Presented at ISEC 2000

Successful Inclusion: What do Teachers say they need?

Alison C. Kearney, University New Zealand

Contributions from: Jane Prochnow & Janis Carroll-Lind.

Abstract

One of the aims of the New Zealand Special Education 2000 Policy was to create a “world-class” inclusive education system by the year 2000. Teachers have a crucial role to play in the successful implementation of this policy. To do this teachers need support. What are the support needs of teachers for the inclusion of learners with special needs? Are these needs being met? These questions were investigated in a two-part study. In the first part of the study 84 participating teachers identified 499 (22%) students in 6 primary, 3 full primary and 2 intermediate schools (n = 2285), as needing some level of support (LOS) to ensure successful inclusion in their classrooms. Teachers indicated the type of disability and the LOS they required and were receiving in order to include each of the identified students. In the second part of the study, teachers from two secondary schools in addition to the primary and intermediate teachers were asked four questions regarding supporting structures in schools. Their comments were analysed according to a) reasons for any discrepancy perceived between the LOS required and received, b) the structures currently in place at their school that successfully supported inclusion, and c) what structures could be implemented to support teachers more successfully with inclusion. The results indicated that approximately half the teachers were not receiving the support they needed. Learning disability and behaviour/emotional difficulty were the largest categories of students identified; however, intellectual disabilities and communication disorders significantly divided the mean LOS teachers needed to include learners. The results provide the basis for recommendations to schools on how they can more effectively support teachers in their roles as agents for inclusion.

Special Education 2000 was first introduced in New Zealand in 1996 and aimed to create over the next decade, “a world class education system that provides learning opportunities of equal quality to all students” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p.5). Special Education 2000 has six main components. These are the severe behaviour initiative, speech language initiative, ongoing resourcing scheme, special education grant, training of Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLBs) and early childhood initiatives. These components are supported by two overall initiatives: (a) professional development, training and information for boards of trustees, principals, teachers and parents of children with special needs, and (b) research, monitoring and evaluation. Figure 1 outlines the components of the policy.

The top three parts of the triangle are the initiatives aimed at learners with high or very high needs. The Ministry of Education has set the number of students receiving support from high or very high need initiatives at 3% of the school population. The middle part of the triangle is composed of the initiatives aimed at learners with moderate needs. The number of students targeted to received moderate support has been established as 4 to 6% of the school population.

The ongoing resourcing scheme provides funding for students with needs that are expected to continue throughout their school years. Funding is targeted to individual students ($12,000 per annum for students with very high needs, $7,000 per annum for students with high needs). Eligibility for this scheme is determined by a panel of verifiers appointed by, but independent from, the Ministry of Education. As well as this ongoing individual funding for every student with very high or high needs on a school roll, the student’s school will receive the equivalent of 0.2 or 0.1, respectively, of a full time teacher equivalent position.

The Severe Behaviour Initiative is for students with high and very high behaviour needs and has two components: (a) Behaviour Education Support Teams (BEST) and (b) Centres for Extra Support. BEST are made up of educational psychologists, special education advisers and teachers with significant experience and expertise in the management of students with behavioural difficulties and are based with Specialist Education Services (SES), the agency contracted to the Ministry of Education to provide specialist education services. Centres for Extra Support have been developed and operate differently from region to region and provide support either in class to teachers and students or off site for individual students for a short period of time.

The Speech Language Initiative is primarily targeted to students in the first three years of schooling who are not on the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme. Priority is given to students with high needs who have motor speech difficulties, fluency disorders, voice/resonance disorders, language difficulties or significant language delay to help students communicate more effectively (Davies, 1999).

The Special Education Grant (SEG) and Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) are provided for students with moderate needs. The special education grant is provided to all state schools based on their roll numbers and decile ranking. This allocation is based on evidence from studies conducted in New Zealand and overseas suggesting that there is a direct correlation between students with moderate special education needs and socio-economic status (Ministry of Education, 1996). Schools can spend their SEG on the employment of trained part- or full-time teachers to work with individuals and small groups, professional development of staff, purchase of resources or materials and employment of teacher aides.

The RTLB is a new position created for Special Education 2000 by combining the existing resource teacher roles of Resource Teachers for Special Needs and Guidance and Learning Teachers. Schools have been grouped into clusters and allocated a number of RTLB based on roll numbers and socio-economic factors. RTLBs work with students (and their teachers) with mild and moderate learning and behaviour difficulties.

