Inclusion of students with challenging needs in regular classrooms
continues to be controversial practice for many educators. Though individual
teachers and a number of entire school systems have moved to inclusive practice
and policies, the greater number of educators favour special classes and
schools for many students and integration-withdrawal models for many others. As
Siegal and Jausovec (1994) conclude in their report on teacher attitudes in
this area, "There is overwhelming evidence that teachers have negative
attitudes toward inclusion and teaching students with special needs".
Resistance to inclusion holds true, in particular, if appropriate supports
are not provided. Charles and Malian (1980) noted that students who require
accommodation, individualized instruction, teaching methods, materials, and
services "not provided for non-handicapped students" are not willingly accepted
by regular teachers. Concerns exist that programs will be diluted if children
with exceptionalities are placed in regular classrooms (Bradfield, Brown,
Kaplan, Rickert, & Stannard, 1973), that classrooms will be disrupted (Vacc
* Kirst, 1977), that fair division of teacher time would be a problem, and that
teacher effectiveness would be affected negatively (Gersten, Walker, &
Darch, 1988). Many regular class teachers consider special classes to be the
optimal placement for students with special needs (Glickling & Theobald,
1975; Hudson, Graham, & Warner, 1979; Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin,
1996; Moore & Fine, 1978). Vaughn, Schumn, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell
(1996) and Yasutake & Lerner (1996), in more recent research, continue to
find concerns regarding support. It is obvious that, regardless of any
philosophical appeal of including all students in regular classrooms, the
average teacher holds considerable reserve related to actual practice. Extant
research, however, may be seen as limited in that it has focused almost solely
on teacher concerns and has not explored whether the average educator
additionally finds value to inclusive practice.
The research study
described here probed teacher attitudes both for concerns and values teachers
find in inclusion.
METHOD
Participants
Discussion focuses on analysis of 136 individual interviews conducted with a sample of Canadian educators (see Table 1).They represented school systems with traditional structures (regular and special education offerings) and inclusive structures (regular classes with minimal special education offerings).
Role Panel Traditional Inclusive University Regular Class Teacher Elementary 10 12 Seconary 14 11 Resource Teacher Elementary 3 6 Seconary 7 8 Special Class Teacher Elementary 6 2 Seconary 5 2 Administrator Elementary 5 6 Seconary 6 6 Student Elementary 14 Seconary 13 56 53 27
Table 1: Study Participants by Role, School Panel, and System Structure Relative to Students with Challenging Needs
Interviewees were drawn from among 1492 educators completing the Educator Opinion Questionnaire ( EOQ, Bunch, 1992) as part of a larger national study (Bunch, Lupart, & Brown, 1997). EOQ respondents represented both urban and rural areas of Western, Central, and Atlantic Canada. As statistical analysis of EOQ responses indicated few significant differences among survey respondent groups, interviewees were regarded as a single group for this discussion.
Interview questions were based on areas of teacher attitudes indicated in the literature and incorporated in the EOQ. Specifically, these areas were:
Educational soundness of inclusion.
Key questions, noted under Results and Discussion, were complemented by follow-up questions as appropriate. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and were transcribed by a single individual.
Data Analysis
Qualitative procedures were employed to explore interview data. The primary technique employed was that of constant comparative analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Glaser, 1978). In particular, steps were:
1. Interview transcriptions were read and units of information
identified and keyed.
2. Information units were sorted into categories
similar in content.
3. Transcripts, keyed information units, and categories
were reviewed by a second reader.
4. The two readers met to discuss and
resolve differences in analysis.
5. Categories were reviewed again and
determinations made with regard to maintaining, subdividing, or collapsing
categories as appropriate.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As noted, categories were generated with interviewees regarded as a single group in light of statistical similarity of survey responses. Seven categories were generated: general concerns of regular class teachers, administrator support, soundness of concept of inclusion, regular and resource teacher relationship, regular teacher responsibility, effect on regular students, and effect on included students.
General Concerns of Regular Teachers
The stimulus
question around which this area focused was "What specific concerns might
teachers have?" with regard to inclusive practice. It was known from previous
research that teachers believed that inclusion was demanding of the regular
class teacher (Bunch, 1992), and that the related workload was considered
onerous (Waldron, 1995). It was anticipated that such concerns would recur in
this study. Anticipations were fulfilled. Almost every interviewee mentioned at
least one concern. Across the various groups of educators interviewed agreement
on three predominant concerns was apparent.
Professional adequacy.
Above all, respondents believed
that regular class teachers were inadequately prepared through preservice or
inservice experiences to undertake inclusion of students with challenges to
their learning. This was obvious through the frequency of comments such as:
They might not feel that they're [not] prepared professionally and they
might not have the educational background.
There has been zero to
nil preparation on this topic at the faculty of education.
Conversely,
a number of respondents, while recognizing that professional preparation was
lacking, indicated that the fear of being unprepared lessened with experience
in inclusive settings.
When we first started I was really stressed out.
