Presented at ISEC 2000

Substantive Changes in Teachers' Roles and Developing Inclusive Practices in Nova Scotia Schools

Alan Edmunds - The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

In Canada, the 10 provinces and 3 territories have jurisdictional control of education. This results in considerable differences between educational policies across the country, particularly in special education. The province of Nova Scotia enacted non-categorical full inclusion in 1996 and Edmunds (1999) reported that although teachers' attitudes toward inclusion were generally positive, they felt substantially under prepared for the inclusive classroom. Edmunds (in press) also examined the inclusive practices of 49 Nova Scotia schools and found that while only three schools were fully inclusive, others had successfully attained varying amounts/types of inclusive practices. Both studies, detailed herein, were replicated in the province of Newfoundland to compare inclusive school practices and teacher preparedness for inclusion across jurisdictions. Despite Newfoundland having decades more experience with categorical models of mainstreaming and inclusion, both educational jurisdictions demonstrate a similar lack of inclusive school practice and a lack of teacher preparedness for inclusion.

Introduction

One of the primary outcomes of educational reform has been the merging of regular and special education into inclusive education - an educational philosophy that considers student diversity to be a reflection of society, thus, emphasizes that students with exceptionalities be taught in the regular classroom, reinforcing the notion that student differences are accepted and respected. The underpinnings of inclusion are educational systems that are dynamic, holistic and collaborative in approach and which focus on the individual needs of all children resulting in enhanced social and educational benefits (Andrews & Lupart, 1993; Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996a; Lupart & Webber, 1996; O'Brien & O'Brien, 1996; Stainback & Stainback, 1996a). It is recognized that the inclusive attitude or atmosphere of the school, exhibited by its advocacy for, and demonstration of, a myriad of inclusive practices, is vital for the dynamic, holistic and collaborative approaches that provide the educational benefits mentioned above. At the same time, researchers and practitioners recognize that regular classroom teachers need additional training for this system to work effectively (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996a; Lupart, 1996; Lupart & Webber, 1996; Schaffner & Buswell, 1996) as "proximity alone does not facilitate academic growth; systematic teaching is required" (Smith & Ryndak, 1996; p.87). It would appear that inclusion requires several key components, the two most important being; 1) a unified educational system that focuses on the individual needs of all students (Andrews & Lupart, 1993), and 2) regular classroom teachers that are receptive to the principles of inclusion (Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989) and who are able to properly deliver appropriate educational services in their classrooms.

However, two recent comprehensive studies of teachers' perceptions of inclusion, Resistance and Acceptance: A National Study of Attitudes of Canadian Educators to Inclusion of Students with Disabilities, (Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997), and Teacher Perceptions of Mainstreaming/Inclusion, 1958-1995: A Research Synthesis, (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) reveal that most teachers do not feel that they are prepared to deal with the educational diversity of inclusion. Bunch, Lupart & Brown (1997) surveyed 1147 Canadian elementary and secondary teachers and 345 pre-service teachers to determine their attitudes toward the inclusion of all learners in regular classrooms and their attitudes toward the implications of having all learners in the regular classroom. Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) examined the research from 1958 to 1995 in which 10,560 American and Canadian general education teachers' perceptions of including children with disabilities in their classes were examined as well as their perceptions of the implications of placing children with exceptional learning needs in regular classes. Both studies found teachers to have positive attitudes about the general concept of inclusion, however, teachers felt they substantively lacked the training and resources to effectively teach children with exceptional learning needs. This indicates that although "the inclusion movement gained unparalleled momentum in the early 1990s" (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996b), teachers' perceptions of inclusion have not changed. Despite the obvious theoretical and practical requirement to provide teachers with systematic and differentiated teaching tools to educate children with exceptionalities, it would appear that inclusive education has been thrust upon the educational system without the proper training of teachers.