While aiming to create an inclusive education system, Special Education 2000 is primarily a policy about resource allocation. Although structures and resources are important, successful inclusion is not just about the allocation of resources. Inclusion is based (among other things) upon a philosophy of belonging, acceptance and support (Stainback & Stainback, 1992). While it has been common to assess and provide support for the needs of the learner, we suggest that the support needs of teachers have been overlooked in the establishment of an inclusive education system. While Special Education 2000 does include a professional development component for teachers, evidence to date suggests that not all schools have received this opportunity (Bevan-Brown et al., 1999). Supporting the needs of learners can help support the needs of teachers. However, teachers also need support if successful inclusive education is to be a reality in New Zealand. An environment of support for teachers can have a positive impact upon their ability to meet the unique needs of their students (Thousand & Villa, 1991).

While Special Education 2000 is predominantly a resourcing policy, it is also a policy about change. Support available to teachers is central to successful change (Loucks-Horsley & Roody, 1990), particularly when teachers are responsible for implementing many of the changes necessary to include learners with special needs. As Bailey points out, “unless teachers are enjoying positive, health-enhancing and productive emotional states and high motivation and commitment, and unless they have the skills and the drive to implement change programmes, inclusive education approaches will not be implemented wholeheartedly or effectively” (1995, p. 16).

Teachers are at the practical edge of an inclusive education system (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). They are critical for implementing inclusion. Positive teacher perspectives and attitudes toward inclusion are essential for inclusion to be successful (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Although there is general acceptance of inclusive practices at the theoretical and administrative levels, teachers need to feel prepared for and supported in working with children with disabilities in their classrooms for successful inclusion.

Teacher acceptance of the concept of inclusion is generally quite positive. However, research has not consistently reported the positive effects of inclusive education (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000). Teacher attitudes toward the concept of inclusion are not necessarily predictive of inclusive classroom practices and successful peer and academic outcomes for students with disabilities. In practice, support received by teachers is more predictive of successful inclusion.

In Australia, teacher support has been examined through teacher nomination of the levels of support (LOS) needed to successfully include a student with disabilities in the classroom (McKinnon & Gordon, 1999). McKinnon and Gordon (1999) examined teacher LOS to determine learning support staffing in schools and staff requirements for professional development for areas of special need. They were able to examine disability areas and the LOS required to support those areas. The results provided a clear picture of the levels of support needed in schools to support the special needs of students. In a period of changing policies and resources this type of analysis is capable of indicating teacher perceptions of support for the practice of inclusion.

In New Zealand, the National Education Guidelines require schools to analyse and develop strategies to address barriers to student learning and achievement (Mitchell, 2000). Certainly awareness of discrepancies between the support required and received by teachers in order to enact inclusive policy was necessary to overcome barriers to student learning. In this study, we therefore examined the amount of support a teacher indicated was necessary to successfully include students in the classroom. The study was conducted in two parts. In the first part of the study we focused on identifying: (a) the number of learners with special needs in classrooms, (b) the area of disability for each learner identified, (c) the LOS received for each identified learner, (d) the LOS teachers required to successfully include the learner in the regular classroom, and (e) the discrepancy between support required and received by teachers. In the second part of the study we examined teacher responses to four questions regarding the types of support they received and would like to receive, and their perceptions of barriers to receiving support.

Method

In February 1998, we presented a proposal of this research to a meeting of the Principals Association including primary, full primary, intermediate and secondary schools in central New Zealand. At that time we requested invitations from the principals to present the research to teachers in a staff meeting at their schools. We received invitations from fifteen schools with teachers from thirteen schools consenting to participate. The number of teachers participating from each school was voluntary and varied. The participating schools included two secondary schools, two intermediate schools, three full primary schools, and six primary schools. The schools were predominantly urban with only one rural school.

The schools had decile rankings of three through ten, with the largest number of schools (3) at decile 5. There were no schools in deciles one and two under-representing the low decile schools (deciles 1 to 3) in our study (15%) relative to national figures (31%). The majority of schools (54%) were in the medium deciles (4 through 7). Approximately a third (31%) of the schools were in the high deciles (8 through 10) which are similar to national figures (30%) (Ministry of Education, 1998).

In the first part of the study, conducted in primary and intermediate schools, teachers were given an information sheet, consent form, and booklet that indicated special need categories by descriptors, provided a full explanation of the levels of support needs, and included a class survey sheet. Teachers who consented to participate returned their class sheets to either the school special needs co-ordinator or principal for aggregation on a school summary sheet, which was returned to the researchers.

The survey and summary sheets were designed to provide confidentiality for the individual students identified as having special needs. Teachers in each participating school were asked to record the students in their class who had special needs on the class list sheet. The schools aggregated information on the class sheets. Students were only identified on the school summary sheets by their student number and birth date.

