J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Principals’ Attitudes Regarding Inclusion of Children
with Autism in Pennsylvania Public Schools
Judy L. Horrocks Æ George White Æ Laura Roberts
Published online: 7 February 2008
! Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract This study sought to identify the attitudes that
principals held regarding the inclusion of students with
disabilities, and the relationship between their attitudes
and their placement recommendations for children with
autism and to identify the relationship between specific
demographic factors and attitudes toward inclusion and
placement. A stratified random sample was drawn from the
active list of 3,070 principals in the Pennsylvania public
schools. From 1,500 surveys, 571 principal responses were
received. The most significant factor in predicting both a
positive attitude toward inclusion of children with dis-
abilities and higher recommendations of placements for
children with autism was the principal’s belief that children
with autism could be included in a regular education
classroom.
Keywords Autism ! Principals ! Inclusion
Introduction
This study was designed to examine the attitude of current
principals toward the placement of children with autism in
their schools. Gaining an understanding of the principal’s
perspective is essential in providing training and support
J. L. Horrocks (&)
The Timothy School, 973 Old Lancaster Road, Berwyn,
PA 19312, USA
e-mail: jhorrocks@timothyschool.com
G. White
College of Education, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
L. Roberts
Roberts Educational Research, Lansdale, PA, USA
123
necessary to promote successful inclusion practices. The
present educational system often views general education
and special education as two separate components. This
separatist view may be exacerbated by the fact that the
Director of Special Education or Pupil Services provides
supervision for most special education rather than the
building principal. The literature indicates that in many
cases principals are not required to demonstrate knowledge
in special education nor take any course work in special
education or special education supervision in order to ful-
fill certification requirements (Collins 2003). Praisner
(2003) also found that preparation programs for principals
only provided them with a small part of the knowledge
base considered necessary by special educational experts
to implement inclusion programs. Yet in many districts
the principal is the key person responsible for the direct
supervision of special education classrooms at the build-
ing level ranging from self contained to full inclusion
programs.
History of Inclusion
The concept of inclusion began when a federal district
court ruled in behalf of children with disabilities rights in
the case of Pennsylvania versus Pennsylvania Association
of Retarded Children in 1971 (‘‘Pennsylvania Association
for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth’’ 1971). This case
decreed that children diagnosed with mental retardation in
Pennsylvania were entitled to a free public education and
further stipulated that whenever possible they should be
educated in regular classrooms rather than segregated from
the general education population. In 1972, Mills v. Board
of Education of District of Columbia expanded this deci-
sion to include all disabled children.
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473 1463

These cases were followed by federal legislation; The engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in movements, resistance to environmental changes or
1975, then in 1990 the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- changes in daily routines, and unusual responses to
cation Act (IDEA), and finally No Child Left Behind 2002 sensory experiences (p. 12421).
(NCLB). As a result of this legislation, the public school
Leo Kanner first identified autism in 1943, as a psycho-
systems in every state are required to provide a continuum
emotional disturbance of early childhood (Kanner 1943).
of services in the least restrictive setting for all children
Today, evidence suggests that autism is an impairment of
with disabilities.
the central nervous system, yet many questions remain.
This study was conducted before the conclusion of
Disagreement as to etiology, treatment, and educational
the Gaskin vs. Pennsylvania Department of Education
interventions still arise among theorists. The population of
(Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v.
children identified as having autism continues to increase
Commonwealth, 334 1257 (E. D. Pa. 1971). The state of
dramatically. According to the United States Department of
Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center of Phil-
Health, the number of children identified with autism
adelphia have since concluded a settlement of litigation
in America grows at a rate of more than 20% per year.
designed to change the quality of special education services
Nationwide, one in every 175 elementary students is diag-
throughout the state. Pursuant to the agreement, the state
nosed with autism (Mercola 2002).
will change how it helps its 501 school districts comply
with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) and how it monitors that compliance. The settle-
Inclusion of Children with Autism
ment is designed to increase the inclusion of students with
disabilities in regular education classes with non-disabled
IDEA mandates that the placement decision be made by a
students.
multidisciplinary team and that a continuum of service
Administrators surveyed in 1998 indicated that princi-
delivery options be available. Evaluating and providing
pals felt that inclusion was most appropriate for children
appropriate programming for individuals with autism
with mild learning disabilities, however, teachers were not
requires specialized knowledge and training. Unfortunately,
prepared to implement inclusion practices (Barnett and
many otherwise skilled and competent regular educators
Monda-Amaya 1998). The following year, Cook et al.
frequently report that they consider themselves to be less
(1999) indicated that principals and teachers did not agree
than fully capable of serving the needs of students diag-
on inclusion. In this study, principals had positive attitudes
nosed with autism (Simpson 1995). Children with autistic
on inclusion of children with mild disabilities; however,
characteristics demonstrate significant deficits in basic areas
teachers did not feel that placement in general education
of functioning including social interaction, communication,
improved the students’ academic performance (Cook et al.
learning and behavior that contribute to the challenge of
1999). It appears that questions still exist regarding the
educators to serve them effectively in included settings.
attitudes of teachers and administrators toward inclusion,
As the number of children diagnosed with autism
particularly regarding children with severe disabilities such
increases, there are more of these students in public schools
as autism.
recommended for placement in general education settings
(Accardo et al. 2000; U. S. Department of Education
2000). In Pennsylvania, although the population of students
Autism
with autism served by the public school system rose 31%
between 2001 and 2003; the number of children included
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
in educational settings for more than 60% of the time
(1997), successor legislation to the Individuals with Dis-
increased 44%. Unfortunately in spite of this trend, there
abilities Act of 1990 and the Education for the Handi-
are few models and procedures to facilitate the successful
capped Act of 1975, defines the responsibilities of school
inclusion of these students; therefore educators are faced
districts in providing services to ensure that children with
with the task of designing programs in the absence of clear
certain specified disabilities receive free, appropriate,
guidelines and procedural protocols (Simpson et al. 2003).
public education. IDEA defines autism as:
Socialization is a critical consideration since it is a
A developmental disability significantly affecting ver- deficit area in autism and an essential element in successful
bal and nonverbal communication and social inter- inclusion at any level. Students with disabilities have little
action, generally evident before age 3, that adversely experience in developing relationships with their peers. If
affects a child’s educational performance. Other regular education students are not prepared to understand,
characteristics often associated with autism include accept, and demonstrate caring for their special education

