21

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Chapter Two provided a review of literature and research related to the

inclusion of students with disabilities who receive instruction in the general education

setting. It was divided into the following sections pertaining to this study: (a)

historical overview, (b) review of related legislation, (c) court cases, (d) least

restrictive environment, (e) successful implementation of inclusion, (f) resistance to

inclusion, (g) teacher perception of inclusion and (h) conclusion.

Historical Overview

During the late 19th

century until the 1950s, institutions for individuals with

disabilities continued to grow in number and size. At the same time, the creation of

public or “common” schools, where most students with disabilities were educated,

had developed. African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and students with

disabilities experienced prejudice, separatism, inequality and inadequate schooling

(Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996). Residential institutions and special

schools remained the norm for educating students who were blind, deaf or had

physical disabilities. Also, during the earlier years, there was little recourse when

schools and local school districts failed to accommodate the diversity of their student

populations. For a long time, the field of special education struggled with the question

of whether children with disabilities should be educated. In contrast, Kauffman and

22

Crocket (1999) believe that special education’s hottest topic during the last decade

has been the question of how children with disabilities should be educated. Much of

the controversy focuses on the parallel systems that exist between special and regular

education.

The 1950s saw an accelerating trend toward the recognition of the importance

of students with disabilities and their right to appropriate educational facilities.

During this period, more students enrolled in special education classes and more

teachers were being trained to teach those with disabilities. By 1952, all but two states

had legislation that mandated education for some, but not all, persons with mental

retardation (Beirne-Smith, Patton & Ittenbach, 1994).

As early as 1958, Norris Haring, a pioneer in the field of special education,

called for a more integrative approach for including children with special needs into

regular education classrooms. Haring believed a significant factor to the success of

including disabled children in general education classrooms was preparing regular

education teachers with the necessary adaptations and resource materials. The

attitudes of the regular education teachers were also a key to the success of the

integration (Everington, Hamill & Lubic, 1996).

Dunn (1986) was concerned about the number of children with special needs

who were referred out to the regular education setting. Despite the growing

sentiments that regular education teachers were not taking ownership of children with

special needs, the teachers’ lack of preparation for inclusive education contributed a

great deal to the exclusion of those children. Therefore, Dunn suggested reformation

23

within schools that would foster team teaching and flexible groupings. He also

suggested removing labels for specific disabilities and replacing them with generic

terms, such as learning disorders. Dunn further proposed the establishment of special

education centers in which students with learning disorders would spend

approximately one month, during which time a prescriptive plan could be developed.

The phase of Dunn’s proposal would incorporate resource teachers into the classroom

to assist general education teachers. Dunn’s model reflected the growing sentiment

that special educators were allowing regular educators to refer out students that

presented problems, decreasing the need to deal with individual differences.

Although MacMillan, Semmel and Gerber (1994) cited Dunn’s (1986) article

as one of the most widely read publications in the field of special education,

numerous articles and conferences suggested that the answer to the debate would be

to abolish special education settings, intelligence tests and categorical labels. These

issues were believed to be too complex for Dunn’s simplistic answers. Dunn was

critical of special educators for assuming all children with mild disabilities, especially

minority students, belonged in segregated educational settings. Consequently, this

opened the door for a host of others to provide their opinions.

In response to Dunn’s (1986) revelations, Deno (1970) developed the cascade

system, which would offer a continuum of services to meet varying student needs.

Others, such as Lily and Pearson (1971), have developed the zero-reject model, in an

attempt to retain all children in the regular education environment. Lily and Pearson

attempted to change the focus from exceptional children to exceptional school

24

situations, in which outside interventions could be utilized to assist with problem

areas. Lily and Pearson proposed an alternative, which held that the zero-reject

model was seen as too limiting and did not offer enough alternatives for the child.

Furthermore, the model did not consider those with severe disabilities.

The 1950s were an important decade in legislation advocated by parents of

mentally-retarded children. Parents joined together through the National Association

for Retarded Children, which became a powerful legislative lobby. Members of this

group set out to educate legislators of the needs of the disabled and to expose some of

the problems involved in making adequate provisions for children with disabilities

(Paul & Warnock, 1980).

Review of Related Legislation and History of Service Delivery

Review of Related Legislation

Although the federal government first began to address educational policies in

the 1950s, the culmination of this process was in the passage of the Elementary and

Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESEA was an educational act that supported many

federal initiatives. Funding was provided to school systems so that they could offer

free and reduced lunches to children with parents’ income at or below poverty level.

ESEA targeted children who, due to poverty, lack of opportunity or disability, needed

extra services and supports to benefit from their public school education. The

recognition that the federal government should, and would, pass policy addressing

educational services in public schools paved the way for more specific legislation in

25

the 1970s that addressed the needs of children with disabilities (Sands, Kozleski &

French, 2000, p. 47).

The 1970s marked a positive step forward for the rights of those with

disabilities. In 1972, the Massachusetts legislature generated Chapter 766, which led

to the 1973 passage of the Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 93-112) and Section 504. This

groundbreaking legislation was implemented in 1974 and was a precursor for the

enforcement by congress of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children

Act of 1975, now known as IDEA.

The Education of All Handicapped Act, Public Law 94-142, was passed in

1975. It mandated that all children, including children with disabilities, have equal

access to a free and appropriate public education. Under this law, students with

disabilities are provided individualized opportunities in the general education

classrooms and participate in extracurricular activities with their peers. P.L. 94-142

provided a formal endorsement of early intervention efforts and remains an important

milestone in the history of education for individuals with disabilities.

Public Law 99-457 (1986) reauthorized the Education for All Handicapped

Children Act (P.L. 94-142) and officially extended its rights and protections for

children with special needs from three to five years of age. It emphasized support for

families and encouraged parental involvement in educational programming and the

provision of positive learning environments.

Public Law 101-476 (1990) reauthorized P.L. 94-142, the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act and changed the name to the Individuals with Disabilities

26

Act (IDEA). These changes reflected both the activism of persons with disabilities

and an increasing awareness that “disability is a natural part of the human experience

and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to the

society” (U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

Public Law 105-17 (1997) reauthorized IDEA, P.L. 101-147 (1990). It also

included general education provisions that encourage the placement of students with

disabilities in inclusive settings (Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank & Leal, 1999). Students

with disabilities are expected to be involved in the general education curriculum and,

at the same time, progress appropriately towards individualized annual goals

(Etscheidt & Bartlett, 1999).

The most recent reauthorizations of IDEA, P.L. 108-446 (2004) maintained its

support for the inclusion of students with disabilities into general education settings,

with an emphasis on providing appropriate accommodations and supplementary aids

for children with disabilities. It ensured that all children with disabilities have

available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special

education and related services designed to meet their unique needs as well as prepare

them for further education, employment and independent living. All children living in

the United States, including children with disabilities who are homeless, are to be

identified, located and evaluated (IDEA, P.L. 108-446, 2004).

Approximately every five years, P.L. 94-142 has been reauthorized. In 1986,

Part H of the act extended the mandated age for services. Since 1986, services have

been available for children from birth through an individuals’ 22nd

birthday. In 1990,

27

P.L. 94-142 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). As part of the

reauthorization, a mandate for planning for transition to adult life was added to the

bill. In 1997, President Bill Clinton signed IDEA’s reauthorization, IDEA 97 (IDEA,

1997).

History of the Services Delivery Model

Prior to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (1975), later

reauthorized as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), millions of

students with disabilities received inadequate or inappropriate special education

services from public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). Most students

with learning disabilities were educated in general education classrooms and received

all of their education with their peers (Vaughn et al., 1995). It was assumed that

teachers would be able to teach all children, including students with disabilities.

General education teachers delivered their instruction to the whole group with the

same materials. Additional time may have been spent with the ones who needed extra

help (Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Some parents and professionals worried that the

needs of students with disabilities could not be addressed in the general education

classrooms (Zigmond & Baker). As a result, many students with disabilities were

pulled out from their general education classrooms and placed in special education

programs to receive individualized instruction from special education teachers.

During the last two decades, there have been concerns about the

appropriateness of educating students with disabilities in segregated settings, an issue

that has drawn a considerable amount of public attention (Deno et al., 1996). These

28

concerns called for widespread educational reform. In keeping with the least

restrictive environment provision in special education legislation, research suggested

that all children should be educated in age-appropriate, general education classrooms

in their neighborhood schools (Salend, S.J. & Garrick-Duhaney, L.M., 1999).

Students with disabilities should spend part of the day in general education

classrooms and receive instruction alongside their peers, with support and

accommodations to meet their needs (Deno et al.).

Since the enactment of IDEA, more students with disabilities are moving from

pullout programs into general education classrooms and are receiving instruction with

their peers. IDEA was mandated as a means to remove barriers, improve outcomes

and remove discrimination. In order to successfully implement IDEA, provisions

were established to increase the placement of students with disabilities in general

classroom settings, as well as the prevention of inappropriate placements for all

students. These changes required the roles of general and special education teachers

to move toward more formal collaborative activities and responsibilities. In addition,

IDEA also required that Individual Education Plans (IEP) be developed and that

special education team members consider the regular classroom as their beginning

point for placements of children with disabilities (National Association of State

Directors of Special Education, 2004).

An inclusive school is one that has a shared value among its members and that

promotes a single, coordinated system of education dedicated to ensuring that all

students are empowered to become caring, competent and contributing citizens in an

29

integrated, changing and diverse society. There is much concern about inclusion for

students with learning disabilities that stems from the educational conditions that

existed prior to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-

142). Under those conditions, many students with learning disabilities were provided

very little or no academic or social support. Although there may have been students

with learning disabilities present in the regular education classrooms, they were often

not full participants. P.L. 94-142 provided an opportunity for students with learning

disabilities to gain full access to the educational programs within the public school

and the support services to meet their specific educational needs.

Court Cases Impacting Individuals with Disabilities

Brown v. Board of Education

In the past, when schools and local school districts failed to accommodate the

diversity of their student populations, there was little recourse. Beginning in 1954

with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the Supreme Court, the federal

government has increasingly intervened on behalf of children and youth who have not

had anyone able to advocate for them. This ruling set the precedent that “separate but

equal” is not in fact equal and provided a powerful push away from segregated

options for educating minority students. This effort culminated the passage of the

Elementary and Secondary Education of 1965 (ESEA). This measure was a broad

educational act that supported many initiatives. It provided funding to school systems

so that they could offer free and reduced price lunches to children whose parents’

30

income met or fell below the poverty level. It also provided additional teachers in

impoverished communities. ESEA targeted the children who, due to poverty, lack of

opportunity or disability, needed extra services and supports to benefit from their

public school education (Sands et al., 2000).

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Although many cases contributed to the inclusion of the “free and appropriate

public education” (P. L. 94-142, 1975) clause in the original Education of All

Handicapped Children Act, two landmark cases were of particular importance. The

first case was Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. In 1971, 13 children with mental retardation and the Pennsylvania

Association for Retarded Children filed suit against the state of Pennsylvania on

behalf of all children with mental retardation in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs claimed

that the state had failed to provide a free public education to children with mental

retardation. The court ruled that states have an obligation to place each child with

mental retardation in a free public education program that is appropriate to the child’s

capacity. The court went even further in this case by stating that children should be

served in general education settings unless it can be shown that a child would benefit

more from another setting that would restrict access to the general education

environment (Sands et al., 2000).

Mills v. Board of Education

Another landmark case involved the District of Columbia and seven children

with learning and behavioral problems. In Mills v. Board of Education, the District of

31

Columbia in 1972 had refused to continue paying for the education of these seven

children because it could not afford to provide the kind and extent of services that

these children needed. The families of the children sued. The court ordered the school

district to provide services that were appropriate to the students’ needs, regardless of

the degree of mental, physical or emotional impairment experienced by the individual

child (Sands et al., 2000).

Court decisions have played a significant role in defining inclusion. Different

circuit courts have applied slightly different tests to determine whether a school

district has complied with the least restrictive environment provision of the law. The

Ninth Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, ruled that a school district

must show that it has made a good faith effort to enable a student to participate in the

regular education setting. In the case that generated this test, the burden of proof was

on the district to show that the disadvantages of inclusion would outweigh the

advantages. The court ruled that the district had not demonstrated that the academic

benefits of the special education class were better or even equal to those of the regular

education class. Finally, though the district tried to show that inclusive placement was

too expensive, the court ruled that the evidence was not persuasive and determined

that the regular education classroom was the appropriate full-time placement for the

student (Moore, 1998). This case confirmed IDEA’s placement in favor of the regular

education setting.

32

Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

The civil rights of disabled individuals to a free, appropriate education in an

inclusive environment have been supported by legislation and litigation. IDEA 97

described the least-restrictive environment as the following:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including

children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated

with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate

schooling, or other, removal of children with disabilities from the regular

education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the

disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (p. 20)

Once a student is eligible to receive special education services, the options for

service delivery often are prescribed in the school’s existing structures. Over the past

20 years, the cascade model developed by Reynolds (1962) and Deno (1970) and

refined by Reynolds and Birch (1982) served as the primary format for structuring

special education services. In this model, a continuum of instructional delivery

formats is conceptualized from the least restrictive environment, such as the regular

education classroom, to the most restrictive environment, such as delivered at home

or in a hospital.

Many special educators have called for an integrated approach to serving

students with special needs (Wang, Reynolds & Wahlberg, 1988). Madeline Will,

then assistant secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

33

Services, initiated this approach in 1986. Will encouraged educators to develop a

partnership between regular and special education to service students at risk for

failure to learn and function effectively as participating members of their classroom

communities.

There are variations of the term “least restrictive environment.” Individuals

who work with students with physical, intellectual and behavioral challenges discuss

this issue in terms of inclusion. The concept of “least restrictive environment” refers

to IDEA’s mandate that children with disabilities be educated with nondisabled peers

to the maximum extent appropriate. Other terms such as mainstreaming and

integration imply that students spend part of their day in a general education

environment and the other portion of their day in a special education classroom.

Mainstreaming allows students to be educated with nondisabled peers when

appropriate, but not necessarily in the regular education classroom. An integrated

approach proposes that all students be a part of regular education and receive

specialized services on an as-needed basis, rather than be a part of a specialized

delivery system that interfaces with regular education. Regardless of how or where

students with disabilities needs are being served, the curriculum and educational

strategies will always depend on the Individualized Education Program (IEP).