In each case, the students’ need categories were identified from a checklist of descriptors. Descriptors were provided for each of the following disabilities to assist the class teachers in identifying the area of special need and to ensure consistency of identification. The special needs for which descriptors were provided were: oral communication disorders, specific learning difficulties, intellectual disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, behavioural/emotional difficulty, and physical/medical disability.

Teachers also identified the LOS that each of the identified students required to be successfully included in the classroom. An hierarchical scale was provided describing support from Level 1 (least) to Level 5 (most). This scale, previously used in Australia (McKinnon, Gordon, Bentley-Williams, Prunty & Finlay, 1997), was adapted for use in New Zealand (contact the first author for a complete copy of the survey instrument). Descriptors for the different LOS provided to the teachers are indicated below:

Level 1 Student needs require close observation, data collection, monitoring, reviewing and modification of teaching strategies by the class teacher. Learning Support personnel and/or outside agencies may be consulted.

Level 2 Student’s needs require that Learning Support Personnel support the class teacher. Other support mechanisms may be appropriate, e.g., peer tutoring, volunteer helpers, mentors or occasional direct intervention. The student may require minor modification of the existing curriculum and/or the physical environment. Outside agencies may be involved.

Level 3 Student’s needs require direct support by Support Personnel. Specialist (itinerant) teacher support on a nonregular basis may be necessary. Modified educational programmes are essential and an Individual Education Plan (IEP) may be required. Outside agencies may be involved.

Level 4 Student’s needs require regular direct support by Learning Support Personnel. Student requires a significantly modified educational programme, together with additional specialised support, for example, Teacher Aide and/or Speech Language Therapist. Some adaptation of the physical environment may be necessary. IEP is essential. Specialist (itinerant) teacher support on a regular basis may be required. Outside agency intervention is, or has been, required.

Level 5 Student’s needs require significant and continuous support to access and participate in the regular classroom. Daily support from Learning Support Personnel is needed. Alternative educational programme/class placement delivered through the IEP process is essential for all of the student’s schooling and substantial teacher aide support is required to assist in programme implementation. Outside agencies are involved, for example, Intellectually Handicapped Children (IHC), Children’s and Young Persons Service (CYPS).

In the second part of the study we examined the responses of secondary teachers in addition to the primary, and intermediate teachers to the following four questions:

1. If there is a discrepancy between the LOS you require and receive, what in your opinion are the reasons for this?
2. What structures/systems are currently in place in your school, that successfully support you to include children with special needs in your classroom?
3. What structures/systems can you suggest that could be implemented in your school to support you to more successfully include children with special needs in your classroom?
4. Do you have any other comments?

Teacher comments were coded into descriptive response categories by agreement between two of the researchers. A third researcher who cross-checked the coding of comments triangulated reliability of the categorisation. Consensus in coding was achieved 100% of the time.

Results and Discussion

In the first part of the study, 84 participating teachers in primary and intermediate schools identified 499 students for whom they needed some level of support for successful inclusion. Of the identified students, 70% (348) were males and 30% (151) were females. The number of students identified by each school type is indicated in Table 1. Approximately 22% of the total number of students in the classes of participating teachers were identified. The number identified was consistent across school levels with 24% of primary students and 20% of intermediate and primary/intermediate students.

Table 1 Number of identified students and total number of students in the participating teachers' classes by school level.

Table 2 indicates the levels of support teachers required and received for the students they identified as having special needs. The majority of teachers indicated that they required the first or second levels of support for the students (70%) they identified. The highest levels of support were needed for approximately 13% of the students identified which is approximately 7% of the total number of students in the participating teachers’ classes. The percent of students for whom teachers received support is consistently smaller than the percent of students at each level for whom teachers required support. As indicated in Table 2, teachers received no support for 28.7% of the students for whom they felt they required a level of support. In fact, the teachers felt under-supported at every level, particularly Levels 2 through 5. Teacher comments indicated that some support came through ORS for 6% of the students identified and through SEG for 17% of the students identified.

Table 2 Level of support required and received for students with special needs.

*Missing data occurred when the teachers filled out a level of need for a student but did not indicate the level of support received. We could not interpret a blank response to the LOS received as "no support received". The blank was treated as missing data and the case omitted from further analysis.

Of particular interest was the discrepancy by level between the support a teacher required and the support actually received for each of the identified students. In order to examine this discrepancy, a discrepancy variable was created by subtracting the level of support required from the level of support received, thus generating a negative number for deficient levels of support. When a teacher received the level of support required the discrepancy was 0; when Level 3 was required but no support was received the discrepancy was –3. The discrepancy data are reported in Table 3. The results indicate that for 48.7% of the students there is a discrepancy of one or more levels. Figure 2 indicates that for 44.9% of the identified students there was no discrepancy (43.1%) or a positive discrepancy (1.6% and 0.2% respectively). Although there was no discrepancy for 43.1% of the students identified, there was a discrepancy of two or more levels for 20.6% of the students while almost half of the teachers were under-supported for the inclusion of students with special needs into their classrooms.