123
1464
peers with this disability, any attempts for inclusion are
likely to fail. Students with autism are increasingly inclu-
ded in general education with classroom teachers who
often feel ill equipped to meet their social, learning,
and behavioral needs (Marks et al. 2003). Stainback and
Stainback (1982) addressed the need to train regular class-
room teachers to meet the needs of severely and profoundly
disabled students. They noted that many of today’s class-
room teachers were educated in segregated schools and,
therefore, have little or no knowledge to guide their
responses toward these students.
The attitudes and behaviors of educational professionals
toward the integration of disabled children into regular
educational programs are critical since non-disabled stu-
dents often model the attitudes and behaviors of adults.
Principals need to demonstrate appropriate attitudes and
behaviors regarding inclusion for the faculty as the instruc-
tional leaders in the school.
Role of Principal
The support and leadership of principals are documented as
integral components for successful school change (Fullan
2001) and successful inclusion (Hasazi et al. 1994; Simpson
2004). As school-site administrators and policy leaders,
principals influence reform implementation decisions, con-
trol resource allocations and exert a supervisory role relative
to school personnel. They convey messages of acceptance or
disapproval through their own actions or symbolic gestures
which represent a powerful influence on school wide
acceptance of differences (Collins 2003; Gameros 1995).
Principals are essential to the implementation of the Indi-
viduals with Disabilities Education Act ‘‘Least Restrictive
Environment’’ policy in their school districts. They can
either facilitate or constrain the placement of special edu-
cation students in general education settings (Hasazi et al.
1994). Despite this key role of principals in initiating and
maintaining the support for this change, only a few empirical
studies have been reported on principals’ views regarding
inclusion. Overall, studies of the principals’ attitudes
regarding inclusion have revealed mixed findings. Some
showed that they supported the benefits of inclusion, while
others revealed a tendency for low expectations for success
(Avissar et al. 2003). Avissar et al. (2003) also reported that
principals’ vision and leadership behavior can promote
inclusive policies; however their support for inclusion
depends on the severity of the student’s disability.
As schools become more inclusive, there is a strong need
for principals who are able to clearly define and articulate a
mission which incorporates the values of acceptance. For
inclusion to be successful, the principal needs to foster a
climate in which the school embraces the success and
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
achievement of all students. He/she must manage and coor-
dinate resources for curriculum and instruction in ways that
support inclusion; monitor and support individual student
progress; and supervise teaching to continually encourage
and strengthen that culture (Parker and Day 1997). Praisner
found that principals have different experiences and per-
ceptions of appropriate placements depending upon the
student’s disability (Praisner 2003). Placement decisions
are made based on beliefs and experience, therefore stu-
dents with certain disabilities are not given equal oppor-
tunity to be placed in regular education classes, in particular
students with emotional disturbance and autism were least
likely to be recommended for inclusion by principals
(Praisner 2003). In order to assure that inclusive practices
reflect more fundamental types of change in schools, it is
necessary to overcome attitudinal and knowledge barriers
that can impact the success of the inclusion of special needs
students in schools (Avissar et al. 2003).
The primary purpose of this study was to identify the
attitudes that principals held regarding the inclusion of
students with disabilities, and the relationship between their
attitudes and their placement recommendations for children
with autism. The secondary purpose was to identify the
relationship between specific demographic factors and
attitudes toward inclusion and placement recommendations.
Methodology
Sampling Method and Sample Description
The study utilized a survey research design. A stratified
random sample of all Pennsylvania public school principals
was used to identify participants for the study. Surveys
were sent to 1,500 principals in February of 2005. We
included in the study, all completed surveys returned by
March 4, 2005. At this time we had received 571 com-
pleted questionnaires which was a return rate of 38%.
The sample was stratified by school level (elementary,
middle/junior high, and high school) and community type
(urban, suburban, and rural). In order to test whether the
sample represented the overall population, we conducted
Lawsche-Baker tests of proportional similarity.
School Level
There was not a statistically significant difference between
the population and the sample on any of the categories of
school level. Approximately half of all respondents were
elementary principals (56%), approximately a quarter were
from middle schools or combined middle/elementary or
middle/high school (23%) and another quarter were high
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473 1465

school principals (21%). These proportional figures are Table 2 Comparison of urbanicity for the sample versus the
representative of the total population suggesting that the population
results of the data from the sample will generalize to the Community type Sample (%) Population (%) Omega
population for all school levels as shown in Table 1. An
Urban 12 19 .10
omega statistic greater than .06 would have indicated that
the sample proportions and the population proportions at Suburban 51 48 .03
each school level were significantly different. Because all Town 12 8 .04
omega statistics were either less than or equal to .06, we Rural 25 25 .00
concluded that the sample represented the population with Note: critical Omega B .06
regard to school level.