Education policy makers have embraced the notion of inclusive education as evidenced by the proliferation of inclusive education policies across Canada governing current educational practice. To not do so would be counter to our egalitarian sense of right and our pedagogical responsibility to provide every child with the best educational opportunities possible. Nova Scotia is the newest participant in Canadian inclusion educational policy.

The Nova Scotia Picture The Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture released its Special Education Policy Manual in 1996. Its stated goal of inclusive schooling is "to facilitate the membership, participation and learning of all students in school programs and activities (p. 13)". This basically meant that schools were to consider the regular classroom as the primary educational setting for students with exceptional learning needs. This was a fundamental change from previous practices which saw substantially more students with exceptionalities being primarily served outside of the regular classroom setting. This fundamental change meant that the education system faced two fundamental changes; 1) schools would have to immediately enact inclusion practices, and 2) all regular classroom teachers in Nova Scotia would be faced with educating children with exceptional learning needs.

There was considerable reaction by Nova Scotia teachers to the Special Education Policy Manual and the implementation methods for full inclusion suggested by the province. Given that teachers expressed concern about the resources and professional development required for full inclusion and participation in individual program planning, French (1998) conducted a study to examine Nova Scotia educator's perceptions of Individual Program Plans (IPPs) and their efficacy, as well as the process involved in the development, implementation and evaluation of IPPs. By definition, an IPP contains annual goals, specific objectives, recommended services, responsibilities of the IPP team members and dates for review (Nova Scotia Special Education Policy Manual). French's report, Educators' Perceptions of the IPP Process (1998), found that a large majority of Nova Scotia educators were generally positive toward the IPP process and felt that IPPs had positive effects for students with exceptionalities and their non-exceptional classmates. However, the results also clearly indicated that educators felt that the IPP process was time consuming, caused a lot of extra work and caused stress for teachers. Nova Scotia educators also felt that there was inadequate funding or support personnel for the IPP process, that there was insufficient time for IPP meetings, that programming suggestions were difficult to implement, and that appropriate levels of resources were available. Most importantly, classroom teachers were less likely to indicate they felt prepared to participate in the IPP process than were resource teachers and principals/vice-principals. In its conclusions, the study indicated that many educators felt that most of their negative perceptions of the IPP process could be addressed by substantially increasing their professional development on; 1) specific aspects of the IPP process, 2) the inclusion philosophy advocated by the province of Nova Scotia and, 3) sessions on specific exceptionalities and curriculum adaptations particular to children with exceptional learning needs. It was also clearly stated that adequate time, resources, technology, and support personnel should also be available to develop and implement appropriate IPPs. These results, although IPP and IPP process specific, when combined with the national (Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997) and international results (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) cited above, reveal a recurring theme in inclusion research - teachers endorse the general concept of inclusion, but feel that the required training and support mechanisms are not being provided.

Nova Scotia enacted the Special Education Policy Manual (SEPM) in 1996, thrusting the notion of inclusion to the forefront of that Province's educational agenda. The mandate of the SEPM, the first "official" policy on special education in Nova Scotia, mirrors that of other provinces in that it advocates that the individual needs of all students be met and that teachers embrace and carry out inclusive practices where needed. Given that this is "a relatively new special education initiative", research investigating Nova Scotia's ability to deliver appropriate educational experiences for students was warranted. To this end, Study #1 examined the inclusive education practices of 49 Nova Scotia schools and Study #2 examined 183 Nova Scotia classroom teachers' perceptions of their preparedness to teach in inclusive classrooms.

Method

Study #1

The research was carefully reviewed to determine the educational system components that appeared to be crucial for an overall inclusive approach. In no particular order, it appears that the following components are needed for inclusion. It is also evident that it is not merely the existence of these components that makes inclusion work, it is their interrelationships that comprises the whole. In order to provide inclusive practices, schools, as educational systems, will evidence the following components; 1) inclusive philosophy, policies and/or mandates, 2) appropriately trained school personnel, 3) inclusive administrative structures, 4) suitable classroom teaching practices, and 5) suitable physical plant resources. Specific subsections of each of these five components were developed so that detailed data gathering could be conducted and that categories of data could be delineated. While many different labels were used for similar components from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the most prevalent indicator appeared to be the overall attitude of the school personnel.