I'll be quite honest with you, I cried several nights when I went home ....
but, once we were over the hump, it was just a matter of learning to let go and
just go with the flow.
Teacher workload.
The second significant concern among
respondents related to workload for the regular class teacher. A considerable
number of interviewees indicated that inclusive practice meant more work.
They may have to do more work ... whether it's research or understanding
what the students might need in the classroom, whether they might have to
change their teaching styles.
In terms of workload teachers appeared to
believe working with students with disabilities added to their workload. Among
those noting such concern were representatives of all educator groups
participating in the study.
Fear of insufficient support.
This final area of
concern was the second most frequently mentioned. An impressive number of
interviewees expressed fear that regular class teachers would have students
with challenges assigned to them, while, at the same time, supports would not
be provided or would be withdrawn.
Our experience is that [resource
personnel] are gradually pulled out of the system, and then there is no one to
assist these people [included students] with their needs. Another aspect of
concern was legal liability. Statements such as, "Lawsuits. Another one that
we hear more and more. Am I legally responsible? Am I liable?", suggested
that teachers were aware of the increasingly litigious nature of relationships
between schools and parents. Whereas a number of responses such as those noted
indicated concern that various types of support might not be available, other
teachers suggested that the concern was misplaced. They're worried about all
kinds of things ... They'll be worried about the students ... They'll be
worried about responsibility. What happens if the student gets injured? ....
But, you know, they [the worries] get alleviated once a person starts working.
Summary.
Educator concerns regarding negative effect
on classroom teachers was widespread. Professional preparation at both the
preservice and inservice levels was viewed as inadequate. Professional
inadequacy was perceived as resulting in reduced self confidence and increased
stress. Concern for equitable time for regular students added to these
feelings, as did perceptions that teacher workload would be overly onerous.
Finally, some educators were convinced that regular class teachers would be
left to their own devices, without resources and time, to deal with the needs
of students in inclusive classrooms. An interesting point, however, raised by a
number was that concerns faded with experience teaching children with
challenges in the regular classroom.
Administrator Support
Two questions probed educator
attitudes to administrator support directly. These were:
Responses indicated that interviewees desired two general types of support from their administrators. These were classifiable as direct support which was concrete in nature, and indirect support which had personal quality.
Direct support.
In terms of direct support the
administrator was seen as a provider of resources, as responsible for student
discipline and placement, and as a back up for the teacher's authority. As a
provider of resources administrators were expected to make time available for
planning and other activities related to inclusion, and to ensure that
additional personnel were available for regular class teacher assistance..
They [administrators] need to consider extra planning time for the
teacher with special needs students.
I want to know that when our
enrolment comes up for special needs students, that our administrators are
fighting to get resource personnel.
In terms of discipline, teachers
looked to administrators to intervene, enforce, and enact discipline when the
classroom teacher believed it to be required. As one secondary teacher stated,
"Discipline .... When I send a kid out, I want the administrator to support
me".
Administrators were also to protect teachers and regular students
from inappropriate regular classroom placement of students with challenging
needs.
I would like to see the administrators willing to say "No. This
is not beneficial for the child, or for the other children in the class. The
kid with this exceptionality is not going to be mainstreamed.
Lastly,
teachers considered it the responsibility of administrators to back up regular
class teachers in general, and specifically when others beyond the classroom
were involved.
When dealing with parents or an outside agency, the whole
gamut, they want to feel the administrator is supporting them.
Elementary and secondary level interviewees commented in roughly equal
proportion on need for administrators to provide concrete resources. Comments
on discipline, placement, and back up came from all groups, but were
concentrated at the secondary level.
Indirect support.
It was anticipated, on the basis of
previous research, that educators would mention direct supports from
administrators. Less anticipated was that teachers would refer to indirect
supports such as administrator leadership and example, administrator
mentorship, and administrator empathy to the degree found in this study.
Typical comments in this area were:
[Regular class teachers] want to see
a commitment to it [inclusion]. The administration of the school is responsible
for the school, sets up the training process, the idea of education, where it's
going.
I think we just need to know, if we're having a bad day, the
administrator wasn't going to think of us as bad teachers. Just sometimes a
shoulder to cry on or someone to hug.
It is obvious that teachers have
clear ideas of what direct and indirect supports they expect of their
administrators. However, the majority of interviewee comments suggested that
needs tended not to be met.
I don't feel right now, any. For myself. I
try to get extra help .... When I voiced my concerns to the people who were to
take it downtown, who could make the decision of whether I could get help or
not, it sort of was, "Well, you know, there are other children who have more
needs."
Some teachers believed that administrator support was the luck
of the draw, as evidenced in this quote from an elementary school regular class
teacher. "That depends so much on the administrator. Here, it's just been
fabulous."
A few also found that their administrators were fully
supportive.
Our administrator offers whatever support you want, as long
as you tell him what you want.