Table 3 Years of experience as a principal and within current school

Urbanicity
With regard to the urbanicity, the sample slightly under
represented the population for urban areas. However for the
rural, town, and suburban categories the sample was not
significantly different from the population. Therefore the
results generalized to the rural, town, and suburban schools.
Because the proportion of urban schools in the sample was
lower than the proportion of urban schools in the popula-
tion, we were somewhat cautious about generalizing the
results to urban schools. The figures used for this compar-
ison were taken from the Pennsylvania Department of
Education website (PA Department of Education, 2003).
Table 2 provides the comparisons.
We concluded that the sample satisfactorily mirrored the
population on both school level and urbanicity, albeit with
a slight under-representation from the urban schools.
The respondent group was mostly male (60%). The
majority of the respondents did not have formal training in
special education (71%) although most stated that they had
some experience supervising or educating children with
autism (83%). Table 3 provides a summary of years of
experience as a principal and years working in their current
school district.
The respondents overwhelmingly stated that their over-
all experience with inclusion was positive (94%) and a
majority (60%) also stated that they believed children diag-
nosed with autism/PDD can be included in regular educa-
tion classrooms with accommodations and adequate
support. The questionnaire asked each principal to state
whether he or she had personal experience with a special
Table 1 Comparison of school levels for the sample versus the
population
School level Sample (%) Population Omega
(%)
district: percents for each time category
Time category Time as a Time within
principal (%) current district (%)
0–5 Years 41 24
6–10 Years 20 22
10–15 Years 12 15
More than 15 Years 27 39
education student as a family member or close friend. The
respondents were split on this question with 54% of the
sample having a personal connection and 46% without a
personal connection to a student in special education.
Research Instrument
The Principal’s Perspective Questionnaire (Horrocks 2005)
consisted of four parts. Part 1 assessed principals’ personal
and professional characteristics. Summaries of these data
were given in the prior section in the description of the
sample. Part 2 measured principals’ placement decisions
related to the inclusion of students with autism. Part 3
measured 17 specific attitudes about inclusion. For example,
one item from this section was as follows: The achievement
level of general education students will decrease if students
with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms.
Response options ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores
corresponding to more positive inclusion attitudes. And,
Part 4 measured general attitudes toward inclusion and
special education. The responses for Part 4 were also given
in the prior section as part of the sample description.
Reliability and Validity of Instrument: Part 2

Elementary 55 59 .01 Part 2: Placement Decisions

Middle/ 23 19 .06
Combined
In this part of the survey we presented descriptions of five
High school 21 22 .03
different students and asked each principal how he or she
Note: critical Omega B .06 would place each of the five students (Fig. 1).

123
1466 J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473

Fig. 1 Student profiles
• Joey is a student whose profile of cognitive development is uneven; his IQ was tested at 110.
He demonstrates reading recognition ability at above grade level but has delays in reading
comprehension. He has a short attention span and can demonstrate some hyperactivity
particularly in large groups. Joey has few friends; he has trouble relating to peers. He is easily
distracted given verbal directions. Teachers report that he has little interest in or reaction to
praise.

• Julie is a student with communication difficulties. She does not initiate communication;
however, she can use complete sentences when addressed directly. She does not have a
hearing loss but may seem to ignore the teachers and students’ attempts to speak with her and
at times may seem overly sensitive to loud noises. Julie’s parents report that she prefers to
play alone and never interact with the neighborhood children even though they have attempted
to take her to play groups. Teachers also report she wants to perform certain activities in an
exact order and resists change. She can read and has some writing ability but it is well below
grade level.

• Peter loves books and responds well to a structured environment. Peter demonstrates a
particular interest in logos or the labels on clothing. He may notice a person’s clothing with
little interest in the person wearing the clothes. He may wander off during instructional down
time unless very well supervised. He does not show any interest in peers at home or school.
In the previous school, he was given one to one supervision to keep him on task. Peter eats a
restricted diet. Sensory integration techniques have shown some success to keep him calm
and ready for instruction. Peter is stressed and uncomfortable for much of the time in the
classroom setting. He has difficulty following directions and resists instruction. Peter may
repeat words or phrases that appear to have special meaning to him.

• Tommy is an above average reader and has an extensive vocabulary. He is very talkative but
tries to direct all conversation to his interest of trains. He is very knowledgeable in the history
and construction of trains and train tracks. He is very interested in his peers but often seems
too domineering in his social interactions and so his peers tend to avoid him. He tends to get
into other people’s physical space and does not notice when others are upset or hurt.
Tommy’s math skills are also above average for calculations; however, he has difficulty with
word problems. Tommy has some difficulty following teacher directions unless they are
written on the board and very simple. He is easily distracted and therefore has trouble
completing activities on time.