The data were gathered during various visits to forty-nine (49) schools via; a) interviews with personnel, b) detailed reviews of documentation (school and district), c) questionnaires, and d) checklists. This study was primarily concerned with whether there was evidence of the five components listed above and did not attempt to determine the degree or quality of each component. This decision was made because of the highly contextual nature of the quality of any practice in any school and the inherent difficulties in developing an evaluation mechanism that would be consistent across schools. It was also felt that this type of evaluation could be viewed as intrusive and threatening, thereby, affecting the type and range of data made available by school personnel. Having said that, indications of the quality of components were received as part of the spontaneous comments offered by individuals even though "quality" issues were not solicited.

Study #2

This portion of the study sought to determine the perceptions of Nova Scotia classroom teachers toward inclusive education practices across four central issues (adapted from Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997): 1) Effects of inclusion on the regular classroom teacher, 2) Appropriateness of teacher workload, 3) Teacher self-confidence in inclusion, and 4) Adequacy of teacher preparedness for inclusion. These central issues were chosen as they recur throughout the literature as areas of particular concern for classroom teachers when dealing with inclusion issues or teaching in inclusive settings (Lupart, McKeough & Yewchuk, 1996; Andrews & Lupart, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1996a) including historical perspectives (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996b; Lupart & Webber, 1996) and considerations for the future (Stainback & Stainback, 1996b; Lupart, 1996). These four (4) issues are also contained in the two most prevalent themes in inclusion; 1) the practical considerations of inclusion including teacher workload and teacher preparedness, and 2) teacher attitudes toward inclusion including the effects of inclusion on the classroom teacher and teacher self-confidence in being able to contribute to the inclusive process (Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). It is interesting to note that these issues were the same issues that Hudson, Graham & Warner (1979) commented on twenty years ago.

The sample consisted of 183 classroom teachers (55 males & 128 females) from 14 different schools across the province of Nova Scotia. Teachers were invited to participate in the study as part of an examination of inclusion practices in their schools (see Study #1 above). The participants' teaching levels were 122 elementary teachers (P-6) and 61 secondary teachers (7-12) . The sample did not include teachers who have held or currently hold special education or resource teacher positions. All participants had engaged in a variety of short professional development sessions about special education/inclusion.

A questionnaire to examine these four issues was developed by modifying the Educator Opinion Questionnaire - EOQ (Bunch, 1992). The EOQ employs a cross-categorical approach which depicts "inclusion" as a practice which involves all types of students with challenging needs, a notion consistent with inclusion literature. All twenty-eight questions required Likert type six point scale responses ranging from "agree strongly" to "disagree strongly". The quantitative data were scored and compiled for each of the four central issues. In keeping with the scoring detail of the EOQ, means near 2.00 are regarded as positive, means near 5.00 are regarded as negative while those in the 3.00 and 4.00 suggest mild positive to mild negative positions. Analysis of variance were conducted across elementary and secondary categories as there is some evidence that teacher perceptions of inclusion are different across these domains.

Although spontaneous comments were not solicited, many respondents provided them to elaborate on their responses to several questions, to establish the context of their quantitative answers and/or to specifically comment on the issue a question or questions focussed on. These comments were examined for themes and those that occurred most frequently are reported as supportive anecdotal evidence.

Study #3

Studies #1 and #2 above were examinations of the situation in Nova Scotia given that province's recent move to full inclusion in 1996. It was felt that a comparison of Nova Scotia's results with those of another educational jurisdiction may provide some insights as to what the differences/similarities are and what factors affect those comparisons. For this portion of the research, the province of Newfoundland was chosen for two reasons addressing inclusion as an educational approach; 1) Newfoundland has practiced inclusion for at least a decade, therefore, teachers and schools should be better versed in inclusion practices, and 2) it uses a categorical approach to identify students with special needs, to design their educational programs, and to determine instructional placements. Both of these issues are fundamentally different from the approach adopted by Nova Scotia.