In Poolaw v. Parker Unified School District (Federal District Court, Arizona,

1994) the court ruled in favor of the district’s offer of a residential placement, despite

the parents’ wishes that their child be educated in a regular education classroom. The

court stated that the child’s previous and current district placements had adequately

34

explored the effectiveness of regular education placement with supplementary aids

and services. In doing so, the district found that the benefits of regular education

placement were minimal and that the child’s educational needs could only be met

appropriately by the residential placement offered by the district.

Successful Implementation of Inclusion

As teachers begin to develop and implement inclusive classrooms, they must

be able to respond to the questions they have about inclusion. The most important

factor that influences teachers’ beliefs about inclusion is not the research literature on

the topic, but their direct experiences with inclusion. It is difficult to overcome

negative teacher beliefs about inclusion if the teacher has been involved in

implementing a poorly designed inclusive program. Students do not benefit from such

a program, the program effects a negative influence on the classroom and the teacher

does not have the necessary time, resources and expertise to make inclusion

successful (Sands et al., 2000). Teachers need to be assured that they will be involved

in decision-making about inclusion and its implementation in their classroom. They

must also be assured that they will have the necessary support to develop and

implement a successful inclusive classroom.

Villa et al. (1996) surveyed 578 regular education and 102 special education

teachers and administrators working in inclusive programs to examine their

perceptions of the inclusion of all students, particularly students with moderate and

severe disabilities in regular education classrooms. The results indicated that the

35

participants preferred inclusion programs, in which educators worked collaboratively

to serve all students in the regular education classroom, to pull-out programs.

The study concluded that positive attitudes toward inclusion could be garnered

through the following measures: collaborative consultation, co-teaching partnerships,

shared accountability for educational outcomes, level of pre-service and in-service

training and administrative support. According to Sands et al. (2000), “Creating and

maintaining an inclusive school community requires an emphasis on a feeling of

belonging and meaningful participation, the creation of alliances and affiliations, and

the provision of mutual, emotional, and technical support among all community

members” (p. 116).

Facilitating inclusion is both the goal and the method by which teachers create

a classroom that values special needs children and helps them to feel secure and

appreciated for who they are and what they can contribute. Part of the philosophy

behind an inclusive classroom is “a belief that all people have something to learn and

gain from understanding and appreciating others” (Sands et al., 2000, p. 116).

For many years, special education services were provided to students in a

place separate from the mainstream. These students were usually excluded from

typical interactions experienced by their peers and were not considered part of their

class. Feeling included and participating in the events and activities of the school

community are equally important for all students. Inclusion allows all students to be

accepted members of their school community. The creation of alliances and

affiliations among all school community members contrasts strongly with previous

36

notions that school professionals are supposed to do their essential work alone.

Brooks (1991) discussed the presence of alliance among students in a classroom:

Alliance implies trust and cooperation between teacher and student and among

the students. It is reflected in students’ feeling a sense of security and

belonging, a comfort in knowing that they can reveal their vulnerabilities, that

they can take risks, that they will not be demeaned or judged or accused, that

they will be supported and encouraged for their efforts and that their

individuality will be respected and accepted (p. 3).

Mutual support is another necessary element in an inclusive school

community. Historically, school professionals have been expected to work

independently and to handle the entire range of school situations with minimal

support. School professionals often find themselves in positions that are stressful and

seemingly unmanageable. When isolation dominates and school professionals

continue to remain unsupported, the outlook is bleak for teachers to genuinely

respond to the changing demands of students (Sands et al., 2000). The increasing

diversity in schools, the growing intensity of students’ needs and larger class sizes all

contribute to a more demanding work environment for school professionals and

support personnel.

These circumstances demand more mutual sharing of technical expertise and

more humane, caring interactions among school professionals than ever before. No

single group of professionals can maintain the level of expertise or the emotional

stamina necessary to meet the needs of all students. Nor can school professionals

37

hope to address issues of diversity and unique educational needs without the support

of parents, students, support personnel and community members. To provide an

effective education for all children, the entire school community must band together

to accomplish what no single person can do alone. The philosophy to include all

students in the same class has brought about teams of regular education and special

education teachers working collaboratively or cooperatively to combine their

professional knowledge, perspectives and skills (Ripley, 1997).

York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neffe & Caughey (1991) surveyed 11

regular educators and seven special educators who worked in middle school settings.

The educators had experienced various aspects of educating middle school students

with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Both groups of respondents indicated

that inclusion resulted in positive outcomes for regular and special education teachers.

Positive outcomes for regular education included getting to know new colleagues,

becoming better at integrating students with disabilities into their classrooms and

learning how to successfully meet the needs of students without disabilities who were

experiencing difficulty in school. Positive outcomes for special education teachers

included an increased feeling of being an important part of the school community, an

enhanced perspective on education, growing knowledge of the regular education

system and a greater enjoyment of teaching due to working with students with severe

disabilities in inclusive settings. Regular and special educators also reported that a

high level of communication between educators was an important component of

inclusion.

38

Researchers have also examined the experiences and perceptions of educators

working in inclusive settings. Giancreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman and Schattman

(1993) conducted semi-structured interviews to investigate the experiences of 19

regular education teachers, ranging from kindergarten through ninth grade, who had

taught a student with severe disabilities. The interviews were followed by a survey

that asked the teachers to rate the extent to which their attitudes toward inclusion had

changed. They also were asked to rate their willingness to have a student with

significant disabilities in their classroom in the future. Although two of the teachers

reported no change from their initial negative feelings toward inclusion, the results of

the interviews and survey data indicated that most of the teachers (17 out of 19)

experienced a change that resulted in positive attitudes toward the placement of

students with severe disabilities in their classrooms.

The interviews with the teachers suggested that this change in attitude came

from seeing the effective instructional adaptations that they instituted for students

with disabilities benefiting all students. The change in perspective also included

increased ownership and willingness to interact with students with disabilities,

enhanced knowledge of ways to teach students with disabilities and changed attitudes

toward the placement of a student with significant disabilities in their classroom. The

teachers also identified other personal benefits of inclusion, such as greater awareness

of the impact of teachers as positive role models for students, an increased feeling of

confidence and pride in their ability to teach and be open to change and a growing

willingness to modify their instructional techniques that promote the learning of all

39

students in their class.

Research has also suggested that administrator’s attitude toward students with

disabilities is especially critical for inclusion to succeed, due to the administrators’

leadership role in developing and operating educational programs in their schools

(Ayres & Meyers, 1992; Gameros, 1995). The inclusive classroom is one that is safe

and open, yet challenging, because inclusion is not necessarily the usual way of

society. When inclusion succeeds, a classroom must make room for new

relationships, new structures and new learning (Logan et al., 1994).

Resistance to Inclusion

Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms heightens

the awareness of each interrelated aspect of the school community, its boundaries, its

benefits to members, its internal relationships, its relationships with the outside

environment and its history (Taylor, 1992). As most people who deal with inclusion

understand, this increased awareness usually comes in the form of fear and

defensiveness, expressed in terms that sound similar from both sides of the boundary

that often separates students because of disabilities (Karagiannis et al., 1996).

The biggest challenge for educators is deciding to share their educational role,

which has traditionally been individual. It has been difficult for educators to share

goals, decisions, classroom instruction, responsibility for students, assessment of

student learning and classroom management with another educator. Further, some

educators still resist inclusive education for all students with disabilities. The recent

40

trend has been keeping children with disabilities in the regular classroom setting for

as much of the day as possible, but not everyone agrees with this. There is not a one-

size-fits-all solution. Inclusion must work for the individual child. According to

Coeyman (2001), “while one child may learn better in a regular classroom, another

may learn better in a resource room” (p. 59).

Semmel, Abernathy, Butera and Lesar (1991) surveyed 311 regular education

teachers and seven special education teachers about their perceptions and opinions

concerning inclusion. The results revealed that a majority of educators surveyed were

satisfied with a pull-out system for delivering special education services and believed

that full-time placement of students with mild disabilities in regular education

classrooms would not be socially or academically beneficial. Although most of the

teachers felt that the relocation of special education resources to regular education

classrooms would lighten their instructional load and benefit all students, they were

protective of the resources designated for students with disabilities.

In terms of teachers’ affective responses to inclusion, research indicated two

metrics of responses: hostility/receptivity and anxiety/calmness. Furthermore, the

findings indicated that both types of responses were related to teacher attributes,

student disability categories and school-based conditions. Teachers who possessed

low beliefs about the impact of their teaching, who lacked experience in teaching or

who had low use of differentiated teaching practices and teacher collaboration were

found to be less receptive to inclusion. The teachers reported that they felt threatened

by the inclusion of students with cognitive disabilities (e.g., mental retardation) and

41

frustrated by the inclusion of students with learning disabilities or behavior disorders.

The teachers in this study were also more receptive to the inclusion of

students with physical disabilities or hearing impairments. With experience, teachers

became less opposed to the inclusion of students with learning disabilities. However,

teachers reported less anxiety toward the inclusion of students with learning or

behavior problems than toward the inclusion of students with other disabilities.

Measures of teachers’ beliefs about their own effectiveness correlated with less

anxiety about inclusion, and collaboration among teachers was also found to lessen

teachers’ anxiety about inclusion. Class sizes were also found to heighten teachers’

anxiety about inclusion.

There is also some disagreement on the various types of inclusion. Some may

confuse inclusion with mainstreaming, where the child with disabilities may attend a

regular education setting for a portion of the day but return to a special education

setting for the rest of the day. Others believe that inclusion means keeping all special

education students in the regular classroom, while retaining the special education staff

(Smelter & Rasch, 1994).

Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion

Schattman (1992) indicated that full inclusion blurs the roles between special

and regular education teachers. Defining the roles of regular and special education

teachers is critical in determining how inclusion will function in a school. Inclusion

demands the definition of roles and responsibilities in order to avoid conflict and

42

confusion among professionals. In an inclusion model, the special education teacher

is a member of a team, who may co-teach with the regular classroom teacher,

assuming responsibility for training, support and supervision to paraprofessionals.

Success will be determined by the ability of professionals to integrate special services

with the total school program. How this unfolds in a particular school depends upon

many factors.

The steps taken to organize the integration of students with disabilities into

regular classrooms are critical. Many people will be involved with the process, a

collaborative effort the likes of which most classroom teachers have not experienced.

It is likely that team-teaching will be implemented and that one or more

paraprofessionals will be involved, as well as more frequent contact with parents.

These added interactions could overwhelm the regular education classroom teacher,

who has always been alone with his or her students. Interpersonal conflicts can be

common. Conflicts often arise from personality differences and from a lack of clarity

about appropriate role functions.

Research indicates that inclusion only works when teachers support it and are

willing to accept it. According to Anderson et al. (2006) , “if teacher’s attitudes

toward inclusion are positive, then the student’s experience in the regular education

classroom would be positive, too, but if the teacher’s attitudes were negative, then the

student’s experience would not be successful” (p. 19).

Because the cooperation of educators is critical to the success of inclusion

programs, several studies have investigated the reactions of regular and special

43

educators toward inclusive education. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) used research

synthesis procedures to summarize the results of 28 studies examining regular

education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. The findings revealed that, although

about two-thirds of the regular educators supported the placement of students with

disabilities in regular education classrooms, only one-third or fewer of the teachers

reported that they had the time, expertise, training or resources to implement

inclusion effectively.

Soodak, Podell and Lehman (1998) surveyed 134 elementary, 34 middle and

20 high school general education teachers concerning their affective responses to

inclusion, as well as the factors that related to these responses. Of the 186 teachers

surveyed, 67 taught in classrooms that included students with disabilities. The

findings revealed that teachers who lacked self-confidence in their teaching, who

lacked experience in teaching or who seldom used different teaching and

collaboration skills were found to be less receptive to inclusion. Although teachers

reported that they felt threatened by the inclusion of students with cognitive

disabilities and frustrated by the inclusion of students with behavior disorders, they

were more receptive to the inclusion of students with physical disabilities or hearing

impairments. Measures of teachers’ beliefs about their own effectiveness correlated

with less anxiety about inclusion. Collaboration among teachers was also found to

lessen teachers’ anxiety about inclusion.

As inclusion requires the collaboration between general and special education

teachers, the perceptions of teachers of the students with disabilities plays an

44

important role in the successful implementation of inclusion. Teachers’ attitudes

influence both their expectations for their students and their behavior toward them.

According to Alexander and Strain (1978), “teachers’ attitudes, expectations and

behaviors influenced both the student’s self-image and academic performance” (p.

14).

Research indicates that regular education teachers do not always feel prepared

to teach students who have special needs, and special and regular education teachers

often lack the collaborative skills needed to teach students with disabilities in the

general education classroom (Schuum et al., 1994). Research also has identified

several positive and negative outcomes of inclusion for teachers. Positive outcomes

for general educators include increasing skill at meeting the needs of their students

with and without disabilities, being more aware of the impact of teachers as positive

role models for all students, developing an increased confidence in their teaching

ability and feeling good about their ability to change. Concerns identified by regular

educators include the following: the negative attitudes of others, the fear that the

education of students without disabilities might suffer, the inability of general

educators to address the severe health, medical needs and behavioral challenges of

students with disabilities and the limited time for collaboration and communication

among staff members (Salend, S.J. & Garrick-Duhaney, L.M., 1999).

Guzman and Shoefield (1995) surveyed 244 teachers as well as

administrators, support staff and parents in 11 elementary schools. Skill training was

identified as an important need for teachers, beginning with training that dealt with

45

behavioral challenges. Training that clearly addresses concerns of general classroom

teachers may reduce resistance to inclusion (Dickens-Smith, 1995). McEvoy and

Reichele (1995) emphasized the importance of organizing environments to prevent

behavior problems in the first place, which is also a training problem that can be

addressed in pre-service and in-service programs.

Kunc (1995) suggested that when inclusive education is fully embraced,

society will abandon the idea that children have to become normal in order to

contribute to the world. However, many teachers fear that inclusion will interfere with

their ability to teach. It is difficult for many educators to accept the notion that social

skills and peer relationships equal or are more important than achievement. To

advocates of inclusion, these barriers to acceptance are attitudinal. To classroom

teachers, these represent technical and logistical problems.