Table 3 The discrepancy between the level of support required and received by the teacher to include each student identified. [Discrepancy = level of support received - level of support required.]

Although inclusion in New Zealand is needs based rather than categorical, there are different initiatives for different areas of student needs. Table 4 shows the number of children identified in specific areas of special need.

Table 4 Number and percent of students requiring support for inclusion by special need area.

The number of students identified by special need area in Table 4 (N = 843) exceed the total number of students identified (N = 499) because many of the children identified have needs in more than one area. The areas in which teachers identified students most frequently are learning (14.7% of the student population) and behaviour/emotional difficulties (8.4%), which together comprised 63% of identified students. The number of students with communication disorders (6.0% of the student population), which often occur with learning and/or behavioural/emotional difficulties, is the third largest area of need.

Overall, 22% of the students were identified as students for whom teachers needed some level of support. Although identification of students in Levels 4 and 5 (1.6% and 1.3% respectively of the student population) is not equivalent to the 3% of students with high needs in the Special Education 2000 pyramid; identification does mean that teachers felt they needed a high level of support to include the student.

To examine at the question of LOS for multiple disability categories a cross tabulation and Chi square statistic (employing the Bonferroni correction as a protection against chance significant cross tabulations) was used with LOS as the dependent variable and type of disability including number of disabilities as the independent variables. Using this method, the best predictor of the dependent variable is the independent variable that splits the dependent variable (p<.05). With a large n significance can be obtained at several levels with predictor variables splitting remaining groups of students with different LOS subset scores.

In the first analysis the number of disabilities identified for each student was included as well as each of the disability categories as independent variables. As shown in Figure 3 the most significant variable is the number of disabilities, with the LOS required increasing as the number of disabilities increased. Students with one disability needed a mean of 1.76 LOS, with two disabilities a mean LOS of 2.12, and with three to six disabilities a mean LOS of 3.35. The mean LOS needed for students with three or more disabilities was not significantly different. None of the categorical disabilities could further significantly split the dependent variable at the next level.

A second analysis was conducted without the number of disabilities predictor variable. In this analysis the category that significantly split the LOS first was intellectual disability.

Those students identified with an intellectual disability required a mean LOS of 3.2 whereas the mean LOS required for students without an intellectual disability was 1.9. For the subset of students with no intellectual disability, communication disorders significantly split the LOS required. Those students who did not have an intellectual disability or communication disorder required a mean LOS of 1.83, while students with no intellectual disability but with a communication disorder required a mean LOS of 2.19.

In the second part of the study we investigated teacher comments regarding support and professional development needs. Italicised statements represent direct quotes from teachers and elaborate upon some of the individual descriptors. Descriptors that were frequently identified by respondents have been represented by quotes. Those descriptors less frequently identified have not been represented by direct quotes to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of participating teachers. The total number of responses in each table do not add up to the total number of participating teachers simply because teachers could offer more than one answer to any question.

Responses by descriptor to the first question are presented in Table 5.

The category ‘other’ includes comments mentioned only once, e.g., lack of parental support, bulk funding by government, greater needs elsewhere and severity of problems.

Table 5 If there is a discrepancy between the level of support you require and the support you receive, what in your opinion are the reasons for this?

Some indicative comments for the frequent descriptors for Question 1 are below:

Lack of Funds. Lack of funds was clearly the most frequent response. Although often simply stated as “lack of funds (!)” more elaboration is given in the quotations below:

There has in the past been a discrepancy. This has been no fault of the school or the system the school has established. I believe we are doing the best we can with the limited resources we have available. Needs are continually arising and government intervention isn’t adjusting to the changes. Funding is not realistically dealing with special needs children. The funding has been narrowed so much that children who do need it can’t have it and schools and class teachers are left to cope. More importantly, don’t all children have equal rights to quality education?

The Learning Support Department is supposed to help but if funding is not available for a particular student they don’t - or didn’t when I needed help desperately! (secondary school teacher)

No Discrepancy. Twelve respondents saw no discrepancy between the support required and received for learners with special needs in their classrooms.

Lack of Support. Eight of the nine comments categorised under this descriptor specifically named lack of support from Specialist Education Services. Lack of support was seen as delay of action, delay in acknowledging referrals, demand exceeding supply, and lack of understanding.