Responses from administrators themselves
indicated that they knew what types of support teachers wanted. As one
elementary principal said:
They want to have a fair hearing, so to
speak. If there are issues that are concerning them about a move such as
inclusion, they have to feel free to come in and at least talk about it,
explore the options. They're going to certainly need the basic support such as
learning materials .... The staff member logically, from time to time, is going
to need some emotional support from the administrative .... team in the
schools. They also need to feel supported by the school administration vis a
vis parents, and vis a vis the board of education.
Other responses
suggest that administrators believe they do offer the supports that teachers
wish. The elementary principal quoted above ended her comments with, "They
[administrators] offer all these", while a secondary principal commented:
We provide inservice opportunities. We provide some planning time for
our teachers. We provide the milieu, I call it, for our resource room teachers
to feel comfortable walking into any classroom where there is a student with a
special need.
Such differing responses point to a possible
communication failure between principals and other educators in schools. Both
teachers and principals know the types of support teachers want; however, many
teachers do not find their needs met, while principals believe they are
providing supports of various kinds. Valeo (1994) pointed to a similar
communication gap between principals and teachers in her study in elementary
schools.
It was not only at the teacher level that this problem regarding
provision of support was apparent. Statements such as, "Some, a lot. Some,
none. You know it's as simple as that. There's a whole spectrum out there."
from an elementary principal, and "It depends. The administrators are as
different as the individuals that hold that position." from a secondary
principal acknowledge the unevenness in support obvious to teachers.
Summary.
Educator responses to questions about
administrator support are clear regarding the types of support teachers believe
their principals should deliver. In broad sense, these supports may be
classified as direct and palpable, or indirect and personal. The majority of
regular class teachers, resource teachers, and special class teachers indicated
that their administrators did not deliver the supports desired. A lesser number
found that they were well-supported.
That principals believed they were
offering support suggests a communication gap between administrators and their
staffs. A suggestion from both teachers and principals that some administrators
do not see it as their responsibility to provide support, is as troubling for
inclusion as much as is the lamentable, but not altogether unexpected,
possibility of communication breakdown.
Soundness of Concept of Inclusion
Inclusion, to be
accepted and successful must be viewed by educators as educationally sound
practice. Whether Canadian educators believe inclusion to be sound practice was
a central issue in this study. If the response were "no", the implication would
be that teachers saw inclusion to be without educational value. If "Yes", the
implication would be that inclusion was valuable practice.
The following
framing guiding statement and question were designed to elicit indications of
any values educators might see in inclusive.
Many teachers indicate that
they believe inclusion of students with exceptionalities to be good educational
practice.
Why would they hold this view?
The majority of respondents
found no difficulty in suggesting values of inclusion. Responses fell into four
areas as follow.
Student rights and equity.
Though couched in various
ways, a number of responses implied an attitude, among at least some
participating educators, that issues of equity and rights were involved in
decisions to include. This perception crossed all educator roles, both
elementary and secondary schools, and both traditionally and inclusively
structured systems. On occasion, interviewees pointed to perceived shortcoming
of special education structures in particular.
Experience has shown that
the ghettoization of children, in any capacity, whether it be equity issues
through race, or culture, whatever, does not help children blend in society .
... It's not good for the dominant group ... because it gives them such a
limited perspective on the world.
Diversity within society.
A significant number of
respondees focused on the diversity of society and the appropriateness of
schools reflecting that diversity. Some linked the idea of appreciation for
diversity gained in inclusive classrooms to eventual adult roles in society.
This value crossed both included and regular students.
The biggest thing
is that we live in an inclusive society, and, so, by working on a daily basis
in an inclusive school, in your classroom, you're helping all children .... So
when you go out into the world of work, and pursue education past your local
school, you're going to be in an environment that deals with variety.
Such responses came from every educator group in this study, save one.
Teachers working in special class situations did not advance the diversity of
society argument.
Generally enhanced learning.
More interview
respondents pointed to generally enhanced learning through inclusive experience
than to other areas under Soundness. Comments such as, "Because they see
that the student gains a lot by being in a classroom and achieving ...
achieving in a " regular" classroom, rather than being segregated by themselves
in a little room." pointed to the perception that the regular class was the
most appropriate context for learning compared to other options.
A view of
the regular class as the appropriate site for learning for all children
extended the sense of the above. Value of regular class placement in terms of
enhanced learning was summarized by one traditionally structured system
principal:
I guess it comes from a basic philosophy about how children
learn best and just the sense that all children can and should learn; that they
should be together as much as possible; that there are social benefits, large
social benefits, to children from all different backgrounds to be together in
one setting.
For the majority of educators commenting in this area, the
regular classroom was viewed as emancipating in a number of ways. It was
regarded as a venue for some students with challenging needs to reveal their
potential. It widened the concept of who is a learner in our society. It
provided a workable environment meeting the needs of both regular students and
those with challenges. Positive comments outweighed the few responses
suggesting that inclusive education was an unobtainable ideal.
Interviewees
also directed attention to specific benefits derived by students from inclusive
experience.