As a result of inclusion, the term, cooperative teaching has evolved.

Cooperative teaching was described in the late 1980s as:

An educational approach in which general and special educators work in co-

active and coordinated fashion to jointly teach heterogeneous groups of

students in educationally integrated settings. In cooperative teaching both

general and special educators are simultaneously present in the general

classroom, maintaining joint responsibilities for specified education

instruction that is to occur within that setting. (Bauwens, Hourcade & Friend,

1989, p. 36)

Federal legislation also strongly supports teaming by requiring team-based

46

service delivery. Inclusive school community team members must also respond to

rapidly hanging knowledge and technology. These challenges are met when the

concepts of inclusion, community, collaboration, democracy and diversity are

addressed. Educators’ titles may remain the same, but their roles and responsibilities

are evolving rapidly (Sands et al., 2000). In order to create inclusive school

communities that respond to the complex needs of diverse students, school

community members must assume new ways of doing their work. Students – not

subject matter, instructional practices or personnel issues – must be at the core of all

reform efforts. School reform requires that the needs, abilities, capacities and goals of

children drive the decisions we make about the organizational conduct of our

educational communities. Teachers who work in the same classrooms or work closely

in some other collaborative relationship must have training and agree about several

issues to be effective: student assessment, classroom resource management,

curriculum design and implementation, integration opportunities, social problem

solving curriculum, behavior management, working with parents and managing

education support staff.

Studies have revealed that educators have varying attitudes and mixed

reactions to inclusion. Teachers’ perceptions of inclusion are related to their success

in implementing inclusion, student characteristics and the availability of financial

resources, instructional and supportive services, training, administrative support and

time to collaborate and communicate with others.

47

Conclusion

Chapter Two provided a review of literature and research related to the

inclusion of disabled students who receive instruction in the general education

settings. This chapter was divided into the following sections pertaining to this study:

(a) historical overview, (b) review of related legislation, (c) court cases, (d) least

restrictive environment, (e) successful implementation of inclusion, (f) resistance to

inclusion and (g) teacher perceptions of inclusion. Chapter Three describes the

methodology and procedures used for the study. Chapter Three will consist of the (a)

null hypotheses, (b) methodology/design of the study, (c) population and sample, (d)

instrumentation, (e) data collection, (f) data analysis, (e) ethical issues and the (g)

limitations of the study.

48

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of regular and special

education teachers toward inclusion and how their attitudes impact the

implementation of inclusion into the regular education classroom. This descriptive

study examined teachers’ perceptions regarding their positive or negative attitudes

toward inclusion and working with students with special needs.

The inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular education classroom

is a reality that educators are faced with in the field of teaching today. Teacher

preparation is important to ensure effective inclusive education implementation in

order to successfully educate all children. This study attempts to identify factors that

influence teachers’ perceptions of inclusion and provide recommendations for

successful implementation of the inclusion model. The results of this study will be

used to recommend further study on the topic of inclusion.

This study examined four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior

high and one high school located in Biloxi, Mississippi and the teachers’ perceptions

of inclusion, including whether the teachers (a) have positive or negative attitudes

toward inclusion, (b) have the necessary resources and the support required in

inclusive classrooms, (c) are capable of providing the appropriate accommodations

and modifications to students with disabilities.

49

Methodology/Design of the Study

This study utilized a quantitative methodology. Quantitative researchers seek

explanations and predictions that will generalize to other persons and places. When

deciding what types of instruments to use, a quantitative researcher would tend to

emphasize those that produce data that can be quickly reduced to numbers. The

researcher would then interpret results of statistical analyses that were conducted

(Creswell, 1994).

The researcher chose the Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with

Disabilities (ORI). The ORI is appropriate for this study because it will measure the

attitudes of regular and special education teachers toward inclusion. The researcher

received written permission from the authors of the instrument to use it for her study.

Larrivee and Cook (1979) developed the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming

Scale ORM, an earlier scale, as part of a large-sample investigation of teachers’

attitudes toward mainstreaming students with disabilities into general classrooms.

Scale construction started with the preparation of items within five hypothesized

dimensions of attitudes toward mainstreaming:

1. Views of education in general.

2. Philosophy of mainstreaming.

3. Effects of general classroom placement on the social, emotional, and

cognitive development of students with disabilities.

4. Similar effects on students without disabilities.

5. The classroom behavior of students with disabilities.

50

The ORI scale consists of certain criteria for participants completing the

questionnaire. First, the directions state that there were no right or wrong answers,

and that a response for all 30 items should be marked. Next, participants were asked

to express the extent of their agreement with each statement on a five-point response

continuum ranging from 1, to signify Strongly agree, to 5, to signify Strongly

disagree. Also, an Undecided was provided. ORM scores could range from 30 to 150,

with a higher score indicating a more favorable attitude toward mainstreaming.

Using a multistage random-sampling process, Larrivee and Cook (1979)

administered the scale to a sample of 941 general classroom teachers in New England

who taught kindergarten through 12th

grade in New England. Two-thirds of the

respondents taught in elementary schools; 54% taught in suburban schools, 28% in

rural schools and 18% in urban schools. A Spearman-Brown corrected split-half

reliability coefficient of 0.92 was reported. A study of the attitudes of 168

undergraduate (43%) and graduate (57%) teacher education students at the University

of Washington reported an internal consistency coefficient of 0.89. The authors noted

that five items did not contribute to the reliability of the scale but they did not explain

how this was determined.

Data in partial support of the construct validity of the ORM were reported by

Larrivee and Cook (1979), who used multiple-regression analyses to investigate the

relationships of ORM scores with respondent socio-demographic and experiential

variables. Teachers’ perceptions of their success in mainstreaming students with

disabilities accounted for the majority of the variance in their attitude scores. As the

51

authors hypothesized, general classroom teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming

became less positive as the grade level they taught increased.

In a subsequent investigation, Larrivee (1981) compared the ORM scores of

three groups of general classroom teachers: those who received a year-long weekly

intensive in-service training program on mainstreaming techniques, those who

participated in a year-long monthly general in-service training program and those of

the 941 individuals in the earlier study (Larrivee & Cook, 1979). The mean of the

ORM scores for the first group was significantly greater (more positive) than the

means for either of the other two groups, which did not differ significantly. This

finding provided additional support for the discriminant validity of the scale.

Larrivee (1982) reported the results of a factor analysis of ORM data from the

941 individuals in the earlier study (Larrivee & Cook, 1979). Five principal factors

with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 were retained and rotated to a varimax criterion.

Examination of items with loadings of 0.37 or larger suggested this interpretation of

the five factors:

1. General Philosophy of Mainstreaming (32%, eight items).

2. Classroom Behavior of Special Needs Children (7%, six items).

3. Perceived Ability to Teach Special Needs Children (6%, four items).

4. Classroom Management of Special Needs Children (4%, four items).

5. Academic and Social Growth of Special Needs Children (3%, four items).

Principal components analysis of ORM data in the study (Larrivee & Cook,

1979) yielded one general factor with seven specific factors accounting for small but

52

statistically significant amounts of the variance in the data. The authors provided no

psychometric details of this solution.

In the revision of the ORI, modifications to the item-response format and to

the arrangement of the items on the original scale were made to prevent validity

threats that are common to summated ratings scales (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). In

order to prevent an acquiescent-response-style threat, the wording of 10 items was

changed to yield 15 negative and 15 positive items, and the order of the 30 revised

items was then randomized. To prevent a midpoint-response-style threat, the

respondents in this investigation were asked to rate each statement on a six-point

continuum, eliminating the non informative middle value on the original response

continuum. The responses to the modified items could range from -3, I disagree very

much, through -2, I disagree pretty much; -1, I disagree a little"; to +1, I agree a

little; +2, I agree pretty much; and +3, I agree very much. The modified response

format emphasized the difference between a disagree (negative) and an agree

(positive) response. The anchors are the same as those used for several widely used

attitude instruments; for example, the Attitude toward Disabled Persons scales

(Yuker, Block & Campbell, 1966), and the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled

Persons (Antonak, 1982). To prevent a deviation-response-style threat, a stronger

endorsement of a statement (whether positive or negative) was associated with a

larger rather than a smaller absolute value, as it was in the original ORM. Responses

to the 30 revised items were scored in the direction of a positive attitude and then

summed. A constant of 90 was added to this sum to eliminate negative scores.

53

Potential scores could range from zero to 180, with a higher score indicating a more

favorable attitude.

To validate the ORI measure of attitudes, respondents were also asked to

complete the 24-item summated rating Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons

(SADP) (Antonak, 1982), a measure of global attitudes toward people with

disabilities as a group. The respondent is asked to rate each statement on the same 6-

point continuum as that used for the ORI. The item responses are scored in the

direction of a positive attitude and then summed. A constant is added to this sum to

eliminate negative scores (range from zero to 144), with a higher score indicating a

view that is more favorable toward people with disabilities as a group.

Analyses of Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons data in previous

investigations have indicated satisfactory psychometric characteristics of the scale

(Antonak, 1982; Antonak, 1985; Benham, 1988; Chan, Hua, Ju & Lam, 1984;

Mathews, White & Mrdjenovich-Hanks, 1990; Roush & Klocklars, 1988). The mean

of the Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability coefficients reported in these

investigations is 0.78 (range from 0.71 to 0.81), and the mean of the coefficient alpha

internal consistency coefficients is 0.81 (range from 0.76 to 0.88). SADP scores have

been reported to be uninfluenced by the social desirability responding bias. Factor

analyses of SADP data and analyses of the relationships between SADP scores and

respondent socio-demographic and experiential data have supported the scale's

construct validity. Analyses of the relationships between SADP scores and scores on

other instruments measuring attitudes toward people with disabilities have provided

54

evidence for the concurrent validity of the scale.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The results of iterative item, scale, and factor analyses led to a decision to

delete five of the 30 revised items. The deleted items from the original ORM items

manifested one or more of these unacceptable psychometric characteristics: (a)

correlation with the total score below 0.395, (b) failing to load on any factor above

0.365, (c) loading on more than one factor above 0.365 and (d) improvement of the

scale's homogeneity coefficient alpha index when the item was removed.

Respondents, scores on the final 25 item version of the ORI were recalculated and the

iterative item, scale, and factor analyses were repeated.

Item and Scale Analyses

Inspection of the item analysis results revealed satisfactory item

characteristics in all cases. The mean of the item-to-total score correlations corrected

for redundancy was 0.54 (range 0.40 to 0.72). The mean ORI score for the sample

was 108.72, SD= 14.10; range, 75 to 142. The distribution of these scores was

normal, skewness = 0.01, NS; zero-centered index of kurtosis = -0.48, NS. The value

of the Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability estimate was 0.82, with a

standard error of measurement of 5.98. The value of Cronbach's coefficient alpha

homogeneity coefficient was 0.88.

55

Factor Analyses

Bartlett's sphericity test of the item-response correlation matrix supported the

prerequisite assumption for factor analysis, [[chi].sup.2] (300) = 3124.52, p < 0.001.

An iterative principal-axis factor analysis, with communalities estimated by the

squared multiple correlation coefficients, was undertaken in an attempt to confirm the

hypothesized five-factor multidimensional structure of the scale reported by Larrivee

(1982). After careful examination of the unrotated factor matrix and the application of

Cattell's screen test to the eigenvalues, an orthogonally rotated four-factor solution

was chosen as a parsimonious, interpretable, and psychologically meaningful

representation of the data. Using the criterion in Larrivee's study, an item was

assigned to a particular factor when the loading exceeded 0.37. The one item that

failed this criterion (no. 22) was assigned to the factor on which its loading was the

greatest.

The first factor, accounting for 27% of the variance, recovered six of the

seven items in Larrivee’s General Philosophy of Mainstreaming factor and two of the

four items in Larrivee’s Academic and Social Growth of Special Needs Children

factor. This factor was interpreted as a Benefits of Integration factor because it

included items concerning the benefits of integration for students with and without

disabilities.

The second factor, accounting for 7% of the variance, combined all five of the

items in Larrivee’s Classroom Behavior of Special Needs Children factor with all

three of the items in Larrivee’s Classroom Management of Special Needs Children

56

factor. This factor was interpreted as an Integrated Classroom Management factor,

with items all concerned with the behavior of the students in an integrated classroom

and classroom management procedures that integration may require.

Three of the four items on Larrivee’s Perceived Ability to Teach Special

Needs Children factor appeared on the third factor, accounting for 4% of the variance.

This factor was named Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities.

The fourth factor accounted for 3% of the variance and included two of the

four items from Larrivee’s Academic and Social Growth of Special Needs Children

factor. Examination of the four items loading on this factor suggested that it

represented a dichotomous view of the provision of education for students with

disabilities. The factor was labeled Special Versus Integrated General Education.

Validity Analyses

To investigate the validity of the revised scale as a measure of attitudes

toward the integration of students with disabilities into general classrooms, a

hierarchical multiple-regression analysis was used. In this analysis, the socio-

demographic variables (i.e., sex, age, education) were entered as a block in the first

step, followed by the experiential variables (i.e., profession, relationship) as a block

in the second step, and then the SADP variable was entered in the last step. The mean

SADP score for the sample was 112.68, SD= 12.56; range, 78 to 137. The distribution

of the attitude scores was normal, skewness= -0.18, NS; zero-centered index of

kurtosis = -1.27, NS. The value of the Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability

estimate was 0.87 with a standard error of measurement of 4.53. The value of

57

Cronbach's coefficient alpha homogeneity coefficient was 0.83.

An examination of residual plots and appropriate statistical tests showed that

the regression was linear, that the residuals were random, normally distributed,

homoscedasticity, and independent of the predictor variables. The adjusted [R.sup.2]

for the six-predictor regression equation was 0.45, F (6, 369) = 52.91, p < 0.001, with

a standard error of estimate of 10.43. Shrinkage for this equation was less than 1%.

The best predictor of the attitude toward integration score was attitude toward people

with disabilities, standardized coefficient = 0.66, t (370) = 16.86, p < 0.01. None of

the other partial slopes was significantly different from zero. The results of a fixed-

effects least-squares analysis of variance of the ORI score means for respondents in

the five ethnic groups revealed no significant differences, E (4, 371) = 1.59, NS.