I find it most hard to help children all the time when they are receiving little help from a support team. It is not on to wait over a term for help for some children.

If you do a good job in your room, you are seen to be coping.

The discrepancy between support required and support received is partly due to the fact that to get support takes so long and so many pages of work. It has taken ten weeks to get the support required for one pupil.

Some SES members are excellent and brief you fully; some are letting the side down by not giving more support and follow up.

SES and other outside agencies available to schools are inadequate. If they are able to access a child with special needs, they do not have time or funding to assist beyond the initial consultation the child has to have very high needs before they are even considered. However I have found GLU to be most helpful.

Unskilled Teachers. Comments in this descriptor indicate the concerns of participating teachers to adequately cater for students with special needs in their classrooms.

Absolutely! The pressure on teaching staff is far too high. Only children with very high needs attract funding, whereas ‘at risk’ children receive teacher support if they have a teacher who has the skills to do so. Some children are never identified as children with special needs if the teachers they have don’t have the skills to cope. Identifying a student as having needs means you (the teacher) have to programme for them. A big ask if you are not skilled!

Teacher Aide Difficulties. This descriptor included problems associated with lack of experienced teacher aides and insufficient allocated hours. Other difficulties with teacher aides included scheduling of allocated hours, and the pressures on the teacher aides.

There is not enough Ministry funding to pay for a full time teacher aide’s help. For example, I have a child with Downs Syndrome in my class. She is not a behavioural problem. However to further her education by developing her skills, she needs more teacher aide hours. She is limited by what she can do without this help. Because she is not getting enough hours I feel she is not receiving an equitable education - she is being disadvantaged.

Respondents were asked to identify those structures and systems that were currently in place in their school that successfully supported them to include learners with special needs in their classrooms. They were also asked to suggest structures and/or systems that could be implemented in their school to support them to include learners with special needs. Responses to these questions in descending order of identification are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Structures/systems currently in place in the school and suggested for implementation by teachers for successful support to include learners with special needs in the classroom presented in descending order of frequency.

Not surprisingly, what teachers indicated was currently in place for support and what they suggested could be put in place for support were overlapping in the four most frequently cited areas. Teacher aides, special programmes, support from resource teachers and one to one or small group teaching were the support structures most frequently mentioned. Teachers suggested either external support in terms of personnel and programmes or the freedom to work individually or in small groups with students. Of the fourteen most frequently suggested current or suggested support structures only one, professional development, was an internal change initiated by the teachers.

Teacher Aides. The use of teacher aides was the most frequently cited support structure for teachers. This was the case when teachers were asked to name the systems or structures that currently supported them as well as systems or structures that could be implemented in their school to further support them. When commenting upon teacher aides as a current successful support, the following comments were indicative of responses:

Teacher aides are a wonderful asset.

An excellent teacher aide system that whilst never enough, does go a long way towards filling the need.

Extra teacher aide hours are available which are able to be divided around the children who need extra support. These hours are to be decided within the confines of the school without having to ask for additional support from SES.

Teacher aides in class are a marvellous support. They often are helpful with the normal but behaviourally disturbed other children. It is very helpful to have an adult allied to you to act as an observer of student behaviour and as a second opinion. AS WELL as their obvious role of modifying the curriculum for their assigned student(s) they also can move around and jolly along others in moments when their student is coping well alone.

Similarly, when commenting upon structures or systems that could be implemented to further support them, the following are examples of responses given.

Teacher aides who could work with a small group of children to support the teacher, rather than children on an individual basis.

Teacher aides could relieve teachers of their increasing administrative load so they can devote more time and energy to teaching.

More teacher aide time/hours so that children can be helped early on in their problems so that the gap between where they are and where they should be widens.

Far more implementation of teacher aides in the classroom to check/modify student’s work.

Attach a permanent trained teacher aide in each classroom over and above anything ORS students may have.

Resource/Support Teacher. Resource/support teachers were the second most common current successful support in schools identified by teachers. It was also the fourth most common suggestion for systems or structures that could be implemented to further support teachers. In our descriptor for resource/support teachers we included all support teachers identified by respondents (e.g. reading recovery teacher, resource teacher special needs and ESOL teacher).

A very supportive teacher of special needs who works incredibly hard.

The support teacher means that I can quickly get answers and support if needed.

Our special needs teachers - you can approach them at any time about any child and vice versa. They are invaluable! We are very lucky.

Participating teachers responded that, in general, they would like to receive hands on rather than theoretical support from resource and support teachers. They brought up issues of the resource teacher working with either the learner with special needs or with the rest of the class (enabling the classroom teacher to work one to one with the learner with special needs).