• Matthew is a child with a history of failure in school. Formal testing was attempted but could
not be completed due to Matthew’s severe difficulties in attending and focusing as well as
significant language limitations. During an observation by the school psychologist, Matthew
responded to the observer when she said hello, then proceeded to wander the classroom. He
did not play with any of the toys or show an interest in other children. He engaged in
vocalizing (“wa-ha”) and repetitively waved his hands in front of his face. Matthew’s gaze
was consistently averted during contact with others in the room. Matthew was resistant to the
teacher’s attempts to engage him in tasks; tangible rewards such as raisins and pretzels were
used to increase task compliance. The teacher constantly redirected Matthew to look at
materials and often started tasks with hand over hand assistance. Matthew was able to build a
four block tower, point to six colors, and match six animal cards. He was not able to copy a
vertical line or circle, a skill usually developed by age 3.

The profiles for each of the five students were as
follows.
1. Joey is a student whose profile of cognitive develop-
ment is uneven; his IQ was tested at 110. He demonstrates
reading recognition ability at above grade level but has delays
in reading comprehension. He has a short attention span and
can demonstrate some hyperactivity particularly in large
groups. Joey has few friends; he has trouble relating to peers.
He is easily distracted given verbal directions. Teachers
report that he has little interest in or reaction to praise.
2. Julie is a student with communication difficulties. She
does not initiate communication; however, she can use
complete sentences when addressed directly. She does not
have a hearing loss but may seem to ignore the teachers and
students’ attempts to speak with her and at times may seem
overly sensitive to loud noises. Julie’s parents report that
she prefers to play alone and never interact with the
neighborhood children even though they have attempted to
take her to play groups. Teachers also report she wants to
perform certain activities in an exact order and resists
change. She can read and has some writing ability but it is
well below grade level.
3. Peter loves books and responds well to a structured
environment. Peter demonstrates a particular interest in

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
logos or the labels on clothing. He may notice a person’s
clothing with little interest in the person wearing the
clothes. He may wander off during instructional down time
unless very well supervised. He does not show any interest
in peers at home or school. In the previous school, he was
given one to one supervision to keep him on task. Peter eats
a restricted diet. Sensory integration techniques have shown
some success to keep him calm and ready for instruc-
tion. Peter is stressed and uncomfortable for much of the
time in the classroom setting. He has difficulty following
directions and resists instruction. Peter may repeat words or
phrases that appear to have special meaning to him.
4. Tommy is an above average reader and has an
extensive vocabulary. He is very talkative but tries to direct
all conversation to his interest of trains. He is very
knowledgeable in the history and construction of trains and
train tracks. He is very interested in his peers but often
seems too domineering in his social interactions and so his
peers tend to avoid him. He tends to get into other people’s
physical space and does not notice when others are upset or
hurt. Tommy’s math skills are also above average for
calculations; however, he has difficulty with word prob-
lems. Tommy has some difficulty following teacher direc-
tions unless they are written on the board and very simple.
He is easily distracted and therefore has trouble completing
activities on time.
5. Matthew is a child with a history of failure in school.
Formal testing was attempted but could not be completed
due to Matthew’s severe difficulties in attending and focus-
ing as well as significant language limitations. During an
observation by the school psychologist, Matthew responded
to the observer when she said hello, then proceeded to
wander the classroom. He did not play with any of the toys
or show an interest in other children. He engaged in vocal-
izing (‘‘wa-ha’’) and repetitively waved his hands in front of
his face. Matthew’s gaze was consistently averted during
contact with others in the room. Matthew was resistant to the
teacher’s attempts to engage him in tasks; tangible rewards
such as raisins and pretzels were used to increase task
compliance. The teacher constantly redirected Matthew to
look at materials and often started tasks with hand over hand
assistance. Matthew was able to build a four block tower,
point to six colors, and match six animal cards. He was not
able to copy a vertical line or circle, a skill usually developed
by age 3.
These profiles depict students with a diagnosis of aut-
ism. However it is important to note that the participants
were never told that the profiles were of students with an
autistic classification.
The placement choices were: (a) I would recommend
placement in a regular education class in our building, (b) I
would recommend placement in regular education with
resource room assistance for 20% of school day, (c) I
1467
would recommend placement in one of our regular edu-
cation classes with assistance of a special educator teacher
for 40% of the school day, (d) I would recommend
placement in a self-contained special education classroom
in our building or (e) I would not be comfortable pro-
gramming for this child in our building and feel the
Director of Special Education should refer to Intermediate
Unit or outside agency.
Each of the participants in the pilot study was asked to
complete the questionnaire twice with a week between the
first and second testing. The Cronbach Alphas of the five
placement scores were .62 and .71 for pre- and posttests,
respectively. We measured stability of placement scores as
percent agreement between time one and time two. Table 4
illustrates the placement recommendation comparisons by
providing the mean and modal scores for each scenario and
the percentage of respondents that gave the exact same
response for each testing.
The consistency of the pre/post scores demonstrated an
acceptable level of internal consistency over time for this
section of the survey.
Reliability and Validity of Instrument: Part 3
Part 3: Specific Inclusion Attitudes
We examined internal consistency for part 3 of the survey.
The pre and post Cronbach alpha coefficients were .87 and
.89, respectively. We used Pearson correlation coefficients
to determine stability for this part of the survey. The sta-
bility coefficients were significant for thirteen of the
seventeen statements. Statement 3 was altered to eliminate
confusion over two possible constructs in the same state-
ment. The phrase ‘‘academic and social skills’’ was edited
to read just ‘‘social skills’’. For statements 6, 9, and 13
further analysis determined that each of the scores were
influenced by the presence of an outlier. As shown in
Table 5, when the single score was removed, each of the
item’s scores was significant. We deemed these scores to
be stable and internally consistent.
Table 4 Pretest/posttest comparisons for placement recommendations
Mode Mean Percentage
agreement (%)
Scenario Pre/Post Pre/Post
1 3.0/3.0 2.8/2.7 48
2 4.0/4.0 3.7/3.7 45
3 4.0/4.0 3.8/3.7 48
4 3.0/3.0 2.8/2.8 72
5 4.0/4.0 4.3/4.2 87
123
1468 J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473