Discussion

The item characteristics of a 25-item revised version of the Larrivee and Cook

(1979) scale to measure attitudes toward the integration into general classrooms of

students with disabilities were found to be uniformly good, and the overall scale's

reliability and homogeneity were judged quite acceptable. The results of a factor

analysis suggested a four-factor multidimensional structure of the scale, rather than

the five-factor structure originally reported by Larrivee (1982). The four factors are:

Benefits of Integration, Integrated Classroom Management, Perceived Ability to

Teach Students with Disabilities, and Special Versus Integrated General Education.

These factors may be considered as components of the general construct of disabled

students’ integration into general classrooms. Two of the factors were similar in terms

58

of item assignments to two Larrivee factors, and a third factor combined the items on

two other Larrivee factors. The fourth factor in this investigation, however, was

dissimilar from any of the five named by Larrivee. The use of factor scores as

subscale scores for differential prediction of attitudes was not investigated. The

computation of ORI subscale scores cannot be defended until they can be shown to be

homogeneous, reliable, and specific, and until they consistently predict valid

indicators of favorable attitudes of education professionals.

Partial support for the validity of the ORI as a measure of attitudes toward the

integration of students with disabilities into general classrooms was found in by

analyzing the relationships of scores with respondent demographic and experiential

variables. ORI scores were significantly related in the predicted direction to scores

measuring global attitudes toward people with disabilities as a group, but they were

not related to respondent sex, age, ethnicity or educational level. The ORI scores were

not significantly related to the dichotomous profession variable or to the ordinal

relationship variable were not unexpected findings. More than 88% of the

respondents in this sample were undergraduates (predominantly sophomores and

juniors), and more than 60% reported either no relationship or only an acquaintance

relationship with people with disabilities.

Validity investigations are needed with other samples of more experienced

education professionals to relate ORI scores to respondent socio-demographic and

experiential variables. In addition, ORI scores should be related to respondent

personality characteristics (e.g., ethnocentrism, social desirability responding,

59

acquiescence, locus of control) and, what is more important, to behavioral indicators

of attitudes (e.g., volunteering to teach a class in which students with disabilities are

integrated, pursuing advanced training in teaching students with disabilities). If it can

be shown that the ORI is a valid predictor of attitudes, then the convenience and

reliability of the scale would support its use by university faculty concerned with

positively modifying the attitudes of future education professionals toward teaching

students with disabilities. It should also be useful to researchers seeking to evaluate

strategies to change the attitudes of those currently teaching toward the integration of

students with disabilities into general classrooms.

Population and Sample

Participants in this study were teachers from the Biloxi Public School District

teaching at four elementary schools – Jeff Davis Elementary (K-6), North Bay

Elementary (K-6), Beauvoir Elementary (K-6) and Gorenflo Elementary (K-6),

Michel 7th

Grade (7th

), Biloxi Jr. High School (8-9) and Biloxi High School (10-12).

The schools according to Mississippi Department of Education met AYP and were all

Level 5-Superior Performing Schools. The Biloxi Public School District is located on

the Gulf Coast and received tremendous damage from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. As

a result of the extensive damage to the schools and the entire community, student

enrollment dropped and teacher employment was also affected by the hurricane.

Teacher participation in the study was on a voluntary basis. The sample consisted of

two hundred thirty-five teachers.

60

Instrumentation

The instrument used in this study was the Opinions Relative to Integration of

Students with Disabilities (ORI). The ORI was a revision of the attitudinal Likert

Scale developed by Barbara Larrivee and Linda Cook (1979). Larrivee and Cook

developed a five-point scale, the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming (ORM) Scale,

to examine the attitudes of teachers toward the mainstreaming procedures being

mandated. The original scale consisted of 41 items and after a pilot study, 30 items

were chosen. The study included 941 teachers in the New England States.

Antonak and Livneh (1995) judged and identified the ORM Scale as a

carefully developed theoretical based scale that had acceptable psychometric

characteristics. Antonak and Livneh agreed the ORM needed significant revisions due

to the need to have a contemporary, easy to use, psychometrically sound instrument

for further research. The revised instrument was more contemporary, and

modifications were made to the item-response format and to the arrangement of items

to prevent validity threats. The ORM was revised and replaced with the six-point

Likert Scale, Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI),

by Antonak and Larrivee (1995).

Antonak and Larrivee (1995) investigated the validity of the revised scale as a

measure of attitudes toward the integration of students with disabilities in general

education classrooms; a hierarchical, multiple-regression analysis was used. The

mean SADP score for the sample was 108.72 (SD=14.10; range, 75 to 142). The

61

distribution of the attitude scores was normal (skewness= -0.01, ns; zero centered

index of kurtosis= -0.48, ns). The value of the Spearman-Brown corrected split-half

reliability estimate was 0.87, with a standard error of measurement of 5.98.

In a previous study, Jobe, Rust and Brissie (1996) reported that the ORI was

administered in a study nationwide to examine the attitudes of teachers toward the

inclusion of all children with disabilities in regular classroom. Five hundred regular

education teachers from public schools were asked to participate in the study. Of the

randomly selected group, 182 returned the ORI survey. Jobe et al. also reported that

the results showed neutral teacher attitudes toward inclusion.

Green-Causey (1999) administered the ORI in a study designed to address the

relationship between elementary teachers’ years of experience with inclusion and

their attitudes toward inclusion. In this study, 240 elementary teachers were randomly

selected. The researcher found in this study that the years of teaching experience and

attitudes toward inclusion were inconsistent. Loomos (2001) administered the ORI to

69 educators from a large metropolitan school in the Midwest to examine the attitudes

of urban educators toward the integration of students with disabilities. The results of

the study indicated an overall neutral attitude toward integrating students with

disabilities.

The ORI was designed to identify whether the participants perceive

themselves as knowledgeable about strategies for teaching students with disabilities.

The revised ORM, developed by Antonak and Larrivee (1995), used for this study

explains the following four factors:

62

1. Benefit of integration.

2. Integrated classroom management.

3. Special versus integrated general education.

4. Perceived ability to teach students with disabilities.

The ORI was designed to identify if the participates perceive themselves as

knowledgeable about strategies for teaching students with disabilities.

The ORI will be scored by computing the mean and standard classified under

each factor. A positive high mean average score ranging from +2.0 to +3.0 will

indicate that respondents said they agreed very much, scores ranging from +1.0 to 1.9

will indicate that respondents agreed pretty much, and scores ranging from 0.0 to +0.9

will indicate that respondents said they agrees very little. The negative low mean

average scores ranging from -2.0 to -3.0 will indicate that respondents disagreed very

much, scores ranging from -1.0 to -1.9 will indicate that respondents disagreed pretty

much, and scores ranging from 0.0 to -0.9 will indicate that respondents said they

disagreed very little. Summated scales will be formed by averaging each teacher’s

responses across the items.

Research and Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: There will be no statistically significant difference in perception

of strategies needed for teaching students with disabilities between general and


H1: H1 is false.

63


perception of adapting instruction to students with disability between general and


H2: H2 is false.


perception of collaborative strategies between the general and special education

classroom teacher.

H3: H3 is false.

Hypothesis 4: There will be no statistically significant differences in teacher

perception of themselves as knowledgeable of strategies for managing students’

behavior between the general and special education classroom teachers.

H4: H4 is false.

Data Collection

The study followed all the procedures and guideline for conducting research.

The Human Subjects Application was submitted for approval by the Human Subjects

Research Office. Participation in the study was voluntary. The researcher received

permission from the authors to use SurveyMonkey to create the survey on the net and

permission from the district superintendent to conduct the research in the school

district. Once IRB approval was granted; a questionnaire was created using

SurveyMonkey to distribute out to the individual schools. SurveyMonkey is survey

software used to create surveys on the net and participants can go to the site to

64

respond or a link can be created from the site for them to gain access to the survey.

As a part of this study, the link was emailed to the school administrators and teachers.

The administrators informed each teacher that their participation was voluntary and

that they can withdraw at any time without any penalty.

The superintendent sent an email to all of the school administrators to inform

them about the upcoming survey, and asked for their support. Also, the researcher

informed all of the administrators of the deadline for the teachers to participate in the

survey. Along with the survey link, the researcher emailed a brief introduction of the

study. The researcher informed the administrators that their teachers’ participation in

the study was voluntary.

Data Analysis

Data was entered into SPSS 14.0 for Windows. Composite scores were

computed for each of the four ORI factors: Benefits of Integration, Integrated

Classroom Management, Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities, and

Special Versus Integrated General Education. Cronbach’s alphas was calculated for

each of the four factors.

To examine hypothesis 1, a t test on Benefits of Integration by Teacher

(General v. Special education) was conducted. The assumptions of homogeneity of

variance and normality were assessed. Power and effect size were reported.

To examine hypothesis 2, a t test on Integrated Classroom management by

65

Teacher (General v. Special education) was conducted. The assumptions of

homogeneity of variance and normality were assessed. Power and effect size were

reported.

To examine hypothesis 3, a t test on Perceived Ability to Teach Students with

Disabilities by Teacher (General v. Special education) was conducted. The

assumptions of homogeneity of variance and normality were assessed. Power and

effect size were reported.

To examine hypothesis 4, a t test on Special Versus Integrated General

Education by Teacher (General v. Special education) was conducted. The

assumptions of homogeneity of variance and normality were assessed. Power and

effect size were reported.

Ethical Issues

The researcher conducted the study in an ethical manner. According to

Bogdan and Biklen (2007), informed consent and protecting human subjects from

harm are two key factors that need to be addressed when working with human

subjects. The researcher obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before

beginning the study. The researcher obtained permission from the district

superintendent, administrators and the participants (the teachers) to conduct and

participant in the study. The researcher obtained permission from the authors Dr.

Antonak and Dr. Larrivee to utilize their questionnaire, the Opinions Relative to the

66

Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI), in the research study. The researcher

informed the participants that their participation was voluntary and that they would

not be exposed to any risks. The researcher also ensured that the participants

understood the nature of the study and the guidelines for completing the study. The

researcher treated the participants with respect, protected the information that was

collected, protected the identities of the participants and accurately reported the

findings of the study (Bodgan & Biklen, 2007). The participants’ names remained

confidential and were not reported in the study.

Reliability and Validity

According to Gall, Gall & Borg (2003), questionnaires and interviews must

meet the same standards of validity and reliability that apply to other data-collection

measures in educational research. In addition, a questionnaire that measures attitudes

generally must be constructed as an attitude scale and must use a substantial a number

of items (usually at least 10) in order to obtain a reliable assessment of an individual’s

attitude (Gall, Gall & Borg). The researcher received permission from Dr. Antonak

and Dr. Larrivee to use the Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with

Disabilities ORI in this study and has concluded, based on research studies, that the

instrument is reliable.

Threats to Validity

Campbell and Stanley (1963) define internal validity as the basic requirements

for an experiment to be interpretable, in other words, did the experiment make a

difference in this instance? External validity addresses the question of generalization

67

phrased in another manner, to whom can we generalize this experiment's findings?

There are eight extraneous variables that can interfere with internal validity:

1. History, the specific events occurring between the first and second

measurements in addition to the experimental variables.

2. Maturation, processes within the participants as a function of the passage of

time (not specific to particular events), for example, growing older,

hungrier, more tired, and so forth.

3. Testing, the effects of taking a test upon the scores of a second testing.

4. Instrumentation, changes in calibration of a measurement tool or changes in

the observers or scorers may produce changes in the obtained

measurements.

5. Statistical regression, operating where groups have been selected on the

basis of their extreme scores.

6. Selection, biases resulting from differential selection of respondents for the

comparison groups.

7. Experimental mortality or differential loss of respondents from the

comparison groups.

8. Selection-maturation interaction, etc. E.g., in multiple-group quasi-

experimental designs.

Four factors jeopardizing external validity or representativeness are:

1. Reactive or interaction effect of testing, a pretest might increase.

2. Interaction effects of selection biases and the experimental variable.

68

3. Reactive effects of experimental arrangements, which would preclude

generalization about the effect of the experimental variable upon persons

being exposed to it in non-experimental settings.

4. Multiple-treatment interference, where effects of earlier treatments are not

erasable.

Limitations of the Study

1. This study was conducted in the Biloxi Public School District.

2. This study was limited to four elementary schools, one middle school and

one junior high school and one high school.

3. Generalizations cannot be made from this study due to geographic location.

4. The degree of validity and reliability of the survey used in the study.

5. The responses of the subjects taking the survey.

6. The month and year that the research was conducted.

7. The statistical treatment of the analysis of the data.

Summary

This chapter provided a description of the research procedures used for the

study and the means for data analysis. This chapter consisted of the (a) null

hypotheses, (b) methodology/design of the study, (c) population and sample, (d)

instrumentation, (e) data collection, (f) data analysis, (e) ethical issues, and the (g)

limitations of the study. Chapters Four and Five described the research data, findings,

69

conclusions and recommendations.

70

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The overall purpose of the study was to determine whether there were any

significant differences between Special Education and General Education teachers in

terms of their perceptions about: (a) Benefits to Integration, (b) Integrated Classroom

Management, (c) Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities, and (d) Special

Education vs. Integrated General Education. In this chapter, results of the data

collection will be presented and then used to analyze the null hypotheses, which

stated that there were no significant differences between Special Education and

General Education teachers with regard to each of the aforementioned perceptions.

The sample was a convenient, nonrandom sample drawn from public schools

in Biloxi, Mississippi. While teachers were selected randomly, they returned the

survey voluntarily so the precise sample is best described as Mississippi teachers,

both Special Education and General Education, who teach at the seven specific

schools surveyed who were willing to return the survey. While the data, at its heart, is

qualitative, the survey quantified responses along a linear scale, so that we could

perform statistical analysis upon the results.

The sample sizes were 39 for Special Education teachers and 187 for General

Education teachers. One assumption was that the score responses of the teachers

would generally approximate a normal distribution. Given this, the Central Limit

Theorem states that a sample size of greater than or equal to 30 should acceptably

71

approximate a normal distribution. As both samples of teachers satisfied this

requirement, the data was treated as if it came from a normal distribution for all

purposes of the analysis.

