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

2008

3311409

 Regina L. Sims, 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).

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.

iii

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

iv

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

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 vi

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 vii

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

viii

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

ix

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

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 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 students experience in the regular education classroom would be positive too, but if teachers attitudes were negative, then the students 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 6

specials needs (Swanson & Howell, 1996). Todays 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 7

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) 8

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 9

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 Courts interpretation of IDEAs relevant provisions, medical treatments fall within the parameters of the laws 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 10

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 11

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) 12

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 twothirds 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. 13

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 special education classroom teachers. H2: H2 is false. Hypothesis 3: There will be no statistically significant difference in the 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. 14

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.

15

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 16

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 17

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 18

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. 19

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.

20

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 21

Crocket (1999) believe that special educations 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 22

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 Dunns proposal would incorporate resource teachers into the classroom to assist general education teachers. Dunns 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 Dunns (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 Dunns 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 Dunns (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 23

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 24

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 25

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, 26

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 IDEAs 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 27

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 28

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. 94142). 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 29

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 childs 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 30

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 IDEAs placement in favor of the regular education setting.

31

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 schools 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 32

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 IDEAs 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 districts offer of a residential placement, despite the parents wishes that their child be educated in a regular education classroom. The court stated that the childs previous and current district placements had adequately 33

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 childs 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 34

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 35

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 36

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. 37

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 38

students in their class. Research has also suggested that administrators 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 39

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 onesize-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 40

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 41

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 teachers attitudes toward inclusion are positive, then the students experience in the regular education classroom would be positive, too, but if the teachers attitudes were negative, then the students 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 42

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 43

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 students 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 44

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 coactive 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 45

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.

46

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.

47

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.

48

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. 49

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 50

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 51

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. 52

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 6point 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 53

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.

54

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 Larrivees General Philosophy of Mainstreaming factor and two of the four items in Larrivees 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 Larrivees Classroom Behavior of Special Needs Children factor with all three of the items in Larrivees Classroom Management of Special Needs Children 55

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 Larrivees 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 Larrivees 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 sociodemographic 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 56

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 fixedeffects 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 57

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, 58

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. 59

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 60

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: 61

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 teachers 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 special education classroom teachers. H1: H1 is false. 62

Hypothesis 2: There will be no statistically significant difference in the perception of adapting instruction to students with disability between general and special education classroom teachers. H2: H2 is false. Hypothesis 3: There will be no statistically significant difference in the 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 63

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. Cronbachs 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 64

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 65

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 individuals 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 66

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 quasiexperimental 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. 67

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, 68

conclusions and recommendations.

69

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 70

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 tests 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 groups 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 71

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 72

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.

73

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations on Five Subscales Variable Total ORI Benefits of Integration Integrated Classroom Management Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities Special versus Integrated General Education N 235 235 Min. 3.00 -24.00 Max. 145.00 24.00 M 82.17 8.39 SD 25.66 9.17

235

-27.00

29.00

1.66

11.06

235

-9.00

9.00

-1.79

4.47

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

74

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

SD

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. 75

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. 76

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.

77

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

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Figure 3. Benefits of integration, group means (bar graph) 78
Spe cial Ed ucatio n Gen eral Education

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 11.14 to 16.91 6.02 to 8.50

Special Education General Education

14.026 7.26

8.91 8.60

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.

79

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) Special Education M SD General Education M SD

Subscale

df

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 80

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 81

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. In Figure 5 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 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.

82

Figure 5. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, individual responses

10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 Integrated Classroom Management

Figure 6. Bar graph of integrated classroom management, group means 83
Special E ducation General E ducatio n

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) Group Mean Std Dev 95% Confidence Interval 5.64 to 12.62 -1.51 to 1.44

Special Ed General Ed

9.12 -.04

10.76 10.22

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.

84

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) Special Education Subscale Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities df 244 t 0.91 M -1.26 SD 4.09 General Education M -1.96 SD 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 85

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

This graph visually demonstrates the difference in perceptions between Special Education and General Education teachers by breaking down each group of 86

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 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. In Figure 8 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 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.

87

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

-2 Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities

Sp ecial E ducatio n Ge neral Ed ucatio n

Figure 9. Bar graph of perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, group means 88

In Table 7 below, an Exploration of the statistics is presented, which describes numerically the mean, standard deviation and range of each group of responses. Figure 8 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 7. Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities (Exploration) Group Mean Std Dev 95% Confidence Interval -2.58 to 0.69 -2.61 to -1.32

Special Ed General Ed

-1.25 -1.96

4.10 4.49

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.