Table 5 Stability coefficients for part 3: specific inclusion attitudes Table 6 Analysis of variance for inclusion attitudes and principal
characteristics
Statement Coefficient Statement Coefficient
Source df F g2 p
1 .84*** 10 .49**
2 .64*** 11 .48** School Level 2 1.45 .005 .24
3 .25/revised 12 .48** Gender 1 1.69 .001 .194
4 .60*** 13 .31/.58** Professional experience 1 4.50* .006 .034
5 .41* 14 .81*** Formal training. 1 .15 -.002 .69
6 .28/.45** 15 .37* Autism could be included 1 44.09**** -.072 .001
7 .68*** 16 .80*** Personal experience 1 3.12 .004 .078
**
8 .58** 17 .48 * p \ .05; *** p \ .001
9 .23/.45**
* p \ .05; ** p\ .01; *** p \ .0005 could be included had higher mean scores on Inclusion
Attitude (M = 3.67, SD = .50) than did principals who did
not believe children with autism could be included
Links Among Inclusion Attitudes and Principals’
(M = 3.36, SD = .59).
Characteristics
Table 7 provides the results of the regressions correlat-
ing Inclusion Attitude and principal characteristics of a
The first research question was, ‘‘What is the relationship
continuous nature. The principals’ length of service in their
between principals’ Inclusion Attitudes and their personal
current district was negatively correlated with Inclusion
characteristics?’’ In order to answer this question, we used
Attitudes. An overall positive experience with inclusion
scores from part 3 of the survey. We computed a mean
was positively correlated with Inclusion Attitude. None of
Inclusion Attitude score for each principal by taking the
the other demographic factors were significantly linked to
average of his or her responses to each of the 17 items.
principals’ attitudes.
Overall, the respondents had positive attitudes regarding
inclusion for children with disabilities. The mean score for
all respondents, on a scale from 1 to 5, was 3.55, with the
Placement Scores: Descriptive Results
higher score indicating a more positive attitude.
Some of the principals’ characteristics were categorical
Figure 2 shows the distribution of placement recommen-
in nature and some were continuous. We conducted
dations for each student.
ANOVAs to examine the links between Inclusion Attitudes
and each categorical variable. We conducted regression
analyses to examine links between Inclusion Attitudes and
Factor Analysis of Placement Scores
each continuous variable. Inclusion Attitude was the
dependent variable, and principals’ personal characteristics
The mean inclusion scores for the five children are given in
were the independent variables.
Table 8. The table also shows each student’s strengths and
The independent variables included school level, gen-
severe deficit areas. These assessments were determined
der, years of experience as a principal, years with the
with a qualitative analysis of each student profile.
district, experience serving children diagnosed with autism,
Based on the mean scores on Table 8 it is clear that Joey
belief that children with autism could be included, personal
and Tommy were included the most and Matt and Peter
experience, and overall experience with inclusion.
were included the least. The table also shows that Joey and
Table 6 shows the ANOVA results examining the links
Tommy had academic strengths. It is logical that their high
between Inclusion Attitude and the categorical level prin-
inclusion scores were due to academic strengths.
cipal characteristics. There were significant differences for
two of the six independent variables. Professional experi-
ence teaching or supervising children with autism and Table 7 Regression of inclusion attitude on years as a principal,
holding the belief that children with autism could be inclu- years in district, and overall experience
ded were positively correlated with Inclusion Attitudes. Variable B Std Error b
The mean Inclusion Attitude score for principals with
Years in position 4.6 .019 .010
Professional Experience (M = 3.58, SD = .56) was sig-
Years in district -3.9 .019 -.086*
nificantly greater than the mean score for principals
Overall Experience .85 .90 -.38****
without professional experience (M = 3.45, SD = .55). In
addition, principals who believed children with autism * p \ .05; **** p \ .0001

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473 1469

Fig. 2 Distribution of JOEY JULIE

60 40
placement recommendations
50
30
40

Percent

Percent
30 20

20
10
10

0 0
most included included 60% of day out of building most included included 60% of day out of building
included 80% of day self contained included 80% of day self contained

JOEY JULIE

PETER TOM
40 60

50
30
40

Percent
Percent

20 30

20
10
10

0 0
most included included 60% of day out of building most included included 60% of day out of building
included 80% of day self contained included 80% of day self contained