Independent sample t tests were utilized to determine whether any differences

that we would find between these two groups were statistically significant or not

statistically significant. By comparing the difference of the means of two groups with

their standard deviation and sample size, t tests determine the probability that the

difference is not due to random chance. The Independent part of the test’s description

refers to the fact that the groups are considered independent if a member of one group

cannot possibly be in the other group, which is the case in this study. This procedure

is most appropriate when the objective of the analysis is to compare the mean of a

continuous outcome variable between two independent groups. In this case, the

outcome variables were the respondents’ scores in the ORI, and the grouping variable

was the type of teacher (General Education vs. Special Education). These analyses

were conducted using SPSS. The study assumed homogeneity of variance and

normality, and graphical outputs were all drawn directly from the SPSS program.

When it is stated that an observed difference in opinion between the two types

of teachers is statistically significant, it means that established formulas and tests (in

this case the appropriate tool is the aforementioned independent samples t test) were

used to weigh the size of the disparity between the means, the variance within each

group’s opinion (the standard deviation, a measure of how tightly the opinions are

clustered around the mean) and the number of respondents within each group (the

72

sample size – the more data we have, the more accurate we can be), and have

concluded that it is likely that the disparity between the two observed means is due to

an actual difference in opinion between Special Education and General Education

teachers. In this case, the hypothesis would be rejected.

When it is stated that an observed difference in opinion between the two types

of teachers is not statistically significant, that means that even though there was an

observed difference, given the data (means, standard deviations and sample sizes), the

researcher cannot conclusively state that the difference is definitely not due to chance,

and fail to reject the hypothesis. In other words, while the researcher does not

necessarily agree with the null hypothesis, the researcher cannot conclusively state

that it is not true.

The actual analysis that the SPSS software conducted for the independent

sample t tests is as follows: the t score is computed by taking the difference of the

means, and dividing it by the square root of the sum of the squared standard deviation

for each group divided by the sample size of each group. The given t score is then

compared with established tables in order to determine the other relevant statistical

data. The independent sample t test formula is presented mathematically below.

In this formula, t refers to the t score. X1 refers to the mean score of the

Special Education teachers for a given category of questions, and X2 refers to the

mean score of the General Education teachers for a given category of questions. S12

73

and S22 refer to the (squared) standard deviations of the two groups of teachers’

scores. N1 and N2 refer to the sample sizes of Special Education and General

Education teachers within our survey, respectively.

Description of the Sample

The sample consisted of 235 teachers; 187 of them were General Education

teachers (79.6%), 39 of them were Special Education teachers (16.6%), and nine were

unknown (3.8%). For the analyses, a total of 11 observations were dropped, leaving

the final sample size at 224 teachers. Nine of the dropped observations were due to

lack of information about the teacher type; the other two were dropped because they

failed to respond to four or more questions in the ORI instrument. The means and

standard deviations of the five subscales used in this study can be found in Table 1.

74

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations on Five Subscales

Variable N Min. Max. M SD Total ORI

235 3.00 145.00 82.17 25.66

Benefits of

Integration

235 -24.00 24.00 8.39 9.17

Integrated

Classroom

Management

235 -27.00 29.00 1.66 11.06

Perceived Ability to

Teach Students with

Disabilities

235 -9.00 9.00 -1.79 4.47

Special versus

Integrated General

Education

235 -12.00 12.00 -1.73 5.45

To analyze data within SPSS, the Explore Descriptive Statistics functions, as

well as the Independent Samples t test function were utilized. In order to create

graphs to present the data visually, the Explore function as well as the Box plot

function was employed.

Differences in Perceptions about Benefits to Integration

The first hypothesis stated that Special Education and General Education

teachers would not have a difference in opinion as to whether there are benefits to

integration. An independent samples t test was performed in order to test this

hypothesis. The outcome variable in this analysis was the Benefits to Integration

75

subscore, and the grouping variable was type of teacher (Special Education or

General Education). The data from this analysis can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Independent Samples t test on Benefits of Integration by Group (Special

Education vs. General Education)

Special Education General Education

Subscale df t M SD M SD

Benefits of

Integration

224 4.44 14.03 8.91 7.26 8.60

Special Education teachers scored this item with a mean of 14.03, a standard

deviation of 8.91 and as stated earlier, a sample size of 39. General Education

teachers scored this item with a mean of 7.26, a standard deviation of 8.60 and as

stated earlier, a sample size of 187. Thus, the arrival at a t value (df=224) of 4.44, and

a p value of 0.000008. Since p < 0.05, the researcher can confidently reject the

hypothesis that there is no difference between the opinions of the two teachers with

regard to the Benefits of Integration subscore. Therefore, this suggests that Special

Education teachers had significantly higher perception of the benefits to integration

than General Education teachers. This is visually demonstrated below in a box plot in

Figure 1 and in a bar graph in Figure 2.

76

Figure 1. Box plot of benefits of integration

Figure 1 visually demonstrates the difference in perceptions between Special

Education and General Education teachers by breaking down each group of scores

into a graphical five number summary (the lowest score, the lower quartile, the

median, the upper quartile and the highest score). As is apparent in the figure, the

scores that Special Education teachers gave to the Benefits of Integration category of

questions were generally much higher and also somewhat more narrowly clustered

(although there were three low outliers) than the scores that General Education

teachers gave to the Benefits of Integration category of questions.

77

In Figure 2 below, the individual responses of the teachers are represented

graphically. Special Education teachers’ responses are graphed in blue, while General

Education teachers’ responses are graphed in green. The x-axis demonstrates the

score (from -30 to 30) that was surmised from the teachers’ response to the Benefits

of Integration category, and the y-axis demonstrates the percentage of respondents in

each group that had that score. As is apparent, there is more blue on the upper end of

the score spectrum, and more green on the lower end, indicating that Special

Education teachers responded much more positively to the Benefits of Integration

category than did General Education teachers. Figure 3 demonstrates the mean

response of each group.

78

Figure 2. Bar graph of benefits of integration, individual responses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Special EducationGeneral Education

Figure 3. Benefits of integration, group means (bar graph)

79

In Figure f below, an Exploration of the statistics is presented, which

describes numerically the mean, standard deviation and range of each group of

responses. Figure 2 also demonstrates an upper and lower bound for a 95%

confidence interval for each true mean. More exactly stated, the given range is the

range in which if the sample mean were in fact the true mean, 95% of such sample

means would fall within that range.

Table 3. Benefits of Integration (Exploration)

Group Mean Std Dev 95% Confidence

Interval

Special Education

14.026

8.91

11.14 to 16.91

General Education

7.26 8.60 6.02 to 8.50

Table 3 describes numerically what Figures 1, 2 and 3 cite graphically. In fact,

the scores that Special Education teachers gave to the Benefits of Integration category

of questions were generally much higher and also somewhat more narrowly clustered

(although there were three low outliers) than the scores that General Education

teachers gave to the Benefits of Integration category of questions. In fact, the 95%

confidence intervals for each mean do not even overlap. In this case, the null

hypothesis is soundly rejected.

80

Differences in Perceptions about Integrated Classroom Management

The second hypothesis stated that Special Education and General Education

teachers would not have a difference in opinion as to how they feel about Integrated

Classroom Management. An independent samples t test was performed in order to

test this hypothesis. The outcome variable in this analysis was the Integrated

Classroom Management subscore, and the grouping variable was the type of teacher

(Special Education or General Education). The data from this analysis can be seen in

Table 4.

Table 4. Independent Samples t test on Integrated Classroom Management by Group

(Special Education vs. General Education)



Integrated

Classroom

Management

224 5.05 9.13 10.77 -0.04 10.23

Special Education teachers scored this item with a mean of 9.13, a standard

deviation of 10.77 and a sample size of 39. General Education teachers scored this

item with a mean of -0.04, a standard deviation of 10.23 and a sample size of 187.

Thus, we arrive at a t value (df=224) of 5.05, and a p value of 0.000000. Since p <

0.05, we can confidently reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between the

81

opinions of the two teachers with regard to the Integrated Classroom Management

subscore. Therefore, these results suggest that Special Education teachers had

significantly higher perception of integrated classroom management than General

Education teachers. This is visually demonstrated below in a box plot in Figure 4, in a

bar graph of individual responses in Figure 5 and in a bar graph of the group means in

Figure 6.

Figure 4. Box plot of integrated classroom management

This graph visually demonstrates the difference in perceptions between

Special Education and General Education teachers by breaking down each group of

82

scores into a graphical five number summary (the lowest score, the lower quartile, the

median, the upper quartile and the highest score). As is apparent in the figure, the

scores that Special Education teachers gave to the “Integrated Classroom

Management” category of questions were generally much higher than the scores that

General Education teachers gave to the “Integrated Classroom Management”

category of questions.




score (from -30 to 30) that was surmised from the teachers’ response to the

“Integrated Classroom Management” category of questions, and the y-axis

demonstrates the percentage of respondents in each group that had that score. As is

apparent, there is more blue on the upper end of the score spectrum, and more green

on the lower end, indicating that Special Education teachers responded much more

positively to the “Integrated Classroom Management” category of questions than did

General Education teachers. Figure 6 demonstrates the mean response of each group.

83

Figure 5. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, individual responses

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Integrated Classroom Management

Special Education

General Education

Figure 6. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, group means

84

In Table 5 below, an Exploration of the statistics is presented, which describes

numerically the mean, standard deviation and range of each group of responses.

Figure 5 also demonstrates an upper and lower bound for a 95% confidence interval

for each true mean. More exactly stated, the given range is the range in which if the

sample mean were in fact the true mean, 95% of such sample means would fall within

that range.

Table 5 Integrated Classroom Management (Exploration)


Interval

Special Ed

9.12

10.76

5.64 to 12.62

General Ed

-.04 10.22 -1.51 to 1.44

Table 5 describes numerically what Figures 4, 5 and 6 cite graphically. In fact,

the scores that Special Education teachers gave to the “Integrated Classroom

Management” category of questions were generally much higher than the scores that

General Education teachers gave to the “Integrated Classroom Management”

category of questions. In fact, the 95% confidence intervals for each mean do not

even overlap. In this case, the null hypothesis is soundly rejected.

85

Differences in Perceptions about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities

The third hypothesis states that Special Education and General Education

teachers will not have a difference in opinion as to how they feel about their

perceived ability to teach students with disabilities. An independent samples t test

was performed in order to test this hypothesis. The outcome variable in this analysis

was the Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities subscore, and the

grouping variable was type of teacher (Special Education or General Education). The

data from this analysis can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6. Independent Samples t test on Perceived Ability to Teach Students with

Disabilities by Group (Special Education vs. General Education)



Perceived Ability to

Teach Students with

Disabilities

244 0.91 -1.26 4.09 -1.96 4.49

Special Education teachers scored this item with a mean of -1.26, a standard

deviation of 4.09 and a sample size of 39. General Education teachers scored this item

with a mean of -1.96, a standard deviation of 4.49 and a sample size of 187. Thus, the

arrival at a t value (df=224) of 0.91, and a p value of 0.364. Since p > 0.05, we cannot

reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between the opinions of the two

teachers with regard to the Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities

86

subscore. Therefore, these results suggest that Special Education and General

Education teachers did not differ significantly in terms of their perceptions about the

ability to teach students with disabilities. This is visually demonstrated below in a box

plot in Figure 7, in a bar graph of individual responses in Figure 8 and in a bar graph

of the group means in Figure 9.

Figure 7. Box plot of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities



87


median, the upper quartile and the highest score). As is apparent the figure, the mean

of the scores that Special Education teachers gave to the “Perceived Ability to Teach

Students with Disabilities” category of questions are slightly higher than the mean of

the scores that General Education teachers gave to the “Perceived Ability to Teach

Students with Disabilities” category of questions, although the General Education

teachers’ highest scores were higher and their spread was larger. The slight difference

between the means was not enough to conclusively determine a difference of opinion

on this subject, and the hypothesis was not rejected.




score (from -30 to 30) that was surmised from the teachers’ response to the

“Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities” category of questions, and the

y-axis demonstrates the percentage of respondents in each group that had that score.

As is apparent, the blue and green bars are fairly well mixed, indicating that the

responses to the “Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities” category of

questions were not affected by the Special Education/General Education variable.

Figure 9 demonstrates the mean response of each group.

88

Figure 8. Bar graph of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, individual

responses

-2

0

Perceived Ability to TeachStudents with Disabilities


Figure 9. Bar graph of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, group

means

89






that range.

Table 7. Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities (Exploration)


Interval

Special Ed

-1.25

4.10

-2.58 to 0.69

General Ed

-1.96 4.49 -2.61 to -1.32

Table 7 describes numerically what Figures 7, 8 and 9 and cite graphically. In

fact, while the mean of the scores that Special Education teachers gave to the

“Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities” category of questions are very

slightly higher than the mean of the scores that General Education teachers gave to

the “Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities” category of questions, the

slight difference between the means was not enough to conclusively determine a

difference of opinion on this subject, and the hypothesis was not rejected.

90

Differences in Perceptions about Special vs. Integrated Education

The fourth hypothesis states that Special Education and General Education

teachers will not have a difference in opinion as to how they feel about Special

Education vs. Integrated General Education. An independent samples t test was

performed in order to test this hypothesis. The outcome variable in this analysis was

the Special Education vs. Integrated General Education subscore, and the grouping

variable was the type of teacher (Special Education or General Education). The data

from this analysis can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8

Independent Samples t test on Special versus Integrated General Education by Group

(Special Education vs. General Education)



Special versus

Integrated General

Education

244 3.47 0.87 4.88 -2.34 5.35

Special Education teachers scored this item with a mean of .087, a standard

deviation of 4.88 and a sample size of 39. General Education teachers scored this item

with a mean of -2.34, a standard deviation of 5.35 and a sample size of 187. Thus, we

arrive at a t value (n=224) of 3.47, and a p value of 0.000312. Since p < 0.05, the

researcher can confidently reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between

91

the opinions of the two teachers with regard to the Special Education vs. Integrated

General Education subscore. Therefore, these results suggest that Special Education

teachers had a significantly higher perception of Special Education versus Integrated

General Education than General Education teachers. This is visually demonstrated

below in a box plot in Figure 10, in a bar graph of individual responses in Figure 11

and in a bar graph of group means in Figure 12.