For this comparison, the exact criteria and methodology of the two studies mentioned above were duplicated using Newfoundland schools and teachers. Thus, in describing Study #3, Part A was comprised of the criteria and methodology of Study #1 while Part B was comprised of the criteria and methodology of Study #2. This resulted in an examination of the inclusion practices of 21 schools and in the determination of 238 teachers' perspectives of inclusion.

Results

The results of Study #1 and Study #2 are presented first accompanied by analysis and discussion. In each case, the respective results of Study #3 are then presented followed by a discussion of the comparisons between the two provinces.

Study #1

The detailed "Criteria for Inclusive Schools" is included below;

Inclusive Schools Results (N = 49)

The results indicate that all schools were engaged in various forms and degrees of inclusive practices but that only three (3) schools could be considered "completely inclusive". The spontaneous comments provided by numerous individuals from all schools were analyzed and consequently grouped according to three (3) dominant themes; 1) personnel expertise, 2) inclusion awareness, and 3) collaborative practice. These themes clearly indicate that school levels of inclusive practices were considerably dependent upon; 1) the special education expertise of one or more personnel, 2) educator awareness and understanding of inclusive practices, and 3) collaboration in enacting an inclusive philosophy. This is not surprising given the importance of these criteria. However, it was surprising that none of the other criteria were mentioned as having such influence. It would be safe to say that the overarching message was that as more school personnel become more aware of the issues surrounding inclusion and as more of them develop their expertise beyond awareness, the amount of inclusive practice in schools will be enhanced. This would appear to be particularly so if this practice is designed and engaged in a collaborative manner. In the same light, it also reveals that personnel with specific expertise are required and that without this type of support, teachers would feel less able to carry out inclusive practices. However, at the same time, there were very clear indications of a strong sense of teacher resistance to the concept of inclusion because of a perceived lack of expertise and training to teach children with exceptional learning needs. The specifics of this issue will be addressed below in Study #2.

The Newfoundland data revealed much the same results as the above with only 2 of 21 schools meeting the criteria of being "completely inclusive". Many of the descriptive differences revolved around the fact that Newfoundland's categorical approach inherently provides more specialists and an identification, referral and assessment system that has far fewer problems but there was still an indication that teachers depend upon strong special education personnel. Nonetheless, there was a strikingly similar call for more professional development for the regular classroom teacher as was found in the Nova Scotia. However, Newfoundland teachers were much more specific about their exact professional development needs, probably due, again, to their categorical model.

Generally, these results reveal that inclusion is possible, even in times of dramatic change, as in Nova Scotia's case, however, they also warn us that negative teacher attitudes toward inclusion, if not addressed, may undermine the benefits in evidence. This is a logical conclusion because teachers can only "work" so hard without professional skills, after that, we become disenchanted.

Study #2

The data analysis (see below) revealed that teachers do not feel professionally prepared to work with students with challenging needs (Mean = 5.17) and that dramatic steps were required to reduce their workload in inclusive settings and that they were faced with additional work with inclusion (Mean = 4.61). Teachers do not feel that they have time to attend to activities around inclusion and that they perceive a need to significantly alter their established teaching routines to accommodate inclusion (Mean = 4.89). Finally, teachers are not confident in their abilities to provide for students in terms of teaching skills and do not feel they can adequately make the required program and curriculum adaptations for students with special learning needs (Mean = 4.57). The mean scores for the four central issues indicate a strong overall negative perception of the concept of inclusion. This strong negative perception may be the result of not including special education professionals or administrators in the sample as there is consistent evidence that both groups have more positive attitudes about inclusion.