PETER TOM

MATT
60

50

40
Percent

30

20

10

0
most included included 60% of day out of building
included 80% of day self contained

MATT

Table 8 Mean inclusion scores for the five students with autism and due to his severe social deficits. But, why was Matt’s
corresponding areas of strength and severe deficits inclusion score so low? Was it because of his social deficits
Child Inclusion score Areas of strength and severe deficits or his academic deficits or both? How can we tease out the
Academic Social
effects of the different kinds of deficits and their impact
upon principals’ inclusion decisions?
a
Joey 4.28 + In order to answer this question, we chose to apply
Tommy 4.21 + factor analysis. The student profiles were originally created
Julie 3.25 to include various combinations of social, communication,
Peter 2.47 -b academic and behavioral characteristics of autism. The
Mat 1.69 - - factor analysis allowed the researcher to identify which of
a
+ = area of strength. b
- = area of severe deficit these characteristics explained the largest portion of vari-
ation in the principals’ placement decisions.
The most coherent solution used a maximum likelihood
Peter had a severe deficit in the social area and Matt extraction with an oblimin rotation method. The results
showed severe deficits in both the academic and social revealed two underlying factors in the instrument. Factor 1
areas. It seems logical that Peter’s low inclusion score was explained the most variance (33.37%) in the placement

123
1470 J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473

Screen Plot addressed research question 2 using the Factor Scores as

2.5
the dependent variables.

2.0

Links Between Placement Factor Scores and Principal

Eigenvalue

1.5 Characteristics

1.0 The second research question was, ‘‘What is the relation-

ship between the principal’s placement recommendations
and principal’s characteristics?’’ In order to answer this
0.5
question we regressed each of the two factor scores on each
of the principal characteristics. We ran a separate analysis
1 2 3 4 5
Factor Number
for each pair of variables.
Three principal characteristics were significant for
Fig. 3 Screen Plot of Factor Analysis on Student Profiles Factor 1: the principal’s belief that students with autism
should be included, school level, and formal training in
scores and Factor 2 explained an additional 8.28% of the special education. Principals who believed students with
variance for a cumulative total of 41.66%1 (Fig. 3). autism should be included and those with formal training
The Pattern Matrix showed that Factor 1 contained a were more likely to recommend higher levels of inclusion
very high loading for Peter (.900) and a moderate level for students demonstrating the social detachment charac-
loading for Matthew (.460). Factor 2 consisted primarily of teristics of autism. Elementary principals were more likely
loadings for students Joey (.630) and Tommy (.451). to recommend higher levels of inclusion than middle or
It appears that Factor 1 measured the extent to which the high school principals. Table 9 presents these results.
principals included children who exhibit social detachment. Regarding Factor 2, there were significant results for
We deduced this because Peter loaded very high on this two principal characteristics. These characteristics were
factor; Peter had social deficits, but did not have severe school level and belief students with autism should be
academic deficits. Peter’s profile depicted the most socially included. The results indicated that elementary principals
unaware student. Matthew was more aloof than the other and principals that believed children with autism should be
students were as well. Julie’s profile was neutral, she pre- included were more likely to recommend higher levels of
ferred to play alone but it did not state specifically that she inclusion for academically strong students. The results are
avoided others. Tommy and Joey both did have a few presented in Table 10.
friends although they did not always interact appropriately. Table 11 presents a summary of the significant finds of
Factor 2 appeared to measure the extent to which prin- the study. The independent variables are listed in the left
cipals include autistic children who are academically column with the four dependent variables across the top.
strong. Joey had the highest factor loading score (.630) and Three of the nine principals’ characteristics predicted higher
was the student with an IQ score of 110. Tommy’s profile levels of inclusion in placement recommendations. Four of
also described a student of above average reading and math the nine characteristics predicted Inclusion Attitudes.
skills; he had the second highest factor loading score
(.451). The other students did not load on this factor. Julie
Table 9 Regression of Factor 1 on principal’s characteristics
had some reading skill but below grade level. Peter’s
profile did not give specific academic information beyond Variable B Std Error b
his need to have close supervision to stay on task. Mat- Belief .303 .080 .167**
thew’s profile definitely depicted a student with severe School level -.112 .049 -.101*
challenges in academic ability. Formal training .170 .085 .087*
We computed two factor scores. We labeled Factor 1:
Inclusion of Socially Detached Children and Factor 2: Note: * p \ .05; ** p \ .001
Inclusion of Academically Strong Children. We then
Table 10 Regression of Factor 2 on principal’s characteristics
Variable B Std Error b
1
Typically, researchers select factors with eigenvalues greater than
1. We included Factor 2 for subsequent analysis although the School level -.152 .043 -.156***
eigenvalue was less than 1 because the factor contributed to a Belief .214 .071 .134**
substantial amount of explanation for the variability in the placements
(i.e. 8.28%). Note: ** p \ .005; *** p \ .001

