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 day-

long 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.