Means of Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion (N = 183)

Although the mean scores for each of the four issues were slightly different, the Newfoundland data revealed very similar overall negative trends to the Nova Scotia data with regard to teachers' perceptions of inclusion. Newfoundland teachers do not feel professionally prepared (Mean = 5.0), they find inclusion to be extra work (Mean = 4.5), they do not have time for extra activities or for altering their routines as required by inclusion (Mean = 4.5), and they are not confident in their teaching skills or their program and curriculum adaptation skills (Mean = 4.2).

The results of all of the above are consistent with the results reported by Bunch, Lupart & Brown (1997) who stated that, in general, regular classroom teachers were considered to be insufficiently prepared for teaching in an inclusive setting and noted that respondents "called for an emphasis on professional development in no uncertain manner" (p. 4). The results are also consistent with those of Bunch et al which indicate that educators have strong concerns about the high expectations and workloads placed on regular classroom teachers and the effect of inclusion upon them. Similarly, Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) indicated that 66 - 75% of teachers believed that they did not have the sufficient time, skills, training or resources necessary for inclusion. The authors suggested that "the lack of improvement in perceptions of teacher preparedness for mainstreaming/inclusion over time suggests that teacher education programs may be no more effective at preparing teachers for mainstreaming/inclusion now than they were more than two decades ago" (p. 71).

Teachers' Positive Attitudes

The successful transformation to inclusive schooling is dependent upon positive attitudes toward students with special learning needs and research has clearly illustrated that these attitudes develop when thoughtful guidance and direction are provided by teachers in inclusive settings (Forest, 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1984; Karagiannis & Cartwright, 1990; Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996a). Research also indicates that positive attitudes toward inclusion tend to increase the further an individual is from the actual implementation of inclusive practices (Barngrover, 1971; Horne, 1983; Houck & Rogers, 1994) and that secondary teachers are less positive about inclusion than elementary teachers (Gickling & Theobald, 1975; Larivee & Cook, 1979; Rogers, 1987).

Despite the primary finding of this study that classroom teachers have mostly negative perceptions of inclusion, a question-by-question analysis outside of the parameters of the four central issues revealed that there was consistent positive evidence that teachers felt that they could maintain a positive learning environment, that they believed students would blend smoothly into classroom dynamics, and that they perceived their overall teaching efforts would have positive effects. Questions dealing with these statements were not clustered within the EOQ, thus, a mean for this grouping was not established.

Again, these positive attitudes are similar to those reported by Bunch, Lupart & Brown (1997) who indicated that the majority of teachers felt that they could work inclusively, that they were responsible for included students and that they considered inclusion to be more positive as educational practice. Bunch et al also reported that administrators were more positive in their attitudes toward inclusion than regular classroom teachers and elementary teachers were more positively disposed than secondary teachers. Similarly, Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) found that two thirds of the teachers supported the concept of mainstreaming/inclusion and a majority were willing to include students with disabilities in their classes, however, the authors allowed that these supportive attitudes may have been attributable to a preponderance of elementary teachers in the samples. Both studies reveal that a minority of teachers view students with exceptionalities as disruptive or as demanding too much attention. In this study, there were no significant differences between elementary and secondary teachers' perceptions of inclusion across the four central issues. This finding is not consistent with the literature, however, the fact that teachers who previously held or currently held special education positions were excluded from the sample may have affected this finding as there are more special education teaching positions at the elementary level that at the secondary level in Nova Scotia.