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
Table 11 Summary of results
Independent Dependent variables
variables
Attitude Factor 1 Factor 2
socially academically
detached strong
School level * *
Years in district * affect their attitudes toward inclusion.
Formal training * There were several factors that did not yield significant
Exp with autism * correlations with a principal’s attitude toward inclusion for
Belief autism * * * children with disabilities or placement recommendations for
included
Overall positive exp * correlation between a principal’s personal-experience-with-
The highlights of our research showed that school level
was correlated with placement scores, such that elementary
principals had the most positive placement recommenda-
tions. Principals who had been in their district the longest
had lower Inclusion Attitudes. Principals who had profes-
sional experience with autism had more positive Inclusion
Attitudes and made higher placement recommendations.
Similarly, principals who believed children with autism
could be included had more positive Inclusion Attitudes
and made higher placement recommendations.
Discussion
The study suggested that principals who believe that children
with autism could be included in regular education class-
rooms were more likely to recommend higher levels of
inclusion. Most of the principals surveyed had a positive
attitude in general about the inclusion of children with dis-
abilities. However, we found that principals stating that
children with autism could be included were likely to have a
more positive attitude in general for the inclusion of children
with disabilities. As noted earlier in the research, positive
attitudes of key school personnel are seen as critical pre-
requisites for successful inclusion (Semmel 1986; Villa et al.
1996). Professional experience with children diagnosed with
autism and positive experiences with inclusion were also
correlated with positive attitudes. This finding supports an
earlier study by Praisner (2003) who found that placement
decisions were made based on beliefs and experience,
therefore students with certain disabilities were not given the
same opportunity to be placed in regular education classes.
The present study supports those finding by demonstrating
that principals with a belief that children with autism could
be included and experience with autism made more inclusive
placement recommendations for this population.
Of interest is the finding that principals with more
experience in their current school district were less likely to
have positive attitudes toward inclusion of children with
1471
disabilities. Stainback and Stainback (1982) noted that
many educators with longer tenure had been educated in
non-inclusive schools and therefore, have little or no
knowledge to guide their responses toward these students.
Further study is needed to specify how principals who
remain in their school districts differ from the general
population of principals, and to analyze what factors may
children with autism. Particularly notable was the lack of
autism and attitude-toward-inclusion-of-children-with- dis-
abilities. We were also surprised that there was not a link
between personal-experience-with-autism and higher place-
ment recommendations for children with autism. In contrast
to personal experience, professional experience did predict
both a more positive attitude-toward-inclusion and higher
placement recommendations for children with autism. This
discrepancy would be an interesting topic for further study.
Formal training was another factor that yielded conflict-
ing results. Although formal training in special education did
not predict a more positive attitude-toward- inclusion-of-
children-with-disabilities in general, this factor did correlate
with higher placement recommendations for children with
autism. Principals surveyed did not specify the extent or type
of formal training received. Formal training specifically in
autism that familiarizes the principals with the unique
characteristics of this disability may be a factor in placement
decisions and should be further researched.
Reviewing the student profiles, two factors appeared to
demonstrate predictable patterns in regards to recommended
levels of placement. First, principals were less likely to
recommend high levels of inclusion for children with autism
when the student description depicted social detachment.
Socialization is a critical consideration for children with
autism since it is a deficit area and is an essential element in
successful inclusion at any level. Students with autism have
little experience in developing relationships with their peers.
For successful inclusion, school administrators and class-
room teachers must understand autism and be prepared to
respond to the characteristic behavioral manifestations of
this disorder, or these behaviors will be more likely to
exacerbate estrangement from others (Marks et al. 2003).
Difficulty with social interaction, as noted in the defini-
tion of children with autism listed in IDEA, is a primary
deficit area for these children. Several studies have indi-
cated a lower frequency and lower quality of social
interaction by children with autism at all functioning levels
(Bauminger et al. 2003; Bauminger and Kasari 2000).
Bauminger (2003) noted that children with autism may lack
the understanding of social relationships and interactions
123
1472
with peers and need specific intervention to focus on their
abilities to interact with peers in a more meaningful way.
Along with educators, parents also had concerns about their
children’s social interactions. In fact, parents selected lower
levels of inclusion for their children with autism due to
concerns over the children’s peer relationship problems and
rejection by others (Kasari et al. 1999).
The social problems demonstrated by children with
autism distinguish this population from other disabilities.
This particular factor seems to be a concern for principals
and warrants further study. Principals may need a greater
understanding of this characteristic of autism and more
experience dealing with social deficits in order to be more
confident in recommending higher levels of inclusion for
this population.
The second factor of student profiles which resulted in a
predictable pattern of recommendation for placement was
academic performance. Principals were more likely to
recommend higher levels of placement for students with
stronger academic profiles. This finding supports previous
studies that suggested that educators felt that inclusion was
more successful for children with milder disabilities
(Barnett and Monda-Amaya 1998, Cook et al. 1999).
The effect of these two particular factors on placement
recommendations may stem from the participants in the
study recognizing the disorder in the student profiles even
though autism was not specifically identified in the survey.
Principals with formal training recommended higher levels
of placement for those students with social detachment.
This finding may suggest that formal training could be an
important factor for student placement. However, Collins
(2003) noted that formal training in special education is not
a requirement in many principal certification programs. In
fact only 29% of the participants in the current study stated
that they did have formal training. Training specifically in
understanding the characteristics of autism and social skill
development needs further investigation to determine if
these two aspects of training could make a greater impact
than general training in special education.
In summary, the variables studied were the principals’
school level, gender, years as principal, years in district,