Having them in the regular classroom allows [regular]
students to be made aware of their positive attributes and they become more
familiar with them. I think it benefits most of society in that way. And it
also benefits those who are disabled. It allows all of us to become more aware
of people, more accepting of people with differences, that it makes us open to
change, and to new ideas. For included students benefits mentioned were more
varied. They're able to model other kids. They're able to adapt to everyday
situations more readily.
In addition to these benefits, other quotes
indicate growth in self-esteem, familiarity with societal norms, and increased
adaptability. Later discussions will amplify the issue of whether teachers
perceive benefits to inclusion in terms of academic and social effect
specifically for both regular and included students.
On occasion,
recognition was made of the fact that teachers may not look forward to
inclusive practice, but that the benefits are sufficient to lead to a choice of
inclusion.
A lot of teachers, with some general reluctance, agree that
it's probably fair that, where possible, these kids have a right to be with
other kids, because ... there's enough of a trade-off of the benefits versus
the negative.
Regular Class Teacher and Resource Teacher Relationship
A fundamental tenet of inclusive practice is that the regular class teacher
should be supported by a resource teacher. Respondents from all educator groups
made this point, reflecting frequent mention in the literature. It was followed
up in interviews with the intent of probing educator beliefs regarding what
form the relationship should take. The contextualizing statement and questions
leading to interview discussion of the relationship were:
A change in the
roles of regular teachers and special education resource teachers is implied by
implementation of inclusive education. What forms should the role of resource
teacher take? Who should be involved in determining the roles and
responsibilities of the regular teacher and of the resource teacher?
Role of the resource teacher in support of the regular teacher.
Interviewees suggested a variety of models for resource teacher.
The most common model was that involving some form of direct, ongoing support
for the regular class teacher and included students.
If the teacher is a
resource teacher, then that teacher needs to be a resource to the classroom
teacher, to find those programs that are available, to help with the children,
to deal with outside agencies.
Other forms of direct support for the
regular class teacher included a focus on providing ideas for teaching
strategies or on provision of many types of assistance. Related to these fairly
direct support roles were two additional models which placed the resource
teacher in a consultative or in a facilitator/coordinator role. Both of these
moved the resource teacher back a step from ongoing direct support to a more
global "service as required" role.
I see the resource teacher more as a
consultant, a professional colleague of the regular classroom teacher as
opposed to the person who's responsible for and provides the program for the
special kids.
[The resource teacher should] be the person who keeps the
overview of the child .... Particularly because that person is more likely the
one who ... can pass [information] on to the next teacher.
The majority of
regular class teachers offering comments under this area, plus a number of
resource teachers and special class teachers, preferred the resource teacher to
deliver service directly to the teacher and/or to students in the regular
classroom. A few favoured the consultant model. In contrast, principals clearly
favoured the consultant model. The difference between principals and other
staff members with regard to resource teacher role is of particular interest,
and will be picked up again in a later examination of who is responsible for
determining that role.
Joint roles of regular class teacher and resource teacher.
Commentary on the role of the resource teacher extended into
consideration of where resource teacher support should be delivered and the
form of the actual regular class teacher - resource teacher relationship.
Preferred site of service delivery was definitely the regular classroom.
However, to whom the resource support was directed varied in the minds of
respondents. Some respondents believed that, "The resource teacher should be
there to help the classroom teacher with teaching the whole class .... kind of
like team teaching.", whereas others argued that, "The best role for the
resource teacher is in the classroom, working with those children, lowering the
PTR, aiding the individuals, giving them the one on one time they need".
Very few teachers suggested that a pull out or withdrawal model should be a
part of working with included students.
The majority of teachers commenting
on the form of regular teacher - resource teacher relationship advocated a
partnership model. They saw the two professionals working as one.
It
should almost be like a team teaching role. Where you can meet with the teacher
in the classroom, but then, at other times, where you can meet and plan things
together out of the classroom.
Though a partnership approach was
preferred, some regular teachers argued that there should be a lead partner,
and that that should be the regular class teacher. Comments such as, "Together.
The classroom teachers should have the final say, but they [classroom teacher
and resource teacher] should be together. They should be professional"
supported this view.
A number of differences regarding the form of the
relationship between the two professionals and the site of actual service
delivery emerge from interview comments. The suggestion of a pull out model
came only from educators who identified themselves as working in a special
class setting. Regular class teachers and resource teachers advocated a team
relationship, but some regular teachers added that the regular classroom
teacher should be the senior partner. Principals tended to favour an indirect
service consultant or facilitator role for resource teachers, whereas the
resource teachers themselves and the regular class teachers suggested a variety
of direct service models. Who should resolve such differences and set the
resource teacher role is the focus of the next discussion.
Who determines resource teacher role?
Though the
majority of educators are confident that the regular class and the resource
teacher can forge a close and positive working relationship, little agreement
on the actual form of this relationship was evident. The guiding question, "Who
should be involved in determining the roles and responsibilities of the regular
teacher and the resource teacher?" addressed this anticipated divergence of
views.
The team model.