Spontaneous Comments

Of the 183 Nova Scotia teachers, 59 (32%) provided spontaneous comments while 68 (29%) of Newfoundland teachers provided similar unsolicited comments. An examination of both sets of comments revealed two recurring themes. The first theme was that teachers felt that the philosophy and practice of inclusion was implemented by both provinces as a cost saving measure, not because inclusion was a sound and proven educational mandate. This was clearly indicated by 44 (75%) of the Nova Scotia comments. The focus of these comments was that the province's adoption of the inclusive education philosophy caused the elimination of special classes, the elimination/combining of special education teaching positions, an increase in regular class sizes, and that inclusion was used to reduce the number of teachers required in schools. This fiscal notion was reinforced by 46 (78%) of Nova Scotia comments indicating that money for teaching resources was not available and that not all teachers had adequate resources. Newfoundland teachers' 32 (47%) were similar, however they were of the opinion that too many students who were "on-the-borderline" of categories were being purposefully excluded from specialized services, thereby reducing caseloads and specialist personnel hirings. Both of these perceptions are consistently supported by the literature.

Bunch, Lupart & Brown (1997) concurred stating that many educators considered inclusion to be a cost-saving strategy that would negatively affect all involved and that inclusion was being falsely touted as a better education system to warrant the cuts being made. "Inclusion is not, nor should it become, a convenient way to justify budgetary cuts that may jeopardize the provision of essential services. Genuine inclusion does not mean dumping students with disabilities into general education classes without support for teachers or students" (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996a; p. 11).

The second recurring theme of the spontaneous comments is summed up in the reactions of 39 Nova Scotia teachers (66%) and 23 (34%) Newfoundland teachers who felt that their overall concerns about inclusion increased as the degree of educational need of the exceptional child increased. This was particularly the case when teachers commented about students with behavior disorders. This theme was supported by the quantitative data. An examination of the one question in the survey that asked teachers about their confidence to teach students in seven different categories of exceptionality revealed that teachers were least confident about students with behavior disorders (Mean = 5.03) and that teachers were most confident that they could teach students with physical disabilities (Mean = 1.99).

This study has clearly shown that neither Nova Scotia or Newfoundland teachers feel professionally prepared to teach in the inclusive classroom. It is yet another set of studies which point out that teacher unpreparedness for inclusive settings is, and continues to be, pervasive in the education profession. Teachers have many concerns about the overall concept, and, generally, their attitudes toward the broader notion of inclusion are favorable. However, teachers have identified, in no uncertain terms, that their overwhelming concern is about their lack of skills and training to carry out their professional duties. They do not seem to be getting the professional development training that is necessary for the task of educating students with special learning needs in their classroom.

Despite the fact that teachers are constantly undergoing professional development in a variety of domains, including special education and inclusion, teachers in this study indicate that they do not have the skills necessary for the inclusive classroom. This implies that the voices of teachers directly involved in the practice of inclusion are still not being heard by school administrators and college faculty with regard to their professional development. This implication is substantively evidenced elsewhere (Barngrover, 1971; Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989; Houck & Rogers, 1994). Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) further state that teacher unpreparedness for inclusion is a strong indication that the proponents of inclusion, namely, administrators and college faculty are those voices that are most clearly heard on the issue of inclusion. According to the authors, teachers typically exhibit the most pessimistic attitudes about inclusion while school administrators and college faculty hold the most optimistic attitudes. They recommend that the voices of those responsible for inclusion, the teachers, be clearly heard on inclusion issues. Similarly, Bunch, Lupart & Brown (1997) reported that education administrators need to shift their thinking to acknowledge teacher effort and leadership. They recommend that this be accomplished by recognizing schools that exemplify inclusive practice, by making preservice preparation for inclusion compulsory, and by designing a recertification and upgrading system utilizing the master teacher inservice model. Teachers regarded education faculties as "ivory towers somewhat out-of-touch with reality in the schools" (Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; p. 11) yet, also considered university faculties to be instrumental in providing upgrading for teachers, particularly if this was done in concert with board of education administrators. The problem of professional development to prepare the classroom teacher for inclusion does not appear to have been adequately addressed.