formal training, experience with autism, belief that autism
could be included, personal experience, and overall expe-
rience with inclusion for children with disabilities. We
predicted that all these factors would correlate with atti-
tudes toward the inclusion of children with disabilities and
placement recommendations for children with autism. Yet
in the findings, one factor appeared to supersede all others.
That factor was the principal’s belief that children with
autism could be included in regular education classes.
Specifically this positive belief correlated with principals’
attitudes toward inclusion and higher levels of recom-
mendations for placement, including children with social
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
detachment, as well as with children with strong academic
performance.
Recommendations
This study suggests the need to develop methods for dis-
seminating knowledge about autism to all public school
principals. It is critical that public school principals have an
understanding of the behavioral characteristics of autism
and that they grasp the challenges faced by children with
autism in the classroom. Awareness of the unique social
skill deficits of this population is particularly necessary for
principals to effectively support both regular and special
education teachers in the inclusion process. In addition,
they need to be aware of the research based educational
strategies demonstrating effectiveness in dealing with the
needs of these students.
In most schools, the focus of staff development is on the
teachers. However, it is the principal who sets the tone for
the entire school community. Because a principal’s belief
that children with autism can be included is so predictive of
their placement choices it is hard to overstate the need for
informing principals about this group of students.
The incidence of autism is rising; therefore public
school principals will be faced with the challenge of pro-
gramming for children with this diagnosis. Principals are
an important factor in successful inclusion as a result of
their influence on the entire educational process. Providing
information on the characteristics of autism and the effect
of these characteristics on student behavior may provide
principals with information necessary to support higher
levels of inclusion for this population. From this study, it
appears that principals in Pennsylvania have an overall
positive attitude toward inclusion for children with dis-
abilities. However, the principals’ placement recommenda-
tions demonstrated that without additional training, they
are not prepared for children with autism who are socially
detached. The principals may be uncomfortable with this
specific characteristic of autism and they may be unsure of
how to best manage programs for these children. Further
training, specifically on deficits in social development and
effective techniques to work with children demonstrating
these characteristics may improve principals’ willingness
to support higher levels of inclusion for these children.
References
Accardo, P., Magnusen, C., & Capute, A. (2000). Autism, clinical and
research issues. Baltimore: York Press.
Avissar, G., Reiter, S., & Leyser, Y. (2003). Principals’ view and
practices regarding inclusion: The case of Israeli elementary
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1462–1473
school principals. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
18(3), 355–369.
Barnett, C., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998). Principal’s knowledge of
and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial & Special Education,
19(3), 181–193.
Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and friendship in
high-functioning children with autism. Child Development,
71(2), 447–456.
Bauminger, N., Shulman, C., & Agam, G. (2003). Peer interaction
and loneliness in high-functioning children with autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(5), 489–506.
Collins, L. (2003). Training in leading and managing building-based
special education programs: The principal’s perspective. Unpub-
lished Dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of
principals and special education Teachers toward the inclusion
of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Educa-
tion, 20(4), 199–207; Education, 121(2), 331–339.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gameros, P. (1995). The visionary principal and inclusion of students
with disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 15–17.
Hasazi, S. B., Johnson, A. P., Liggett, A. M., & Schattman, R. A.
(1994). A qualitative policy study of the least restrictive
environment provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Exceptional Children, 60, 491–507.
Horrocks, J. (2005). Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of
children with autism in pennsylvania public schools. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of effective contact. Nervous
Child, 2, 217–250.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S. F. N., Bauminger, N., & Alkin, M. C. (1999).
Parental perspectives on inclusion: Effects of autism and down
syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
29(4), 297–305. 14(2), 66–72.
Marks, S. U., Shaw-Hegwer, J., Schrader, C., Longaker, T., Peters, I.,
Powers, F., et al. (2003). Instructional management tips for
1473
teachers of students with autism spectrum disorder. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 35(4), 50–54.
Mercola. (2002, January 23). Autism epidemic soars in America.
Retrieved June 10, 2003, http://www.mercola.com.
Parker, S., & Day, V. (1997). Promoting inclusion through instruc-
tional leadership: The roles of the secondary school principal.
NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 83–89.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth,
334 1257 (E. D. Pa. 1971).
Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward
the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 69(2), 135–145.
Semmel, M. (1986). Special education in the year 2000 and beyond:
A proposed action agenda for addressing selected ideas. Reston,
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED276245).
Simpson, R. L. (1995). Children and youth with autism in an age of
reform: A perspective on current issues. Behavioral Disorders,
21, 7–20.
Simpson, R. L. (2004). Finding effective intervention and personnel
preparation practices for students with autism spectrum disor-
ders. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 135–144.
Simpson, R. L., De Boer-Ott, S., & Smith-Myles, B. (2003). Inclusion
of learners with autism spectrum disorders in general education
settings. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(2), 116–133.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1982). Influencing the attitudes of
regular class teachers about the education of severely handi-
capped students. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 17, 88–92.
United States Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-Second
annual report to congress on the implementation of the
individuals with disabilities education act. Washington, D.C.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444333).
Villa, R., Thousand, J., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and
administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Excep-
tional Children, 63(1), 29–45.
123
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Principals’ Attitudes Regarding Inclusion of Children with

Autism in Pennsylvania Public Schools
SOURCE: J Autism Dev Disord 38 no8 S 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-3432/