By and large interviewees encouraged
adoption of some form of a team model. The first of these was a three person
team composed of principal, regular teacher, and resource teacher. A few
regular teachers suggested an emendation to the model which would place the
final decision in the principal's hands if differences should arise between the
two teacher members. Still others argued that the regular teacher should play
the lead role in team. Fundamentally, however:
It should be a three way
street between administration, the teacher, and the resource teacher.
An alternate to the triad model was what we have termed the diffuse
team model. Under this, the decision regarding resource teacher role was made
by a team including school and system personnel only, or it could be expanded
to include others.
The resource teacher should be involved in that. I
think the regular teacher should be involved. I think the administration has to
be involved. And, partly, the parents. And, you know, I don't see any reason
why the students couldn't be involved as well.
The diffuse model ranked
behind the triad model which was the model of choice. It also ranked behind a
model in which the principal was the sole determiner of resource teacher role.
Some respondents suggested, "It's the principal [who] sets the tone of the
school. It's her job and I think she should be responsible and involved
directly".
This view of the principal as responsible for decisions in
this area recalls the earlier suggestion with regard to the triad model option
in which the principal was to play a decisive role were the regular teacher and
the resource teacher to disagree.
Summary.
As noted previously, educators are confident
that a positive relationship can be developed between regular and resource
teacher. Deeper investigation of this collegial relationship suggests that
actual development of the relationship is more complex than might be thought
initially.
A range of possible models for the relationship were suggested.
Most called for a team format, though there was difference of opinion regarding
actual composition. In the end, a majority favoured a team of principal,
regular teacher, and resource teacher.
General agreement existed that the
resource teacher work in the regular classroom. However, some special class
teachers advocated a pull out model, at least for some students. The apparent
unanimity of the majority that the resource teacher work in the regular
classroom was disrupted by varying views on what that person's role should be
once there.
Lastly, though educators believed a close working relationship
could be developed, a number of responses appeared to qualify this. Principals
favoured a consultative model, whereas the majority of other educators
preferred more direct service models centered on the regular classroom. Here,
too, other ideas such as the pull out model were advanced. In addition, some
regular teachers appeared concerned about the quality of their relationship
with the resource teacher in their suggestions that the principal hold the
final decision on the actual role of the resource teacher, or that the regular
class teacher be a senior partner in the relationship.
It may be wise for
educators implementing inclusive practice to pay particular attention to the
role of the resource teacher, and, given the number of models suggested, even
that this should be determined school by school. The number of differences of
opinion between educators may suggest both care and caution in setting the
parameters of resource teacher role.
Effect on regular students.
A common concern
associated with inclusion is that of negative social and/or academic effect for
the nondisabled students. Waldron (1995) points out that this issue is a
primary argument employed in resistance to the move toward regular classroom
placement for all students. She notes a concern "regarding equity versus
excellence, wherein the education of average and gifted learners will become
'watered down' to meet the needs of learners with disabilities" (p. 44).
Contesting this view is research evidence of social gain for regular students
in inclusive situations, and evidence that inclusion does not lower academic
achievement of average children (Giangreco, Edelman, Cloninger, & Dennis,
1993; McDougal & Bradley, 1998).
The concerns of some interviewees in
this study that progress of regular students will be affected negatively was
discussed, in part, earlier in this study, as was the obviously conflicting
perception that inclusion would enhance their learning. With arguments on both
sides, and little solid research evidence on either, this area was unclear.
Therefore, the issue of whether educators believed that inclusion has positive
or negative effect on regular students was examined in some detail.
Guiding
interview questions were:
Advocates for inclusive placement argue that
other students will find it a positive experience to have students with
exceptionalities in the regular classroom with them.
What would be some of
the positive effects?
What would be some of the negative effects?
We
believed that posing the two questions one after the other would draw responses
on both sides of the issue. Earlier discussion of the educational soundness of
inclusion is recalled here, thought the present discussion forms a much more
direct exploration of effects.
Social effect.
The majority of interviewees described
positive social effects. Included in their perceptions was regular student
understanding of diversity and equity within the general population. Comments
in this area were in addition to similar comments noted earlier.
Ethically, the learning to accept everyone as an individual and looking
for the abilities and what the other person is worth, is something that can't
be taught from a book.
Learning is viewed as social, but with academic
aspects as well. The number of such comments from a range of educators
suggested that learning about diversity and equity was viewed as more
accessible through direct contact in the classroom than through text based
learning, but the knowledge was factual as well as affective. In addition, the
knowledge gained was characterized as knowledge that would last through life.
Participants also advanced the belief that regular class interaction with
students with challenging needs resulted in higher self esteem for regular
students. This was the view of regular class teachers in particular, with good
agreement from resource teachers, but also of special class teachers and
administrators.
If there is such a thing as a regular student, the
underlying thing is self esteem ... For them to be able to see persons who may
be mentally or physically different and to be accepted by their peers, also
allows them [regular students] to accept themselves and be accepted.
Mentions of self esteem suggested a number of notions. The most common
was that regular students would have a wider base of comparison for their own
abilities and needs, and that they would see themselves as contributors through
tutoring. A particular point was that regular students with modest abilities
would find that they, too, could be contributors.