Discussion

An essential first step in the transition toward inclusion was to combine the dual systems of regular and special education. Inherently, this meant that in order for the education of exceptional children to occur appropriately, the general education system needed to change; the primary requirement being to reeducate the regular classroom teacher. "As general education began to shift toward these more inclusionary practices, it became increasingly apparent that regular classroom teachers and administrators were insufficiently prepared and ill equipped to effect the multidimensional and complex changes that inclusive education reformers had envisioned" (Lupart & Webber, 1996; p.13).

Special education initiatives such as inclusion are doomed to failure without the full support and commitment of the regular education system (Lupart, 1996) - after all, the regular education system is responsible for the professional development of its teachers. Given that the results of this study are consistent with the literature, it appears clear that the training and retraining of teachers for inclusive classrooms has not kept pace with the rhetoric of inclusion.

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education, in the document A Nation at Risk, accused the education system of providing students with "academically inferior teachers who are insufficiently prepared for their work … resulting in low student achievement, grade inflation and wide spread illiteracy" (Lupart, 1996; p. 14). While this report was regarded as inflammatory, the issues it raised addressed the fundamental concern of inclusive education; there needs to be appropriate instruction of students with special learning needs by qualified and capable teachers. If the teachers are not capable, the students' needs are not being met. Why do fundamental teaching skill requirements continue to be seemingly absent for classroom teachers in inclusive settings? We would not tolerate this kind of skill deficiency for a grade 12 English or math teacher, why is it the case for teachers of special needs students, even though they are now one and the same? "What is at issue in inclusive education is not whether students should receive appropriate educational experiences and specialized tools and techniques they need from qualified school personnel and specialists. The issue is that students should receive these services in integrated settings and that teachers should be assisted in updating their skills" (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996a; p. 6).

Unfortunately, the thrust of Keough's (1988) criticism of inclusion appears repeatable; "it is strange logic that calls for the regular system to take over responsibility for pupils it has already demonstrated it has failed" (p. 20). Unless the preparation and professional development of teachers is seriously examined and acted upon, this type of failure will continue. In fact, Schaffner & Buswell (1996) indicate that "teachers who are new to including students with diverse needs in general education classrooms frequently need as much or more support than the individual students" ( p. 53).

Conclusions

A wealth of research has advocated the dire need for enhanced teacher education to properly address the advent of the inclusive classroom. This advocacy has been consistent and persistent since the early notions of mainstreaming and inclusion were posited in the 1970s (Andrews & Lupart, 1993; Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; Karagiannis, Lupart & Webber, 1996; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Stainback & Stainback, 1996b). Researchers continue to reiterate the cry for improved teacher training because, as this study and others have shown, teachers are not prepared for the inclusive classroom. If inclusion is to be viewed as a set of instructional and curricular supports intended to provide a broad array of better student outcomes (Schrag, 1993), then those instructional and curricular supports, by definition, require capable teachers. Unless specific and comprehensive training of teachers is undertaken, inclusion will revert to a supposedly bygone era when exceptional students were included but very poorly served. On the other hand, an education system that is actively engaged in the professional development of teachers for the purpose of preparing them for the inclusive classroom is sure to be seen as a progressive step forward, particularly in light of the evidence above.

Finally, although teachers' general attitudes toward inclusion and inclusive practices are mostly positive at this time, these attitudes appear clouded by suspicions of the motives of inclusive practices and the obvious lack of professional development for teachers. It is evident that teachers see inclusion as more of a procedural classroom concern than a social prejudice concern (Gans, 1987; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). However, it is possible that if the procedural concerns of classroom teaching such as administrative support, planning time, disability-specific teaching skills and resources are not addressed, these positive attitudes might wane. This would seriously undermine the dynamic, holistic and collaborative efforts of teachers, thus, weakening the underpinnings of the inclusion movement. The success of inclusion hinges upon the willingness of teachers to assume responsibility for their students (Lupart & Webber, 1996) and this willingness is fostered by teachers' confidence in their abilities as prepared and skillful teachers.

REFERENCES

Andrews, J. & Lupart, J. (1993). The Inclusive Classroom: Educating Exceptional Children. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.