89

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 Education Subscale Special versus Integrated General Education df 244 t 3.47 M 0.87 SD 4.88 General Education M -2.34 SD 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 90

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

This graph visually demonstrates the difference in perceptions between Special Education and General Education teachers by breaking down each group of 91

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 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. In Figure 11 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 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.

92

Figure 1. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, individual responses

-2
Special E ducation General E ducatio n

-4 Special versus Integrated General Education

Figure 1. Bar graph of special vs. integrated general education, group means 93

In Table 9 below, an Exploration of the statistics is presented, which describes numerically the mean, standard deviation and range of each group of responses. Figure 11 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 9. Special vs. Integrated Education (Exploration) Group Mean Std Dev 95% Confidence Interval -.71 to 2.45 -3.11 to -1.57

Special Ed General Ed

.87 -2.34

4.88 5.34

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.

94

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

95

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 surveys 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.

96

CHAPTER 5: SUMMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction This chapter provided a summary and a discussion of this studys 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 studys 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 97

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 98

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 99

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 teachers 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). 100

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 studys 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. 101

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 102

the teachers 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 students problems and a general lack of time needed for additional coordination with other administrators (Salend & GarrickDuhaney, 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 students 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 students 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. 103

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 studys 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 studys 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 studys third hypothesis. This studys 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, 104

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 teachers 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 studys fourth finding that there would be no perceived differences in opinion between special and general educators could not be disproved. 105

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 studys 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 106

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 107

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. 108

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. 109

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. 110

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 towns 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 Katrinas influence. The effects, especially with respect to student enrollment and teacher employment, may have indeed altered the sample population to the extent that this studys 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

111

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.

112

8. Selection-maturation interaction, etc. E.g., in multiple-group quasiexperimental 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.

113

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 studys 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 studys 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. 114

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 studys 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

115

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 studys 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 studys 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 studys 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 116

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 studys 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 117

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.

118

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. 119

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), 512. 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. 120

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, 2237. 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. 121

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). Ive 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. Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). 1997. Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). 2004. 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. 122

Kauffman, J, M. & Crocket, J. B. (1999). Commentary: Todays special education and its message for tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 244254. 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, 153160. Kuder, S. J. (1997). Teaching students with language and communication disabilities. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kunc, N. (1995). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslows 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). 123

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, 137148. 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). Whats 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, 301306. 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. 124

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. 125

Reynolds, M. C. & Birch, J. W. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all Americas 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. 126

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 todays 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.

127

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) 3350. 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), 245250. 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), 7073. Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E. (1999). A legal analysis of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 28-36.

128

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.

129

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 -2: I disagree pretty much -1: I disagree a little -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +1: I agree a little +2: I agree pretty much +3: I agree very much 1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments. 2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers. 3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster understanding and acceptance of differences among students. 4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in a general classroom. 5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general classrooms. 6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students. 7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with a disability. 8. Integration of students with disabilities will require significant changes in general classroom procedures. 9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too much confusion for the student with a disability. 10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to work with students with disabilities. 11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote acceptance of differences on part of students without disabilities.

-3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

+2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2

+3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3

130

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 -2: I disagree pretty much -1: I disagree a little -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +1: I agree a little +2: I agree pretty much +3: I agree very much 1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments. 2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers. 3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster understanding and acceptance of differences among students. 4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in a general classroom. 5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general classrooms. 6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students. 7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with a disability. 8. Integration of students with disabilities will require significant changes in general classroom procedures. 9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too much confusion for the student with a disability. 10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to work with students with disabilities. 11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote acceptance of differences on the part of students without disabilities.

-3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

+2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2

+3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3

131

Please respond to every statement. KEY -3: I disagree very much -2: I disagree pretty much -1: I disagree a little -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +1: I agree a little +2: I agree pretty much +3: I agree very much 12. The behavior of students with disabilities will set a bad example for students without disabilities. 13. The student with a disability will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a general classroom than in a special classroom. 14. Integration of the student with a disability will not promote his or her social independence. 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. 16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the generalclassroom teacher's time. 17. The integration of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students without disabilities. 18. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general classroom. 19. General-classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities. 20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of the student with a disability. 21. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in the general classroom where possible. 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. 23. Teaching students with disabilities is better done by specialthan by general-classroom teachers. 24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the social and emotional development of the student with a disability. 25. The student with a disability will not be socially isolated in the general classroom.

-3 -3

-2 -2

-1 -1

+1 +1

+2 +2

+3 +3

-3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

+2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2

+3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3

-3 -3

-2 -2

-1 -1

+1 +1

+2 +2

+3 +3

-3

-2

-1

+1

+2

+3

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, 139149.

132