Allied to heightened self
esteem was the finding of some interviewees that inclusive experience promoted
regular student self understanding, and understanding of the wider community
and their place in it. Again, regular class teachers and resource teachers led
special class teachers and administrators in making this point.
They
learn to appreciate their own gifts, their own talents. They learn, also, to
value each human being, no matter what their gifts are.
Almost no
interviewees, whatever their roles in the schools, perceived direct negative
social effect for regular students. A number of interviewees offered statements
such as, "Socially, I cannot see that there would be any negative effect". One
area, mentioned by a few, where negative effect might be found, was that
regular students might pick up on negative behaviour.
Socially, I know
from my experience that because you treat different children differently,
children who are non-disabled perceive that a disabled child is getting away
with stuff .... And so, they try. They do a lot of testing to see how far they
can go. No other social effects of negative nature were mentioned by more than
individual respondents, and few of these.
No educator group noted more
negative effect than did any other. Reference to positive social effect for
regular students considerably outweighed the opposite. Highlighting positive
social effect were development of understanding of the diversity of society and
equity in the presence of difference, heightened self esteem, and stronger self
understanding.
Academic effect.
The majority of interviewees believed
inclusive experience to contribute to academic achievement of regular students.
Regular class and resource teachers found definite benefit for regular
students through involvement in peer tutoring. Other educators noted the effect
as well, though they did not mention it as frequently. Respondents believed
that, "Peer learning is one of the strongest ways that kids can learn .... I
can see that it would be beneficial, academically, in most cases".
Other aspects with academic implication were benefits in motivation,
leadership, communication skill, cooperation, creativity, acceptance of
responsibility, and team building.
As far as an attitude about other people
and caring, and learning to look after others, and help others, and work
cooperatively, there are a lot of advantages.
Some educators also
pointed to a collateral effect of inclusion, one related to academic
development of regular students with more modest abilities. Pedagogical
strategies put in place because students with challenges were in the classroom,
were found to meet the learning needs of a wider range of students.
Academically, sometimes, some of those slower students that are in the
regular classroom will benefit from the extra instruction that the special
student may require. So, instead of singling just one out, they can make it a
small group.
Realizing that there are different ways to evaluate, I
can also apply that to other students.
Earlier, under teacher concerns
regarding inclusion, some participants suggested that inclusive practice may
call for a change in how teachers teach. The quotes above suggest that, while
this may be true, such changes contribute to the learning of all students.
Participants also mentioned a limited number of possible negative effects
for regular students. Individual respondents suggested that a slower pace of
instruction may affect faster learners, that some students with challenges may
become violent, and that student workload may not be distributed evenly in
cooperative situations, with regular students doing more. The single negative
effect mentioned by other than one or two respondents was that the behaviour of
some included students might disrupt the classroom.
Negative effects
tend to happen when there are behaviour problems. When the exceptionality is
behaviour related, because it is distracting to the teacher, there is time
taken away from the regular stuff going on in class.
Though
considerably fewer mentions were made of negative academic effect, and most of
these focused on behavioural disruption, teachers did comment that lack of
supports would be a limiting factor. This point does not orient specifically on
included students, but it underlines the continuing concern of educators that
insufficient support will be provided for inclusive settings.
Summary.
Educators interviewed for this study experienced little challenge in pointing to both social and academic effect of inclusion on regular students. In the great majority of instances, the effects noted were positive, and ranged across a variety of areas. Negative effect fell into quite restricted areas. Though comments leading to this analysis came primarily from regular and resource teachers, special class teachers and administrators also found more positive than negative effect. One explanation for higher awareness of positive effect among regular and resource teachers may be that these are the professionals closest to what actually transpires when regular students and included students are together in the regular classroom.
Effect on included students.
The basic argument for
inclusion is that students with challenges will find greater social and
academic growth in regular classrooms than elsewhere. Though this is widely
believed among advocates of inclusion, research evidence is equivocal. Some
studies point to advantages (Schulte, Osborne, & McKinney, 1990; Truesdell
& Abramson, 1992). Others support the belief that special placement is
superior, at least for some types of students (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980;
Madden & Slavin, 1983).
This study did not attempt to compare social or
academic strength of differing settings. Teacher perceptions of the effect of
inclusive experience was the focus. Within this focus, interviewees found
definite social and academic benefit, and relatively little social effect, for
students with disabilities when placed in inclusive classrooms.
Two guide
questions were developed for this area. The questions and their framing
statement were:
Advocates claim that inclusion has positive academic and
social effect for students with exceptionalities.
What would some of the
possible positive effects be?
What would some of the possible negative
effects be?
Social effect.
Educators in all four professional
groupings perceived far more social benefit to inclusive settings than they did
negative. The main areas of benefit were effect of having peer models, effect
of belonging to a group, growth in self esteem, and general positive social
effect. While noting positive effect, interviewees often cautioned that reaping
these benefits was related to administrator support.