Barngrover, E. (1971). A study of educators' preferences in special education programs. Exceptional Children, 37, 754-755.

Bunch, G. (1992). Teacher attitudes to full inclusion. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1 & 2 (2), 117-137.

Bunch. G., Lupart, J. & Brown, M. (1997). Resistance and acceptance: Educator attitudes to inclusion of students with disabilities. North York: York University. April, 1997.

Edmunds, A. L. (in press). Full inclusion since 1996: How are Nova Scotia schools doing? In J. Visser (Ed.), Inclusion, behavior and special education: Issues in the new millennium. Birmingham: Qed Publishers.

Edmunds, A. L. (1999). Classroom teachers are not prepared for the inclusive classroom. Exceptionality Education Canada, 8(2), 27-40.

Forest, M. (1987). Start with the right attitude. Entourage, 2, 11-13.

French, C. D. (1998). Educators' Perceptions of the IPP Process. Report Commissioned by the Nova Scotia Teachers' Union. Halifax, NS: June, 1998.

Gans, K. D. (1987). Willingness of regular and special educators to teach students with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 54, 41-45.

Garvar-Pinhas, A. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1989). Administrators' and teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 34-43.

Gickling, E. E. & Theobald, J. T. (1975). Mainstreaming: Affect or effect. The Journal of Special Education, 9, 317-328.

Horne, M. D. (1983). Attitudes of elementary classroom teachers toward mainstreaming. The Exceptional Child, 30, 93-97.

Houck, C. K. & Rogers, C. J. (1994). The special/general education integration initiative for students with specific learning disabilities: A "snapshot" of program change. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 435-453.

Hudson, F., Graham, S. & Warner, M. (1979). Mainstreaming: An examination of the attitudes and needs of regular classroom teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 58 - 62.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1984). Classroom learning structure and attitudes toward handicapped students in mainstream settings: A theoretical model and research evidence. In R. Jones (Ed.), Attitudes and Attitude Change in Special Education (pp. 118-142). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Karagiannis, A. & Cartwright, G. F. (1990). Attitudinal research issues in integration of children with mental handicaps. McGill Journal of Education, 25(3), 369-382.

Karagiannis, A., Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1996a). Rationale for inclusive schooling. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 3 - 16). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Karagiannis, A., Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1996b). Historical overview of inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 17 - 28). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Keough, B. K. (1988). Improving services for problem learners: Rethinking and restructuring. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 19-22.

Larivee, B. & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education, 13, 315-324.

Lupart, J & Webber, C. (1996). Schools in transition: Issues and prospects. In J. Lupart, A. McKeough & C. Yewchuk (Eds.), Schools in Transition: Rethinking Regular and Special Education, (pp. 3 - 42). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.

Lupart, J. (1996). Moving forward in a time of change. In J. Lupart, A. McKeough & C. Yewchuk (Eds.), Schools in Transition: Rethinking Regular and Special Education, (pp. 245 - 270). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.

Lupart, J., McKeough, A. & Yewchuk, C. (1996). Schools in Transition: Rethinking Regular and Special Education. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C..

Nova Scotia Government: Department of Education & Culture (1996). Special Education Policy Manual. Halifax, N. S., January, 1996.

O'Brien, J. & O'Brien, C. L. (1996). Inclusion as a force for school renewal. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 29 - 48). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Schaffner, C. B. & Buswell, B. E. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective school communities. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 49 - 66). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of Mainstreaming/Inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59 - 74.

Shrag, J. A. (1993). Restructuring schools for better alignment of regular and special education. In J.I. Goodlad & T.C. Lovitt (Eds.) Integrating general and special education. (pp. 203-2227). New York: Merrill.

Smith, M. & Ryndak, D. L. (1996). Practical strategies for communicating with all students. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 87 - 104). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1996b). Concluding remarks: Concerns about Inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators, (pp. 383 - 386). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Index