Extra RTSN to provide release time in preparing resources; IEPs; planning; curriculum modifications; to lower numbers in cross grouping for reading and maths, and to take bulk of class so that the teacher could work with special needs students.

We need adequate support in the classroom for children who don’t belong/fit into the conventional classroom environment.

I think that if the special needs teachers are spread thinly it is the children and their programmes that are going to suffer. I would be happy to see our current structure remain. Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing.

Special Programmes. Special Programmes were identified by teachers as being current successful support structures, and were also identified frequently when teachers were asked to identify what support structures could be implemented in their schools to further support them. The special programmes identified included: Reading Recovery, behaviour management (including anger management and peer mediation), social skills, counselling, extension for students with special abilities, remedial (including reading, maths, and oral/ written language), speech language therapy, homework programmes, peer tutoring, buddy classes, English as a second language (ESOL) and correspondence school programmes. Many schools named specific programmes (e.g. TARP, HELP, MSB, and STEP).

We have a behaviourally management system school wide to assist in this area.

Deputy Principal runs programmes for children with special abilities and also helps with one of my reading groups

Being able to send some students who need extra help to the extension room is helpful.

As suggestions for structures or systems that could be implemented for further support, the following comments regarding special programmes are examples of teacher responses.

We need specialised tuition for some pupils, for example, physically disabled students should work with a physiotherapist and gifted students need to have experts come in.

I would like to see a remedial programme in place. 40 minutes in the morning for children who are experiencing difficulty with basic facts ( renaming, multiplication etc). The children could be selected through class- based tests and referred on. This could even include enrichment in handwriting skills and ball co-ordination skills in physical education

One to One Teaching/Small Groups. The other structure or system that was suggested as both a current successful support and one that could be implemented was one to one teaching or small group teaching.

[One good system is] trained teacher time funded by the Board of Trustees to allow a teacher to work with small groups in various areas, e.g., spelling and reading.

Teachers were asked if they had any other comments regarding support needs. Table 7 outlines the most frequent responses.

Table 7 Responses by descriptor to the fourth question: Do you have any other comments?

Some indicative comments for the frequent descriptors for Question 4 are below:

Funding Issues. The issue of funding emerges again as a concern for the respondents with eleven respondents mentioning insufficient money to support learners with special needs in regular settings. In addition, single respondents made comments highlighting inadequate funding to support families, bulk funding, and inequities of funding between learners with special needs and abilities.

It is really frustrating seeing a student disadvantaged because of funding issues. We’ve been sold on “inclusion” because of the issues: human rights, best educational opportunities, etc., but the practicalities of dealing with students when funding is denied and teachers are loaded with more work and accountability will begin changing teacher attitudes – which are vital to the success of inclusion.

I think this school supports both staff and children wonderfully well within the constraints of available finance.

I believe too much time and money is being poured into the wrong end of special needs (CWLD) instead of spending time and money on children (CWSA) who are “just as special.”

Needs for Professional Development. Ten respondents identified their own lack of preparedness for catering for learners with special needs. A number highlighted the needs for professional development and inservice training.

Sometimes I feel that we need expert advice on what to do to manage these difficult children – few of us have had specialist training.

I feel that I am not well enough informed on what students have difficulties and often how to help them.

Additional staff development on special needs. e.g., ADHD and in particular how to deal with some children with special needs who are not in your class but may have difficulties at playtime/lunchtime. Training in negotiation, behaviour management etc.

Time Issues. Time is a precious resource for teachers. Respondents identified not having enough time primarily because of the amount of time learners with special needs demand for planning, the IEP process, special programmes, and behaviour management.

Having to plan and make sure IEP goals are being worked towards takes a lot of extra of time on top of planning for groups in all subject areas for the class. Also finding appropriate resources takes time. I think this issue of time should be looked at. Teacher aide time can only be effective if the teacher has planned appropriate programmes to follow.

Less time should be spent on IEPs. No other child in the classroom has this amount of time spent on evaluating their programme.

It is successful to have the teacher run the programme but release time is needed for this to happen.

All schools need support for teachers especially taking children with learning and behaviour difficulties as this takes up a lot of teaching time and those children are taking a lot of extra hours to help them cope and keep on task.

Successful inclusion requires teachers to have time to gain necessary specialist knowledge of the condition from experts and plan an appropriate modification of the lesson plan, then to communicate this to the teacher aide. If this time is not made available then the child’s special needs cannot be met and they are merely being babysat.

Need Smaller Class Sizes. Six respondents commented on the need for smaller classes to successfully cater for students with special needs.

If class numbers are below 25 coping with individuals is manageable - any higher and special needs children tend to miss out.