More respondents
identified the positive effect of students with challenges being surrounded by
average elementary and secondary students than any other positive or negative
effect. It formed the most common response for regular class teachers, special
class teachers, and administrators, and was noted as well by resource teachers.
For that particular student, the exceptional learner, the benefit is to
see what appropriate behaviours and appropriate responses, if you will, are.
Learning to get along with others. Learning how to cope when there are lots
of people around you .... Learning the proper behaviour.
Among the
effects attributed to modeling were increased motivation, greater strength in
social situations, understanding of social roles, perception of appropriate and
inappropriate social behaviour, and the development of social relationships
between individuals. A number of comments suggested that the positive effects
of modeling reached beyond the classroom to participation in society at large.
Belonging to a group was seen as another benefit of inclusive experience.
Despite the fact that they differed in ability, included students identified
with the class group. Again, most respondents spoke in terms of the classroom,
but a few extended positive effect to society beyond the classroom with
statements such as, "It's like opening a window on the world. I mean, nobody
could doubt that they [regular students] could benefit them".
In
similar fashion members of all educator groups, particularly that of the
administrator group, believed self esteem would be strengthened.
The same
for any learner. Enhanced self esteem. Progress, as in measurable achievement.
Increased socialization. The opportunity to contribute .... Happiness.
Contentment.
Routine interactions with regular peers added to the personal
image of included students in the majority view. Self esteem was viewed as
related positively to friendships, achievement, cooperative activity, and
personal happiness. In addition to those who nominated specific social
benefits, a number of educators spoke of general benefits. Resource teachers
were a particular voice in this area.
I compared their behaviour and
their academic standing from one year to the next .... Once we integrated them,
we found their behaviour improved.
A subset of educators noted negative
effect of inclusion in the social realm. The single area of any concentration
of comments was that regular students might not be accepting of included
students. Contributors suggested that rejection by regular students could be
demonstrated through a variety of behaviours. Among these were teasing,
ostracism, and general evidence of rejection.
Their peers can also be
... the ones that hurt you the most. There can't be the protection as much from
just plain peer interactions and teasing and name calling.
Such
comments, particularly those on teasing, formed the larger portion of the few
comments on possible negative effects. Perceptions of positive social effect
were far more numerous.
Academic effect.
A substantial number of respondents
noted academic effects of inclusive experience, though comments were not as
specific as those under social effect, and academic effect not as marked in
teachers' views. Three sub-categories of discussion were formed from analysis:
academic motivation, general academic benefit, and no academic benefit.
Mentions of negative academic effect were absent.
A number of regular class
teachers and resource teachers found the regular classroom to have motivating
influence on the academic effort of included students. Comments such as, "If
they're in a regular classroom, they'll try to act more like a regular student.
So that pulls them up academically." typified teacher belief in this area.
A variety of factors appear to be at work. Among these are seeing the work
habits of others: tutor-tutee interaction, exposure to higher level
expectations, and desire to function like peers. Andrews (1996) and Falvey and
Rosenberg (1995), among others, also have noted benefits of peer modeling and
interaction in the regular classroom.
Overall, however, respondents tended
to find specification of academic benefit challenging. As one interviewee
noted, "The academic benefits for us are hard to evaluate." Despite this
limitation, a considerable number of participants believed benefit to be
present.
Academically, even though a lot of the work is individualized
for that student, I think they will pick up a lot of other things that are
being taught within the classroom. I think, a lot of times, even their parents,
are surprised at their accomplishments.
Though the phrasing tended to
be general, the sense that a positive academic effect was present is clear. An
impressive number of participants suggested that simply being exposed to the
academic activities of a regular classroom would produce effect.
Not all
perceptions were positive. A limited number of interviewees, particularly
regular class teachers, believed that positive effect was absent or dubious, at
least for some included students. Most of these referred to severity or
category of disability as being a major restriction. Comments such as, "That
would depend on the type of exceptionality, or the type of need that's
required. But, certainly, some students would benefit from that, but not
all." were offered.
No academic effect for some students is a logical
teacher concern. Teachers like to see academic progress. Though a number of
advocates of inclusion argue that social progress is reason enough for regular
class placement, some teachers are dubious given the traditional educational
emphasis on academics. Despite this logical concern, it is interesting to note
that no interviewee spoke of negative academic effect, and the majority of
those commenting in this area believed positive academic effect to be present.
Summary.
It is safe to say that the majority of
participants in this study, when asked to consider whether inclusion had social
or academic effect, had no doubt but that effects were present and that they
were almost completely positive. Few educators brought out negative effects in
either area.
Peer interaction through modeling and simple physical
proximity appeared to teachers to increase self esteem and a promote a sense of
belonging to the class group, though documentation of academic growth was more
challenging. Increased academic motivation was noted as a definite effect, but
academic effect was spoken of as a general and almost osmotic.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings and discussion above suggest that Canadian educators at the
elementary and secondary levels are ambivalent with regard to the practice of
including students with disabilities in regular classrooms. While certain of
beneficial social and academic effects and that regular teachers can function
inclusively, the majority of educators, from future teachers studying at
faculties of education to principals, question inclusion on pragmatic grounds.
