Evaluating Mainstream Teacher Attitudes Toward

Evaluating Mainstream Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Children with Special Needs In the Mainstream Classroom

EDG6625 September 14, 2009

Bernadette Harris University of North Florida College of Education & Human Services Graduate School

The study addressed in this article was conducted as a quantitative study, using a Likert-model survey used in numerous previous similar studies across the globe. Some of the previously surveyed nations were Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Portugal, Egypt, Zambia, Australia, Thailand, Italy and Norway. All of these had similar findings to the study conducted in the UK, used in this article. Questions addressed in the survey were designed to address teacher attitudes toward the general concept of inclusion and its implementation in the mainstream classroom. The survey was used to measure teacher attitude toward the general concept as opposed to its actual integration, the level of support teachers felt they received in the implementation of inclusion, whether a significant difference in opinion existed in various subgroups of teachers such as age, gender, grade level, type of school and size of class. It also measured the teacher attitudes in correlation with their level of training (i.e.: specialized degree, in-service professional development, etc.) It also measured whether previous experience with inclusion affected teacher attitudes. In addition, one purpose of the survey was to identify any “barriers” in the successful implementation of inclusion in given teachers’ classrooms. One area of concentration that was emphasized was the level of support systems the teachers felt were in place. At the close of the survey, the results revealed that teachers who had previous experience in inclusion, as well as those with extensive professional training and advanced degrees in special education had significantly more positive attitudes toward the concept of inclusion as well as their own self-efficacy in the ability to successfully implement it in their own classroom. Teachers with university level professional development vs. in-service level training possessed more positive attitudes in the theory

of inclusion as being the most affective and valuable to the special needs student, as well as more confidence in their ability to meet requirements of IEP’s and 504 Plans. There was a significant population of teachers surveyed that felt they were not adequately prepared for the task of successful implementation of inclusion, due to the modifications necessary as outlined in student IEP’s. Many of the teachers did not feel they were knowledgeable, even at the university level, without having completed substantial coursework in special education prior to being expected to meet the requirements outlined in the inclusion model. In addition to the general results calculated by the survey, one of the categories of the survey addressed specific types of student needs. “Additionally, pupils with emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBD) were seen as causing significantly greater concern and stress than pupils with other difficulties” (Avrimades, Bayless and Burden, 2000, p.16). It seems of no surprise that emotionally and behaviorally challenged students would be seen to be the most challenging to the mainstream teacher. These students often require a high level of intervention and individualized attention, whereas those with other disabilities and needs often only required a modified curriculum. This is also a set of students with a set of needs that probably requires more need-specific professional development on the part of teachers, and would require more lengthy training than a daylong in-service workshop or seminar. This study supports my existing contention that our current educational system, a the university as well as the state and district levels, is not efficiently preparing its

graduates in regular education certification programs for the task of successfully implementing the inclusion model in classrooms across our country, and world. Under IDEA, ESE (exceptional student education) students must be educated in the least restrictive environment (Wright, 2006) , hence the birth of the inclusion model of education. Although the concept is to be applauded, as to eliminate the segregation and ostrocization of students with special needs, the burden of preparing teachers who are certified in regular classroom instruction to successfully implement this model is yet to be realized and put into practice in our current system. Recently many universities have added one or two special education courses to the undergraduate requirements for degrees in elementary education. This has not been mandated as a national or even state requirement as yet, and also has not been expanded into middle and secondary education certification programs. Due to the lack of teacher preparation, the reality of being able to amply service the needs of what often occupies 33% of any given classroom, is idealistic at best. In addition, in the United States, we are using the same standardized test (FCAT) to measure the academic growth of both special needs and standard level students. This is a blanketed approach to measuring student and schoolwide gains, and does not give accurate accounts of whether inclusion is working for the students tested! When ESE student test results are included with and buried within those of academically gifted, AP, IB and standard student test results, our outcomes are skewed to say the least! Our entire method of implementation of inclusion education is definitely in need of reevaluation, as shown by the study mentioned in this article, as well as the results of

test data across our nation’s academic databases. We are certainly not leaving LESS children behind in our current practice.

References Avrimidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191. Wright, P.W. (2007). Special education law: second edition. New York: Harbor House Law.