It is very frustrating working with large classes when you identify needs in children and are unable to work with them because of lack of time and resources and funding available.

I really feel my greatest problem is coping with the sheer numbers of children in my room. I know I have strengths in teaching to individual needs, but the job becomes almost impossible as the numbers of students with needs rise and total class numbers remain at 30 to 31.

ESOL students at a senior level need tutors in their specialist subjects, e.g., chemistry and physics. With 25 students in a class I do not have time to tutor these students. If class sizes were smaller then maybe I would have the time.

Lack of Support from Outside Agencies. Six respondents commented on the need for support from outside agencies and highlighted the issue of response time for referrals.

I want support when it is required/needed – not going on a waiting list.

I have had to be very assertive (to the point of rudeness) with some outside personnel to show them what is required.

Children with extreme behaviours need immediate backup and support. Classroom teachers know within what is acceptable and not. However by the time the application is made to SES you have just about reached the end of your tether. GLU is more supportive but again there is a wait.

We have to wait a long time to see some outside agencies.

Need more Teacher Aides and Support Staff. Respondents have consistently commented about this issue in all four questions. Teacher aide difficulties were identified as a reason for discrepancy between support required and received. Teacher aides were the most frequently identified support structure/system in place in the schools. More teacher aide hours was the support most frequently suggested that could be implemented to successfully include children with special needs in the classrooms. Although the number of additional comments regarding teacher aides and support staff is somewhat smaller, final pertinent comments are included.

In larger schools a resource teacher special needs is vital.

I find it invaluable to have classroom teacher aide time to help with classroom management, especially during reading time. I find that I am more able to give my full attention to the children whom I am working with while the others are able to have their needs addressed.

Increased workload means it is increasingly difficult for teachers to upskill themselves. More administrative support would enable them as professionally people to spend more time actually planning and teaching.

The following two comments from respondents reflect the general tone of many of the participants. The respondents were optimistic that the concept of inclusion is a goal to work toward, however, in practice they voice concern that the necessary support structures and training are not available for teachers to enable the successful inclusion rather than the maindumping of students with special needs.

The inclusion of mainstream children is a great concept, but is only workable for the teacher and other class members if there are support systems in place.

I believe teachers have not been ‘properly trained’ and equipped to deal with special needs children. I believe these children should be in the mainstream and that to maintain quality education for all, more support is needed. It is unfair to suggest that teachers are not coping with these children. I believe at my school we are doing the best we can with the funding, time, resources and skills we have, but that the expectations of government and society are really quite unrealistic.

Conclusion

This study focused on the classroom teacher’s perceptions of support for student diversity because it is the teacher who is primarily responsible for meeting each student’s needs. The study had four major aims. The first aim was to establish the numbers of students for whom teachers needed support and assistance to successfully include in classroom learning and activities. The second aim was to investigate the relative number of students in the different categories of disabilities for which teachers required support; that is, the categories of need teachers were most likely to encounter and require support to include. The third aim was to examine the support teachers required and received to fully cater for all children both socially and academically. The fourth objective was to examine the support structures teachers most frequently indicated supported them.

In order to achieve these goals, teachers identified students for whom they needed support and indicated the area of student need and the LOS required to include the student. LOS were examined in a number of ways. First, we examined LOS in terms of any discrepancy teachers experienced between support they required and received for an individual student. Second, LOS was investigated regarding the number of disability areas of concern to the teacher and the disability category. Third, we investigated the type of support available and necessary to adequately support teachers in inclusive education.

The results of the research indicated that teachers identified approximately 22% of the students in their classes as students for whom they needed additional support. The lowest level of support was required for 32.3% of the identified students. Support at levels 4 and 5 were required for 6.6% of the identified students. Teachers experienced a discrepancy of one or more levels of support for approximately 49% of the identified students. In other words, teachers were under-supported for approximately half of the students identified. The largest area of identified need was students with learning disabilities (14.7% of all students), followed by behavioural/emotional difficulties (8.4%) and communication disorders (6.0%). As anticipated, teachers indicated that they required higher LOS for children with more than one disability. In fact, the LOS required increases for one, two, and three or more disability areas. Results indicated that students with an intellectual disability required more support than students without. Of those students without a learning disability, students with communication disorders required an higher level of support than those without.

This would suggest that teachers have students with learning and behavioural/emotional difficulties in their classes for whom they receive no support or are under supported relative to what they feel is required to successfully include students. Teachers are required to teach students with learning difficulties and manage students with behavioural/emotional difficulties without curricular or resource support.