They believe that regular teachers have not been prepared professionally to
work with students with disabilities, that they will not receive needed support
from administrators, and that workload will be too heavy.
Given the
widespread perception of benefits for all when diversely abled students learn
together and a set of pragmatic concerns which appear to be resolvable in large
part, why is inclusive practice so slow in spreading? Scruggs and Mastropieri
(1996), in a review of 28 studies of teacher attitude toward inclusive
education, suggest that teachers are more influenced by procedural classroom
concerns than by any change "in the context of social prejudice and attitudes
toward social integration" (p. 71). The present study supports this
interpretation. Canadian educators typically qualified their positive views by
reference to pragmatic needs: more professional preparation, more time to plan
and prepare, and more support from administrators. In other words, their
attention turned to the exigencies of daily teaching and they interpreted
inclusion as requiring change to accustomed practice. Only when additional
supports which would minimize the effect of change were in place could the
average educator see inclusion as feasible. Most did not believe these supports
were presently in place or forthcoming.
A recent report on inclusive
education by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (March,
1999) also noted the challenge of change. The report, on the basis of a review
of inclusive education in eight countries, could find no educational rationale
for maintaining any option other than inclusion for students with disabilities,
but also noted continuing resistance to inclusive practice. The report
concluded that, "Based on the examples of inclusion described in this [study]
it would be fair to conclude from an educational point of view there is no
limit to the degree of inclusion possible, All children however heavily
disabled can be included in regular schools with no detriment to themselves or
other pupils" (p. 41). In the view of the OECD authors, only "lack of political
will and human beings' interminable resistance to change" (p. 18) block a move
to generalized inclusive practice.
Canadian educators appear to be at a
crossroads in terms of preferred model of service delivery for students with
disabilities. As a group they recognize the benefits of the inclusive approach,
but hesitate to change from the known special education model citing clearly
stated concerns. While a variety of concerns are mentioned, a number emerge as
primary. First among these are need for appropriate preservice and inservice
teacher preparation. Second is need for both logistical and personal support
from administrators. Third is workload.
The following actions by
government, teacher educators, educational systems, and administrators would
seem logical.
Realignment of teacher preparation programs with contemporary
understandings of disability and education. The majority of Canadian programs
continue to emphasize categories of disability and associated special
curricular needs, and support the traditional psychoeducational view that full
time or part time special placement is required for many students, particularly
as degree of disability increases. Few programs emphasize integration models,
and almost none spend any significant time on inclusive philosophy and
methodology.
Government ministries, teacher associations, and colleges of
teachers charged with responsibility for education, as well as teacher
educators at the preservice and inservice levels should ensure that all
teachers become familiar with inclusive theory and philosophy, organizational
models, and pedagogical strategies.
Workload for practicing teachers should
be recognized as a major concern. Teachers believe that managing an inclusive
classroom requires new kinds of support and traditional supports provided in
new ways. Strategies such as the parallel curriculum, Circles of Friends and
Making Action Plans Happen have been developed to benefit both students and
teachers. Emphasis on the collaboration between regular classroom teacher and
resource teacher and the strategic use of educational assistants and volunteers
in the classroom also would work toward reducing the workload question. Both
preservice teacher preparation programs and inservice programs should include
knowledge of such strategies. All responsible agencies should be working to
familiarize teachers with such time efficient approaches to classroom
management.
Those responsible for administrator selection and preparation
should ensure that administrators are familiar with inclusive philosophy and
implementation as well as other models of service delivery for students with
disabilities. Administrators also need to understand their role as leaders
attentive to professional and personal needs of teachers. School systems,
faculties of education, teacher and administrator associations, government, and
colleges of teachers share responsibility for ensuring that administrators are
prepared to meet the challenges of change to educational practice in this area.
CONCLUSION
Education of students with disabilities and the restructuring of schools
in keeping with inclusive philosophy is part of the on-going school reform
movement. International organizations such as OECD (1999) and UNESCO (1994)
have declared in favour of the inclusive approach. Associations of persons with
disabilities and of parents have urged movement to inclusive practice. In
response to new government policy, recognition that positive change is
required, and at the urging of various advocacy groups, a number of school
systems have adopted inclusive practice. They have understood that education
for students with disabilities is changing.
Those responsible for guiding
education at the government, teacher preparation, school system, and
professional association levels must maintain awareness that change is
troubling for many educators. Even those favourably disposed to inclusion hold
concerns about their abilities to function inclusively, the demands of
inclusion, and whether they will receive supports they see as requisite.
Leaders within government and education must act if teachers are to be
supported in meeting what appears to be fundamental change in education of
students with disabilities.
This paper is based on the research report Resistance & Acceptance: Educator Attitudes to Inclusion of Students with Disabilities by G. Bunch, J. Lupart, & M. Brown. The study was funded by the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada.
 |
 |