Figure 1. Box plot of special vs. integrated general education



92


median, the upper quartile and the highest score). As is apparent the figure, the scores

that Special Education teachers gave to the “Special vs. Integrated General

Education” category of questions were generally much higher than the scores that

General Education teachers gave to the “Special vs. Integrated General Education”

category of questions.




score (from -30 to 30) that was surmised from the teachers’ response to the “Special

vs. Integrated General Education” category of questions, and the y-axis demonstrates

the percentage of respondents in each group that had that score. As is apparent, there

is more blue on the upper end of the score spectrum, and more green on the lower

end, indicating that Special Education teachers responded much more positively to

the “Special vs. Integrated General Education” category of questions than did General

Education teachers. Figure 12 demonstrates the mean response of each group.

93

Figure 1. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, individual responses

-4

-2

0

2

Special versus Integrated General

Education


Figure 1. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, group means

94






that range.

Table 9. Special vs. Integrated Education (Exploration)


Interval

Special Ed

.87

4.88

-.71 to 2.45

General Ed -2.34 5.34 -3.11 to -1.57

Table 9 describes numerically what Figures 10, 11 and 12 cite graphically. In

fact, the scores that Special Education teachers gave to the “Special vs. Integrated

Education” category of questions were generally much higher than the scores that

General Education teachers gave to the “Special vs. Integrated Education” category of

questions. In fact, the 95% confidence intervals for each mean do not even overlap. In

this case, the null hypothesis is soundly rejected.

95

Summary

In conclusion, three out of four initial hypotheses were rejected. With regard

to the first hypothesis, it was found that Special Education teachers gave higher

scores than those of their General Education counterparts on the survey with regard to

the Benefits of Integration category of questions, and therefore the null hypothesis

was rejected. With regard to the second hypothesis, it was found that Special

Education teachers gave higher scores than those of their General Education

counterparts on the survey with regard to the “Integrated Classroom Management”

category of questions, and therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. With regard to

the third hypothesis, it was found that Special Education teachers gave scores that

were fairly similar to those of their General Education counterparts on the survey

with regard to the “Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities” category of questions,

and therefore we failed to reject the null hypothesis. With regard to the fourth and

final hypothesis, it was found that Special Education teachers gave higher scores than

those of their General Education counterparts on the survey with regard to the

“Special Education vs. Integrated General Education” category of questions, and

therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. Thus, three out of the four original

hypotheses were rejected during this study, and the SPSS analysis of the data

concluded that there is a significant difference in the scores of the surveys between

Special Education and General Education teachers with regard to their perceptions

96

about the benefits of integration, about integrated classroom management and about

their own perceived ability to teach students with disabilities.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the three hypothesis that were rejected

were actually rejected so strongly as to leave little doubt about accuracy – in fact, if it

were somehow true that there were no difference between these groups, then that

means we would see data this unusual less than one out of every one hundred

thousand times. While we cannot ever be certain that the mean survey scores of the

Special Education and General Education teachers are actually the same as the true

mean (the true mean is the actual population mean, the one which we would get if we

sampled every single teacher in the population, rather than just a sample of them), one

can be fairly certain in the conclusions that the true means of the two populations are

different based upon this survey’s samples, and if the true means were in fact the

same, a population sample of this size would yield data this disparate only one out of

every hundred thousand times. Also, it should be noted that data from 11 of the

respondents was not used; nine were dropped because they did not indicate whether

they were Special or General Education, and two because they failed to answer four

or more of the twenty five questions.

97

CHAPTER 5: SUMMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter provided a summary and a discussion of this study’s findings.

The first section provided an additional summary of the study. The second section

discussed the findings and conclusions of the study with respect to the results

presented in chapter four in the context of the relevant literature and the goals of the

study. The third section presents recommendations and conclusions based on the

findings of this study. The fourth section discussed the limitations of the study and

provided a guideline for further research. The fifth and final section discussed the

implications of this study’s findings.

Summary of the Study

The number of disabled students taught in regular education classrooms has

increased over the last couple of years (Villa, Thousand, Nevin & Liston, 2005). This

trend of integration comes with both positive and negative criticism. Supporters of

integration believed that the integrated classroom benefits not only disabled students

but also regular education students and teachers. Detractors believe that integration is

not the most effective way to educate disabled students, as teachers are rarely

comfortable with the additional challenges and responsibilities associated with the

job. This quagmire is further complicated with additional legislature regarding the

98

education of disabled students (IDEA, 1990, 1997, 2004; IEP; NCLB, 2001), as

student requirements become more stringent and egalitarian. These mandates have

forced educators to rethink how they should deal with special education. The No

Child Left Behind Act, for example, required and continues to require that all

students, with and without learning disabilities, have to reach a proficient level of

achievement in math and reading/language skills by 2014 (Underwood et al., 2002).

Resulting from such mandates, disabled students have been increasingly

included in regular education classrooms. The significance of integration is critical to

the education of the United States’ future citizens and work force. The economic

prosperity of this country depends largely on its human capital investments. As

government funding for education remains a scarce resource, it is critical that the

government develop the most effective and efficient plan for education.

The success of integration and education, however, depends largely on those

individuals responsible for educating children: teachers. This study is interested in

how teachers perceive integration, specifically how they perceive the benefits of

integration, integrated classroom management, ability to teach students with

disabilities the relative merits of special education versus integrated education.

In order to analyze educator perceptions of integration, this study surveyed

educators from the Biloxi, Mississippi school district – specifically, teachers from

four elementary schools, one middle school, one junior high school and one high

school. This study utilized the ORI to measure the attitudes and perceptions of

educator perceptions of inclusion, which provided this study with quantitative data for

99

analysis. Participation for this study was voluntary and the survey could be found

online using SurveyMonkey. In analyzing the data, this study conducted t tests to

evaluate significance, power, and effect size over the four hypotheses.

Relevant Literature and Study Findings

This study addressed teacher perceptions of the inclusion of special education

students in regular education classrooms. As teachers debate the best way to educate

disabled students, most educators believed that disabled students would benefit from

exposure to learning in general education classrooms (ERIC Clearinghouse, 1993). In

addition to providing a change of scenery for disabled students, effective integration

is essential for an inclusive school community. Part of the theory behind inclusive

classrooms is the idea that “all people have something to learn and gain from

understanding and appreciating others” (Sands et al., 2000, p. 116). In addition, the

inclusive classroom is usually safe, open and challenging.

The success of such classrooms allow for new relationships, structures and

methods of learning (Logan et al., 1994, p. 42). General educators with inclusion

experience believed that their experience with inclusion was a good learning

experience, helped them realize additional positive impacts of teaching, gave them a

confidence boost for their teaching ability and allowed them to feel good about their

ability to change (Salend & Garrick-Duhaney, 1995).

The integration of disabled students into general education classes; however,

is not without controversy. The integration of disabled students frustrated teachers

100

who are unconfident about their command of the classroom and blurred by the roles

of special education and regular education teachers. Some teachers supported, while

others opposed, the integration of disabled students.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the factors that contribute to

teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and to define recommendations that

would encourage teachers who are reluctant to the implementation of inclusion to

become more comfortable with the concept of inclusion.

The first hypothesis was that general educators and special education

educators do not have a general difference in opinion about the benefits of integration

programs. The results presented in Chapter Four disproved this hypothesis, stating

that there is indeed a significant difference in the general educator and special

education educator perceptions of the benefits of integration. Special education

educators believed, to an overwhelming degree, that the benefits of an integration

programs were vast, while general educators tended to disagree. The literature

presented in Chapter Two highlighted this discrepancy. The crux of integration

programs depends on the development and the implementation of this program.

One of the most important factors in the implementation of a successful

integration program is the teacher’s cooperation and input in the development

process. In addition, it is critically important for teachers involved to be supportive of

the program. As inclusion presents an additional hurdle for the teacher, if the program

is not set up according to his or her specifications and input, then it will likely be

unsuccessful for the students and teacher alike (Sand et al., 2000).

101

Disabled student inclusion programs frequently required “a feeling of

belonging and meaningful participation, the creation of alliances and affiliations, and

the provision of mutual, emotional, and technical support among all community

members” (Sands et al., 2000, p. 116). If such programs failed to generate support

among all parties involved, especially among participating teachers, they were less

likely to be successful. It was a significant issue, however, as many general education

teachers dislike teaching with special needs students in their classrooms. While the

literature did not focus on the specific benefits of integration programs in general, it

focused on the benefits of integration programs when properly run. As the success of

these integration programs depends on a host of issues, including teacher input, the

benefits of integration depend on the perception of success. When teachers do not

look forward to the implementation of such programs, they were less likely to be

successful and the perceived benefits were reduced.

This study’s findings, specifically the results in Chapter Four pertaining to the

second hypothesis, highlighted the negative perceptions of general education teachers

to integration programs. The second hypothesis stated that special and general

education teachers would not have a difference in opinion to integrated classroom

management. This hypothesis was rejected, as special education teachers and general

education teachers had significantly different opinions of integrated classroom

management.

While this finding refuted the majority of the literature discussed in Chapter

Two, a study conducted by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) suggested otherwise.

102

Using synthesis research to summarize the results of over 28 studies conducted that

compared general and special educator perceptions of integration, this study found

that roughly two-thirds of regular educators supported the placement of disabled

students in regular education classrooms. The other third of educators studied

remarked that they were uncomfortable with the idea because of a lack of time,

training, expertise and resources.

Resistance to the inclusion of special education students in general education

classrooms is common. The prudent development of a special education inclusion

program, as mentioned before, is integral to the success of the program. This is

especially difficult, however, as the type and severity of disability both vary

depending on the student. Such a diversity of disabilities makes the development of

an effective integration program especially difficult. One special needs student may

thrive in a room with special resources, while another may be better off in a

classroom with normal students (Coeyman, 2001). This fact complicates the

development of a successful program, as these issues do not have one-size-fits-all

solutions.

Further resistance to integration programs tended to come from participating

teachers themselves. Many teachers were hesitant to teach in classrooms with

mentally-disabled students, as it significantly complicated their roles. As can be

easily imagined, the existence of a disabled student in the classroom presented a

significant hurdle for the teacher. According to a number of findings, teacher

reactions to special education student inclusion programs tended to vary according to

103

the teacher’s confidence in his or her own ability and level of experience. Teachers

who either have low confidence in the impact of their teaching, have little experience

in teaching, were unfamiliar with a range of teaching practices or were not use to

dealing with disabilities are less inclined to support inclusion programs. Teachers

were often threatened and frustrated by the inclusion of students with cognitive and

learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. In addition, research also showed that

regular educators often feel unprepared to teach such students (Schuum et al., 1994).

A few specific concerns identified by regular teachers with regards to

inclusion included: negative attitudes from other regular students, the fear that the

inclusion of a disabled student could take away from that of regular students, an

inability to deal with the disabled student’s problems and a general lack of time

needed for additional coordination with other administrators (Salend & Garrick-

Duhaney, 1999).

General education teachers also tended to be hesitant to teach disabled

students because of the presence of special education teachers. Many special

education students had additional special education teachers, who had either attended

general education classes with the student or were in constant contact with the

student’s other teachers. Many teachers may have felt threatened or hindered by the

presence of an additional teacher or an additional need to frequently consult with the

student’s parents.

These added interactions were found to be overwhelming to the regular

education classroom teacher who had always been alone with his or her students.

104

Interpersonal conflicts can be common. Conflicts would often arise from personality

differences among the educators and from lack of clarity about appropriate role

functions. In some instances, the inclusion program often led to a blurring of roles

between special and regular educator (Schattman, 1992).

This study’s fourth hypothesis – that special education educators and general

education educators do not feel differently about special education versus general

education – also proved to be false. According to this study’s findings, both groups of

teachers felt significantly different, as special education educators supporting

integrated general education. The crux behind this finding was the idea that barriers

exist in inclusive classrooms (Hines & Johnston, 1997). As stated before, regular

educators believed that they lack the required skills, resources and training necessary

to deal with special needs students. Special education educators also considered their

skills and knowledge of general education material to be lacking. They did not

consider themselves to be content experts but rather educational consultants (Hines &

Johnston). This perceived lack of confidence between both special and general

educators was the underlying reason for the significant difference in perceptions of

special education versus integrated education.

The literature that supports the fourth hypothesis also addressed the findings

of this study’s third hypothesis. This study’s third hypothesis – that special education

educators and general educators will not have a difference in opinion as to how they

feel about their perceived ability to teach students with disabilities – could not be

proved false. According to these findings, special educators and general educators,

105

therefore, do not believe that one is better suited to teach disables students than the

other.

According to a study by Hines and Johnston (1997), each group believed that

they lacked either the resources or confidence to teach disabled students but did not

state that they maintained full confidence in the group. This therefore leads to the idea

that general educators and special educators, in order to effectively teach special

education students, must rely upon each other. As discussed earlier in this chapter,

however, a main source of frustration for general educators was the new relationship

between special educator and general educator.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The goal of this study was to address the factors that contribute to teacher’s

perceptions toward inclusive education and to provide potential solutions to help

encourage teachers who were reluctant to accept and become more comfortable with

the implementation of inclusion. Three of the four primary findings of this study

stated that special educators and general educators significantly disagreed upon the

benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, and special education vs.

integrated general education. As noted in Chapter Four, the levels of significance of

disagreement between special and general educators were so high that they should be

taken with great confidence. This study’s fourth finding – that there would be no

perceived differences in opinion between special and general educators – could not be

disproved.

106

These findings, in conjunction with the existing literature, advanced our

understanding of the factors behind why teachers were hesitant about teaching

integrated classes. According to the literature, the main factors behind the resistance

to integrated education stemmed from a fear that the teacher was not fully equipped to

handle the situation, a fear that integration took away from the experiences of other

students and a fear that the integrated classroom expanded and complicated classroom

relationships, especially the special educator general educator relationship.