With respect to questions regarding teacher perceptions of support discrepancy, teachers identified funding issues and professional development or the need for skilled teachers as reasons for the discrepancies between support required and received. Respondents also identified sources of support that would/do facilitate the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms. The sources that are available, or teachers would like to have available, are teachers aide hours, special programmes, small group teaching, resource/support teachers and support from principals, senior staff and colleagues.

In a practical sense teachers are concerned with the practical support they receive in the classroom to be available for the needs of students with disabilities (McKinnon & Gordon, 1999). Nevertheless half of the students identified were under supported. In a very real sense, teachers are struggling with students for whom they need support in the midst of policies purported to provide that support. In a practical way the concept of inclusive education has not been fully supported for the included students, their peers and their teachers.

On a more positive note, the four most frequently suggested or requested means for support (see Table 6) can be implemented with some resourcefulness on the part of schools. Bourke, Carroll-Lind, Kearney and Bevan-Brown (1999) have suggested that it is the resourceful use of existing resources within a school that makes the difference between a successful or unsuccessful inclusive school. As funding for special education is finite, the following suggestions in relation to the four most frequently cited means for support may enable schools to better support their teachers, while keeping within budget constraints.

1. Because teacher aides are such a frequently cited support resource, schools should think about the best use of teacher aides. For example, schools could consider allocating teacher aides to teachers rather than to individual learners. This would allow teachers to use the aides in the most efficient way, for example freeing the teacher from administrative duties so they can provide support to the learner. This could also discourage the unhelpful dependencies that can develop between students and their teacher aides, which can be detrimental in fostering inclusive practices.
2. Schools could allow opportunities and time for teachers to consult and collaborate with colleagues, particularly senior and resource teachers both within and outside of the school. For example, this could include observing the practices of other teachers and discussing with them methods and strategies that have proven successful. Meeting times or part of meeting times could be specified for discussion of special education issues to provide opportunities for collaboration among colleagues. Senior staff, colleagues, the special needs co-ordinator or an outside expert could be used to establish a mentoring system among staff for both support and professional development.
3. Schools could implement school wide programmes that help meet the needs of a diverse range of learners such as social skills programmes, peer tutoring programmes or remedial or enrichment programmes.
4. Use existing strengths within the school to allow teachers to schedule time each week to work with a small group within the regular class.

Successful inclusive education will take time to develop in New Zealand and will be dependent on a variety of factors. Central to this success will be the adequate provision of support for teachers. Schools that recognise and provide for the support needs of teachers will be more successful in creating inclusive environments.

References

Bailey, J.G. (1995). Stress, morale and acceptance of change by special educators. In C.Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools? (pp.15-29). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Bevan-Brown, J., Bevan-Brown, W., Bourke, R., Carroll-Lind, J., Chapman, J., Cullen, J., Grant, S., Kearney, A., McAlpine, D., Mentis, Morton, M., O’Neill,, J., Poskitt, J., Prochnow, J., Ryba, K., & Stringer, P. (1999). Special Education Education 2000: Monitoring and evaluation of the policy. Phase one final report. Palmerston North, NZ: Massey University

Bourke, R., Carroll-Lind, J., Kearney, A., & Bevan-Brown, J. (1999, July). Tools for change: Resources, resourcefulness and resiliency. Paper presented to the Sixth Biennial International Conference of the International Association of special Education in Sydney, Australia.

Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T.J. (2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 115-135.

Davies, A. (1999, February). Special Education 2000: A national framework. Paper presented at the Special Education 2000 Research Conference in Auckland, New Zealand.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalism of special education. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Roody, D. (1990). Using what is known about change to inform the regular education initiative. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 51-56.

McKinnon, D.H., & Gordon, C. (1999). An investigation of teachers’ support needs for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Special Education Perspectives, 8(2), 3-14.

McKinnon, D.H., Gordon, C., Bentley-Williams, R., Prunty,A., & Finlay, A. (1997, September). An investigation of teachers’ support needs for the inclusion of students with disabilities in normal classrooms. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Special Education Conference.

McKinnon, D.H., & Gordon, C. (1999). An investigation of teachers’ support needs for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Special Education Perspectives, 8(2), 3-14.

Ministry of Education (1996). Special Education 2000. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education (1998). 1997 TFEA Survey for 1998 TFEA Deciles: List of schools. Wellington: Author.

Mitchell, D. Policies and systems for students with special education needs. In D. Fraser, R. Moltzen, & K. Ryba (Ed.), Learners with special needs in Aotearoa New Zealand (2^nd ed.) (pp. 29-49). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

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

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Company.

Thousand, J.S., & Villa, R.A. (1991). A futuristic view of the REI: A response to Jenkins, Pious, & Jewell. Exceptional Children, 57, 556-62.

Index