1. Ensure appropriate resources to educators. This study’s most obvious

recommendation is for school systems to address teacher concerns that they

lack the appropriate resources to handle disabled students. This stems from a

lack of teaching experience, a lack of confidence about teaching ability, a lack

of training and a lack of understanding about disabilities in general. School

systems should focus on picking confident and experienced teachers to enter

into the integration program. This would allow less confident teachers more

time to develop their teaching methods and abilities until they feel

comfortable with controlling a classroom. School systems could also provide

additional training, perhaps through over-time payment, to teachers

uncomfortable with integrated teaching. This would help teachers feel more

prepared and would provide an additional incentive for teachers to accept

integrated classrooms.

This recommendation is significant because of the previous findings in

the literature that the success of integration programs depends on the

107

development of the program and the role of the teacher. Teachers need to feel

as if the integrated class room is not a program forced upon them from above,

but rather a program for educational development in which they have

significant say and input. Teachers also need to be sufficiently prepared, or at

least perceive that they are sufficiently prepared, for such an undertaking. If

not, our findings have shown that they will be less receptive to integration.

The literature also stresses that the success of integration depends

largely on the receptiveness of the teacher. Having teachers feel unprepared or

unwilling for integration is not just a waste of valuable resources, but also

hinders the education for both students with disabilities and students without

disabilities.

2. Emphasize benefits of inclusion. This study recommends that school systems

should provide convincing materials to teachers to talk about the benefits of

integrated education and should allow participating teachers much flexibility

in the development of such programs. As stated earlier, many of the teachers

who participated in successful integration programs believed that there were

rewarding experiences not only for themselves but also for regular students, as

they had additional opportunities for leadership. If teachers have the flexibility

to customize their own classrooms, the program will more likely be

successful.

Teachers must be convinced of the benefits of integrated education

before they participate. The school system must develop a very definite and

108

efficient sales pitch to attract the teacher. In order to conduct such a sell, the

school system could devote internal time and resources to developing a

brochure or pamphlet emphasizing the benefits of integration. An additional

effective method would be to make a promotional video. This could be used to

recruit both existing teachers and potential teachers. If necessary, the school

system could hire a marketing firm or a consulting company to present any of

the above. If the school system instead forces the teacher to participate, the

program will most likely be less successful.

3. Introduce voluntary system. In addition to the above suggestions, school

systems could experiment by making the integration program a voluntary

program. While this study has shown that many regular education teachers are

hesitant to participate in integration programs, voluntary participation would

allow teachers who are interested in participating in integration programs the

opportunity to do so without having to wait or to be forced.

This additional autonomy, in conjunction with the above

recommendation that these integration programs have a significant degree of

flexibility, would certainly make the integration program seem less

threatening. This success of a voluntary program however, would be unlikely

if not backed up with the additional recommendations presented earlier. A

voluntary option, without a significant marketing effort to make integration

seem like a worthwhile experience, would likely fail to generate the necessary

interest needed to comply with federal mandates.

109

4. Enhance relationships between special and regular educators. The other main

finding of this study and of the reviewed literature is that regular educators

and the special educators often have less-than-ideal collaborative

relationships. Regular educators expressed frustration with having a second

educator in the classroom working at the same time. Regular educators

sometimes felt threatened by even just the presence of another educator in the

classroom. Regular educators often felt as if the roles and responsibilities of

both educators were sometimes blurred, as regular educators tended not to

understand exactly the needs of the disabled student, and special education

educators often tended to not fully grasp the material. This often created an

awkward relationship.

In response to the frustration and negative feelings expressed with

having to work directly with special educators and having increased contact

with the parents of the disabled students, this study recommends that school

systems make sure that general and special educators spend additional time

together in both social and work atmospheres. The school systems could

organize additional school get-togethers and meetings that combine both

special and general educators. This would allow general educators time to

understand the theories and practices of special educators and time to develop

relationships with special educators. This additional time could help educators

define their roles in and out of the classroom. They could also devise

strategies of how to deal with the parents of the disabled.

110

5. Allow for dynamic relationships between educators. This study also

recommends that school systems should allow general and special education

educators the flexibility to determine their own respective roles. Some general

education educators may feel comfortable taking on a larger role than some

others. Along the same lines, some special education educators may feel

especially comfortable with the material and may want to have a more

interactive role in the classroom. Such flexibility will allow educators to find

the best possible relationship for success within the integrated classroom.

This study believes that school systems have a variety of ways to make

integrated education more enticing to general educators.

Areas of Future Research

In order to provide effective solutions to encourage general education teachers

to accept integrated education, this study must be relevant not just to the school

district studied. The primary limitation of this study, however, is that it only focused

on the Biloxi Public School District in Mississippi. While the levels of significance

determined for the majority of hypotheses were very high, there was a chance that the

opinions and perceptions of teachers in the Biloxi School District were different from

that of the entire country. This study was further limited to four elementary schools,

one middle school, one junior high school and one high school. Therefore, it is

difficult to make broad generalizations about the results of this study.

111

In addition, the Biloxi Public Schools are located on the gulf coast and

received tremendous damage from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. As a result of the

extensive damage to the schools and the entire community, student enrollment

dropped and teacher employment was also affected by the hurricane. While this study

had extremely interesting findings as a result of data from Biloxi, the significance of

this town’s history with Hurricane Katrina should not go unlooked.

The social, political, environmental and economic effects of Hurricane

Katrina were vast and far-reaching. The findings of this study may have been partially

affected by Hurricane Katrina’s influence. The effects, especially with respect to

student enrollment and teacher employment, may have indeed altered the sample

population to the extent that this study’s findings were not representative of an

average town within the United States.

Another possible limitation of this study was the fact that teacher participation

in the survey was entirely voluntary. The voluntary nature of the study may have

further affected the sample population, as the participants who took part in the study

may have particularly strong or one-sided opinions regarding integration programs.

Further limitations of this study with respect to the hypotheses of this study

included the relative ages and experience levels of the teachers surveyed. The

literature of this study has found that many of the teachers who are against integrated

education are against due to their own shortcomings as teachers. Young teachers may

have been more likely than older teachers to be against the implementation of the

112

integrated classroom. In addition, the hypotheses of this study addressed the existence

of perception gaps rather than the actual reasons why these gaps exist.

This study also identified the eight extraneous variables that had the potential

to interfere with the internal validity of the study. These eight variables include:

1. History, the specific events occurring between the first and second

measurements in addition to the experimental variables.

2. Maturation, processes within the participants as a function of the passage of

time (not specific to particular events) – for example, growing older,

hungrier, more tired, and so forth.

3. Testing, the effects of taking a test upon the scores of a second testing.

4. Instrumentation, changes in calibration of a measurement tool or changes in

the observers or scorers may produce changes in the obtained

measurements.

5. Statistical regression, operating where groups have been selected on the

basis of their extreme scores.

6. Selection, biases resulting from differential selection of respondents for the

comparison groups.

7. Experimental mortality or differential loss of respondents from the

comparison groups.

113

8. Selection-maturation interaction, etc. E.g., in multiple-group quasi-

experimental designs.

This study also identified four factors that may jeopardize the external validity or

representativeness of the study. These factors include:

1. Reactive or interaction effect of testing that a pretest might increase.

2. Interaction effects of selection biases and the experimental variable.

3. Reactive effects of experimental arrangements, which would preclude

generalization about the effect of the experimental variable upon persons

being exposed to it in non-experimental settings.

4. Multiple-treatment interference, where effects of earlier treatments are not

erasable.

This study recommends that further research test multiple geographic

locations, as these perceptions may be a function of geographical bias. Further

research should also look to expand its sample size to include more teachers and more

schools. Other research could isolate the reasons why general education teachers tend

to dislike integrated education. It could specifically refer to dislike based on the

relationship between general and special educators and the amount of resources

devoted towards integration.

114

Implications

The findings and recommendations of this study were significant in many

ways. The first implication of this study has to do with the synthesis of the literature

surrounding this topic. Chapter Two of this study provided a unique analysis relating

the historical overview of the inclusion of disabled students in general education

settings, a review of the relevant legislature, a review of the relevant court cases, a

review of education in the least restrictive environment, a review of the successful

examples of the implementation of inclusion, a review of the resistance to inclusion

and a review of teacher perceptions regarding inclusion. This study’s literature review

provided a solid framework for future research.

A second implication of this study has to do with the methodology of the

study. The methodology of this study was detailed in this study’s Chapter Three.

This, as above with the Chapter Two, provides future researchers with a successful

method for future research. In addition, given the limitations of this study, future

researchers will not only be able to use this method but also improve upon it.

A third implication of this study has to do with the findings. While the

literature surrounding the implementation of the integration of disabled students into

general education classrooms is substantial, there was a gap addressing the

perceptions of educators, both special and general, with regard to integration. This

study confirmed that general educators and special educators have very significant

differences in their perceptions of the benefits of integration, integrated classroom

management, and special education versus integrated education.

115

These are significant because they represent multiple avenues for change and

improvement within the integrated classroom. School administrators either need to

focus their resources on convincing general educators to willingly participate in the

integrated classroom or work with special educators to improve special education if

their students do not belong in the regular classroom.

A critical finding of this study is a result of the third hypothesis – that general

and special education educators would not have a significant difference in opinion

about their perceived ability to teach students with disabilities. The fact that these two

types did not believe that one is better suited to teach than the other is very

interesting. The literature denotes that each group feels as if they are lacking in their

ability to teach. These two findings suggested that general educators and special

educators, in order to effectively teach special education students, must rely upon

each other. This was especially interesting given the sometimes toxic relationship

between the two types of teachers.

The fourth implication of the study has to do with its recommendations. The

recommendations are the crux of the study. Enabled with this study’s

recommendations, school systems should be able to develop more flexible integration

programs, convince general educators of the benefits of integration, and effectively

persuade them to teach in integrated classrooms. The most significant implication of

this study is, most obviously, the effectiveness and efficiency through which the

United States educates its citizens. If integrated classrooms are indeed the best

116

solutions for educating both disabled and non-disabled youth, then this study has the

potential to maximize utility within the education system.

An additional implication of this study is the relationship between this study’s

findings and the training of educators in both graduate education programs and

doctoral education programs. How, for example, will these findings affect the way

that education training programs train their prospective educators? Educational

training programs may begin to address this problem as they prepare teachers for the

classroom.

Regarding the issue of convincing general educators to accept implementation

programs, this study’s recommendations for school systems could be used within the

continuing education system. These training programs, in addition to advancing

research and furthering knowledge on important subjects like integrated classroom

management, could potentially to provide information to prospective educators

regarding the benefits of integrated classrooms. Such programs may also seek to

better understand the relationship between the general educator and the special

education educator.

Summary of Chapter Five

This chapter provided a summary and a discussion of this study’s findings.

The first section provided an additional summary of the chapters presented before

Chapter Five. The second section of this chapter discussed the findings of the study

with respect to the results provided in Chapter Four in addition to the literature

117

presented in Chapter Two. The third section of this chapter presented the conclusions

of this study and the recommendations that address how school systems can change

perceptions of general educators such that they will become less reluctant to accept

integrated classrooms. The fourth section of this chapter discussed the limitations of

the study and provided a guideline for further research. The fifth and final section of

this study discussed the implications of this study’s findings.

According to King (2000), inclusion is an incredibly important aspect of

educational equity; inclusion or integration ensures identical opportunities between

special education students and general education students. According to Salend and

Garrick-Duhaney (1999), the recent movement toward inclusion has emphasized the

education of disabled students in general education classrooms. Providing academic

needs for students with disabilities continues to be a challenge that has developed out

of expressions and concerns of parents and educators.

The inception of the No Child Left Behind legislation makes it even more

necessary to find out teachers’ methods of dealing with disability and how effective

they are in making accommodations and adaptations in order to meet their stated

goals.

Educator perceptions of integrated classrooms are integral to the success of

these programs and integral to meeting government mandates. According to this study

there are significant differences in perception regarding the integrated classroom. In

order to modify general educator perceptions of the integrated classroom, general

educators need to understand the intentions behind inclusion and the benefits of the

118

integrated classroom, must receive more training and build more confidence before

teaching in an integrated classroom and should have more say in the development of

the integrated classroom.

119

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. & Strain, P.S. (1978). A review of educators attitudes toward

handicapped children and the concept of mainstreaming. Psychology in the

schools, 15, 390-396.

Anderson, W., Chitwood, S. & Hayden, D. (2006). Negotiating the special education

maze: A guide for parents and teachers. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

Antonak, R. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of Attitudes

Toward Disabled Persons. The Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,

13(2), 22-29.

Antonak, R. (1985). Construct validation of the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled

Persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 16(1), 7-10, 48.

Antonak, R. & Livneh H. (1988). Measurement of attitudes toward people with

disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scale. Springfield, IL: Charles C

Thomas.

Antonak, R. & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of Opinions

Relative to the Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62 (2), 139-149.

Antonak, R. & Livneh, H. (1995). Direct and indirect methods to measure Attitudes

Toward Persons With Disabilities, with an exegesis of the error-choice test

method. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40, 25-38.

Ayres, B. & Meyers, L. H. (1992). Helping teachers manage the inclusive classroom:

Staff development and teaming start among management strategies. The

School Administrator, 30, 33-37.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J. & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for

general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education,

10(2), 17-22.

Beckman, P. (2001). Access to the general education curriculum for students with

disabilities. Reston, VA: Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted

Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED4587345).

Beirne-Smith, M., Patton, J.R. & Ittenbach, R. (1994). Mental retardation (4th ed.)

New York: Macmillan.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction

to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

120

Brooks, R. (1991). The self-esteem teacher. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance

Service.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brownell, M. & Carrington, F. (2000). Teacher efficacy and perceived success in

mainstreaming students with learning and behavioral problems. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 22(3), 154-164.

Bruneau-Balderrama, O. (1997). Inclusion: Making it work for teachers, too.

Clearing House, 70(6), 328-330.

Bryant, R., Dean, M., Elrod, G. F. & Blackbourn, J. M. (1999). Rural general

education teachers’ opinions of adaptations for inclusive classrooms: A

renewed call for dual licensure. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(1), 5-

12.

Buell, M.J., Hallam, R. & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and

special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning

inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education,

46(2), 143-156.

Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental

Designs for Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (96-1793) 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

106 F. 3d 822, affirmed.

Chan, F., Hua, M. S., Ju, J. J. & Lam, C. S. (1984). Factorial structure of the Chinese

Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons: A cross-cultural validation.

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 7, 317-319.

Coeyman, M. (2001). When special education discriminate. Christian Science

Monitor, 93(74), 13.

Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M. & Landrum, T.J. (2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward their

included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 115-135.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research designs: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronis, T. G. & Ellis, D. N. (2000). Issues facing special educators in the new

millennium. Education, 120(4), 639-648.

121

Davern, L. & Schnorr, R. (1991). Public schools welcome students with disabilities as

full members. Children Today, 20(2), 21-25.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children,

37,229-237.

Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S. & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the

realities of inclusion for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special

Education, 30(3), 345-357.

Dickens-Smith, M. (1995). The effect of inclusion training on teacher attitudes

towards inclusion. Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 381 486).

Dunn, L. M. (1986). An overview. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.), Exceptional children in

schools: Special education in transition (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20U.S.C. 612(5) (B).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in

1965 (ED.gov).

Elliot, D. & McKenney, M. (1998). Four inclusion models that work. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 30(4), 54-58.

ERIC Clearinghouse (1993). Learning Disabilities Association of America. Position

paper on full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the general

education classroom. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Etscheidt, S. K. & Bartlet, L. (1999). The IDEA amendments: A four step approach

for determining supplementary aids and services. Exceptional Children, 65(2),

163-174.

Everington, S., Hamill, F. & Lubic, Y., (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of

mainstreamed inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exception, 17, 22-

37.

Federico, M.A., Herrold, W.G. & Venn, J. (1999). Helpful tips for successful

inclusion. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(1), 76-82.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P. & Borg, W. R., (2003). Educational research: An introduction

(7th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

122

Gameros, P. (1995). The visionary principal and inclusion of students with

disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 15-17.

Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D. K. (1998). Inclusive education. Social Policy, 28(3), 73-76.

Giancreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Adelman, S. & Schattman, R. (1993).

I’ve counted Jon: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students

with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 30-37.

Green-Causey, R. (1999). The impact of experience with inclusion on elementary

teachers’ attitudes toward the integration of students with disabilities

(Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1999). (UMI No.

9946357).

Guzman, N. & Shoefield, R. (1995). Systemic restructuring for successful inclusive

schools: Leadership and a collaborative evaluation model. A paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators,

New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 380863).

Heflin, L. J. & Bullock, L. M. (1998). Inclusion of students with

emotional/behavioral disorder: A survey of teachers in general and special

education. Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 103-112.

Hines, R. A. & Johnston, J. H. (1997). Inclusion, What current research says to the

middle level practitioner (edited by Judith L. Irvin), Columbus, OH: National

Middle School Association, p. 109-119.

Hobbs, T. & Wrestling, D. L. (2002). Mentoring for inclusion: A model class for

special and general educators. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 186-201.

Huey, S. (2000). Inclusion: Making it work for the whole community. The Delta

Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 66(3), 9-16.

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). 1990.



Jobe, D., Rust, J. O. & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of

students with disabilities into regular classrooms. Education, 117(1), 148-153.

Karagiannis, A., Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1996). Inclusion: A for educators.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

123

Kauffman, J, M. & Crocket, J. B. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education

and its message for tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 244-

254.

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the

inclusion debate. Remedial and special education, 21(5), 279-296.

Keefe, C. H. & Davis, R. (1998). Inclusion means… NASSP Bulletin, 82, 54-64.

King, S. (2000). Principals influence culture of inclusion. High School Magazine,

7(7), 45-46.

Klinger, J. K. (1999). Students’ perceptions of instruction in inclusion classrooms:

Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional children,

66(1), 23-37.

Klinger, J. K., Vaugh, S., Hughes, M., Schumm, J. S. & Elbaum, B. (1998).

Academic outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in

inclusive classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 153-

160.

Kuder, S. J. (1997). Teaching students with language and communication disabilities.

Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kunc, N. (1995). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

British Columbia, Canada: Axis Consultation and Training.

Larrivee, B. & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting

teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education, 13, 315-324.

Larrivee, B. (1981). Effect of in-service training intensity on teachers’ attitudes

toward mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 48(1), 34-39.

Larrivee, B. (1982). Factors underlying regular classroom teachers’ attitudes towards

mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 315-323.

Loomos, K. A. (2001). An investigation of urban teachers’ attitudes toward students

with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (Doctoral dissertation,

Loyola University Chicago, 2001). (UMI NO.3015519).

Lily, J. & Pearson, D. (1971). Teachers’ attitude towards inclusion and perceived

professional needs for an inclusive classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED 438274).

124

Logan, K., Fiaz, E., Piperno, M., Rankin, D., McFarland, A. & Benjamin, K. (1994).

How inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4),

42-44.

MacMillan, D. L., Semmel, M. I. & Gerber M. M. (1994). Teacher as imperfect test:

Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137-

148.

Manset, G. & Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild

disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. The journal

of Special Education 31, 15-180.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). What’s special about special education?

A cautious view toward full inclusion. The Educational Forum, 61, 206-211.

Mathews, R. M., White, G. & Mrdjenovich-Hanks, P. (1990). Using a slide

presentation to change attitudes toward people with disabilities and knowledge

of independent living services. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 33, 301-

306.

McBrien, J. L. & Brandt R. S. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to education

Terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

McLeskey, J., Henry, D. & Axelrod, M. I. (1999). Inclusion of students with learning

disabilities: An examination of data from reports to congress. Exceptional

Children, 66(1), 55-66.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: Teacher

perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 25(1) 41-54.

McEvoy, M. & Reichele, J. (1995). Developing and evaluating a model of in-service

and technical assistance to prevent challenging behavior in preschoolers.

National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC

Document Service No. 379876).

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 880(1972).

Minke, K., Bear, G., Deemer, S. & Griffin, S. (1996). Teachers’ experiences with

inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. The Journal

of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186.

125

Moore, C. (1998). Educating students with disabilities in general education

classrooms. Western Regional Center. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2004). Comparison of

current law to the IDEA of 2004. Retrieved on 1 December 2007 from

http://www.nasdse.org

National Center for Education Restructuring and Inclusion. (1994). National Center

on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and

University Center, The City University of New York, 33 West 42nd St., New

York, NY 10036.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Retrieved on December 1, 2007

from www.nces.ed.gov

Nietupski, J. A. (1995). The evolution of the LRE concept for students with severe

disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 39(3), 40-47.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (NCLB). Retrieved on December 1, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html

Oberti v. Board of Education (1992-1993). 995F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).

Paul, J. L. & Warnock, N. J. (1980). Special education: A changing field. Exceptional

Child, 27,3-28.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

334F. Supp.1257(E.D.Pa 1971) and 343F. Supp. (E.D. Pa 1972).

Phillips. W. C., Alfred. K., Brulli. A. R. & Shank, K. S. (1990). The regular education

initiative: The will and skill of regular educators teaching. Teaching Regular

and Special Education, 13(3-4), 182-186.

Poolaw v. Parker Unified School District (Federal District Court, Arizona, 1994)

Public Law 94-142, Section 1411 [10].

Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L. & Walther-Thomas, C.S., (2002). Outcomes for students

with disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children,

68(2), 203-222.

Reynolds, M. (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education.

Exceptional Children, 28, 367-370.

126

Reynolds, M. C. & Birch, J. W. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all

America’s schools. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Ripley, S. (1997). Collaboration between general and special education teachers.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

(ERIC Document Service No. 409317.)

Roush, S. & Klockars, A. (1988). Construct validation of two scales measuring

attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 54, 25-30.

Salend, S. J. & Garrick-Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students

with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special

Education, 20(2), 114-126.

Sands, D. J., Kozleski, E. B. & French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive education for the 21st

century. United States of America: Wadsworth.

Schattman, R. (1992,February). Inclusive practices transform special education in the

1990's, The School Administrator, 49(2), 8-12.

Schuum, J., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J. & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education

teachers’ beliefs, skill, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students

with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1),

23-27.

Scott, B.J., Vitale, M.R. & Masten, W.G. (1998). Implementing instructional

adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Remedial

and Special Education, 19(2), 106-119.

Scruggs, T. E & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Teacher perceptions of

mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.,

Karweit, L., Dolan.

Semmel, M., Abernathy, T., Butera, G. & Lesar, S.(1991). Teacher perceptions of the

regular education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9-22.

Shoho, A. & Van-Reusen, A. (2000). Meeting the challenges of teacher resistance to

high school inclusion programs. Journal of Special Education Leadership,

13(2), 3-11.

Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education. Denver: Love Publishing.

Smelter, R. W. & Rasch, B. W. (1994). Thinking of inclusion for all special needs

students? Better think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 35.

127

Smith, A. (2001). A face bureaucrat ponders special education, disability, and white

privilege. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,

26(3), 180-188.

Smith, M. G. (2000). Secondary teachers’ perceptions toward inclusion of students

with severe disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 54-60.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school

attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. The Journal of

Special Education, 31, 59-79.

Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1992). Schools as inclusive communities. In W.

Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special

education: Divergent perspectives (pp.29-43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stough, L. M. & Palmer, D. J. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A

qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special

Education, 36(4), 206-222.

Swanson, S. & Howell, C. (1996). Test anxiety in adolescents with learning

disabilities and behavior disorders. Exceptional Children, 62, 389-397.

Throw, M., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D. & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). State assessment policies

on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of

Special Education, 38, 232-240.

Tindal, G. & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical

basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional

Resource Center.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, H., Shank, M. & Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional lives: Special

education in today’s schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Underwood, C., Welsh, M., Gauvain, M. & Duffy, S. (2002). Learning at the edges:

Challenges to the sustainability of service learning in higher education.

Journal of language and learning across the disciplines, 4(3), 7-26.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to congress on the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC:

Author.

128

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to congress on

the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Retrieved

December 1, 2007 from www.ed.gov/reports/annual/OSEP/2002.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Twenty-fifth annual report to congress on the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Retrieved December

1, 2007 from www.ed.gov/reports/annual/OSEP/2003.

Vaughn, S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the social functioning of students with

learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 598-608.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Klinger, J.K., Saumell, L. (1995). Meaningful professional

development in accommodating students with disabilities. Remedial and

Special Education, 16(6), 344-353.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S. Meyers, H. & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and

administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children,

63(1), 29-46.

Villa, R., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices

in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33(3) 33-

50.

Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C. & Wahlberg, H. J. (1988). Integrating the children of

the second system. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 248-251.

Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.

Exceptional Children, 52, 411-416.

Zigmond, N. & Baker, J. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and future

practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 245-

250.

Zinkel, S. S. & Gilbert, T. S. (2000). Parents’ view: What to consider when

contemplating inclusion. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(4), 224-227.

Yell, M.L. (1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 70-

73.

Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E. (1999). A legal analysis of inclusion. Preventing School

Failure, 49(1), 28-36.

129

York, J., Vandercook, T., Macdonald, C., Heise-Neffe, C. & Caughey, E. (1991).

Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in

general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58, 244-258.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R. & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes

toward disabled persons: Human Resources Study No. 5. Albertson, NY:

Human Resources.

130

APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Opinions Relative To The Integration Of

Students With Disabilities

General Directions: Educators have long realized that one of the most important influences on a

child's educational progress is the classroom teacher. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain

information that will aid school systems in increasing the classroom teacher's effectiveness with

students with disabilities placed in his or her classroom. Please circle the number to the left of each

item that best describes your agreement or disagreement with the statement. There are no correct

answers: the best answers are those that honestly reflect your feelings. There is no time limit, but you

should work as quickly as you can.

Please respond to every statement.

KEY

-3: I disagree very much +1: I agree a little

-2: I disagree pretty much +2: I agree pretty much

-1: I disagree a little +3: I agree very much

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate

attempt to complete their assignments.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate

extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster

understanding and acceptance of differences among

students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit

behavior problems in a general classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general

classrooms.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be

to the detriment of the other students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote

the academic growth of the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 8. Integration of students with disabilities will require

significant changes in general classroom procedures.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too

much confusion for the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to

work with students with disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote

acceptance of differences on part of students without

disabilities.

131

Opinions Relative To The Integration Of

Students With Disabilities

General Directions: Educators have long realized that one of the most important influences on a

child's educational progress is the classroom teacher. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain

information that will aid school systems in increasing the classroom teacher's effectiveness with

students with disabilities placed in his or her classroom. Please circle the number to the left of each

item that best describes your agreement or disagreement with the statement. There are no correct

answers: the best answers are those that honestly reflect your feelings. There is no time limit, but you

should work as quickly as you can.


KEY




-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate

attempt to complete their assignments.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate

extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster

understanding and acceptance of differences among

students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit

behavior problems in a general classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general

classrooms.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be

to the detriment of the other students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote

the academic growth of the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 8. Integration of students with disabilities will require

significant changes in general classroom procedures.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too

much confusion for the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to

work with students with disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote

acceptance of differences on the part of students without

disabilities.

132


KEY




-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 12. The behavior of students with disabilities will set a bad

example for students without disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 13. The student with a disability will probably develop

academic skills more rapidly in a general classroom than in

a special classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 14. Integration of the student with a disability will not promote

his or her social independence.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 15. It is not more difficult to maintain order in a general

classroom that contains a student with a disability than in

one that does not contain a student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the general-

classroom teacher's time.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 17. The integration of students with disabilities can be

beneficial for students without disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 18. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in

the general classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 19. General-classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach

students with disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the

emotional development of the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 21. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity

to function in the general classroom where possible.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 22. The classroom behavior of the student with a disability

generally does not require more patience from the teacher

than does the classroom behavior of the student without a

disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 23. Teaching students with disabilities is better done by special-

than by general-classroom teachers.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the

social and emotional development of the student with a

disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 25. The student with a disability will not be socially isolated in

the general classroom.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

BARBARALARRIVEE

RICHARD F. ANTONAK © ORI 1993

Note. Survey instrument from:

Antonak, R. F. & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the

Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-

149.

npdf

Documents

phi delta kappan

necessitate extensive retraining

brown corrected split

regular education initiative

integrated classroom management

adequate yearly progress

general education counterparts

preventing school failure