Presented at ISEC 2000

Attitudes of PGCE Students at the University of Manchester Towards Childhood Speech and Language Difficulties

Julie Marshall - Faculty of Education University of Manchester, UK

Contributions from: Sue Ralph, Sue Palmer, Ivy Brember .

Abstract

The attitudes of a cohort of PGCE (primary and secondary) students at the University of Manchester 1998 - 1999 were measured, using a written questionnaire which comprised open and closed ended questions, and a series of focus group interviews.

The quantitative data is being analysed using SPSS. Both the qualitative and quantitative data are being used to identify recurring themes. Preliminary findings indicate a range of opinions about inclusion. The data will also be used to highlight aspects of attitudes which may be challenged, to improve the experiences of children with speech and language difficulties, who are increasingly being educated within the mainstream.

Introduction

Enderby and Davies (1989) estimated that 12.1% of "early school-aged children have speech or language problems" (p304), with 549,582 children aged 3-9 years old needing the services of a speech and language therapist. Thus, the issue of how this large and heterogeneous group of children progress in school is a matter of concern. For the purposes of this research a child with a speech and language difficulty/ communication difficulty was defined (see methodology, below) as one who does not communicate verbally as well as other children of the same age. For example, the child may have difficulties in understanding what other people say, constructing and saying (complete) sentences, pronouncing certain sounds, using language in a socially appropriate way, using their vocal cords (voice), stuttering or stammering. These difficulties have a number of causes including: specific language impairment, language delay, severe deprivation, phonological disorder, articulatory difficulties, deafness, learning difficulties, autism, cerebral palsy, cleft palate and other physical difficulties. However, this group does NOT include those children who experience difficulties in some situations because English is not their first/main language or because they have a strong regional accent or dialect.

Increasing numbers of children with disabilities are being educated within mainstream settings. A number of the children moving from special to mainstream education may have speech and language difficulties, either in isolation or in addition to other disabilities. Because so many children are being mainstreamed it is essential that all teachers are competent to work with them. Futhermore, it may important for the successful inclusion of this group of children, to consider how mainstream teachers regard them. This concern prompted the current research project.

The relevance of teachers' attitudes towards children with speech and language difficulties in mainstream schools

Teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion/integration of children with disabilities in mainstream settings have been researched by many authors (Vlachou and Barton, 1994; Mittler, 1996; Ainscow, 1997; Thomas, Walker and Webb, 1998). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996:1) reviewing research on teacher attitudes in the USA, Canada and Australia, found that across some 28 studies published between 1958 and 1995 a 'majority of teachers agreed with the general concept of mainstreaming'. They also comment that teachers' views on mainstreaming should be taken account of, as they are the people who carry the responsibility for implementing the policy However, the authors could find no research as to how teachers feel specifically about having more children with speech and language difficulties within their mainstream classrooms.

Evidence of teachers' attitudes towards children with speech and language difficulties

The attitudes of teachers towards children with various types of speech and language difficulties have been the subject of studies by a number of authors from as early as the 1950's e.g. Lloyd and Ainsworth (1954). Since then studies have been carried out measuring teachers' attitudes towards children who stutter, have articulatory difficulties or more general speech/language impairment. Crowe and Walton (1981) found that knowledge of and a positive attitude towards children who stammer, were positively correlated by a sample of 100 teachers in the USA. Yeakle and Cooper (1976), who measured mainly knowledge rather than attitudes about stuttering, felt that increased knowledge in the 521 American teachers in their study, would enable them to work better with stutterers and would encourage more positive attitudes. Horsley and Fitzgibbon (1987) found that a sample of 95 professionals, including 11 trainee teachers in the UK, consistently rated stuttering children more negatively than those who did not stutter, using Semantic Differential Scales.

Ruscello, Stutler and Toth (1983) asked 116 American teachers to describe children with mild articulatory difficulties and found that 65% of the most frequently used terms were judged to be negative, in comparison to 20% positive terms. They suggest that teachers need a better understanding of speech and language difficulties. However, there were no judgements made about children without articulatory difficulties, to provide a control. Rice, Hadley and Alexander (1993) asked 283 related professionals, including teachers, to rate children with and without speech and language difficulties. All groups rated those children with speech/language impairment (and their parents) more negatively than those without. Bennett and Runyan (1982) found that of 282 American educators asked about the effects of communication difficulties on children, 66% felt that they affected academic and/or social skills. Finally, in a small study of trainee teachers, by Seligman, Tucker and Lambert (1972), whilst not directly considering children with speech and language difficulties, they found that children's voices were a significant factor in the subjects' evaluations of children on such factors as their intelligence, enthusiasm and self-confidence. The studies above suggest that negative attitudes are often held about children with speech and language difficulties and that these attitudes may extend to attributes unrelated to their communication skills. More positive attitudes appear to be desirable. However, considering the research above and other studies not reported here, there remains a need for more research, because:

This study was designed in order to address some of the issues above.

Aims of the research

This research aimed to:

Methodology

This data was collected as part of a larger study. The 1998/9 cohort of PGCE students (both primary and secondary) in the Department of Education at the University of Manchester were the subjects (N = 258) (See table 1). The main research instrument used was a written questionnaire. A questionnaire was developed and piloted on 15 PGCE students, five speech and language therapists and five qualified teachers. A recurring issue concerned the definition of speech and language difficulties. (For example, many of the PGCE students and some of the teachers considered second language speakers to be experiencing speech and language difficulties.) As a result two questionnaires were developed. The first was very brief, containing only two questions, asking respondents to define a) 'a speech and language difficulty' and b) 'a communication difficulty'. These responses and the views of five speech and language therapy lecturers, were used to produce a comprehensive and comprehensible definition of the term 'a speech and language difficulty', which was included at the beginning of the second questionnaire. Respondents were asked to use that definition when responding to the questionnaire.

This second questionnaire was more detailed, containing 22 items This covered demographic information, experiences of people with speech and language difficulties, attitudes towards children with speech and language difficulties and views on the educational placement of such children. There were a number of open-ended questions, which allowed students to elaborate on closed questions and thus provided a space for the Student Voice. Voice is an important tool in educational research (Schratz, 1993), in that it allows insight into the subject's view of what is being studied, and not simply that of the researchers. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996), state that it is important that teachers' voices are heard in the debate about inclusion. PGCE tutors were asked to distribute to all PGCE students, during the first two weeks of their course, in October 1998.

Data analysis

The first questionnaire was not analysed any further. The second questionnaire was analysed using SPSS v9.0. Some content analysis was carried out on the open items. Only data from selected items are presented in this paper. The results from the most detailed attitude question, which consisted of 35 items, were used to calculate an 'attitude score'. Decisions about which responses were considered to demonstrate positive or negative attitudes were made by asking 14 academics in related fields for their views on the items in this question. Using a similar method to Yairi and Williams (1970), any items which did not receive a unanimous positive/neutral or negative/neutral rating were excluded from the calculation of the 'attitude score'. (See table 2) Three items were excluded on this basis. For the remaining 32 items positive attitudes were given a score of +1 per item, neutral a score of 0 and negative a score of -1. The total score could thus range from -32 to +32.

30 of the items were further divided into sub-sections, related to:

a) the 'teacher's expectations of the child' (10 items) (Possible range -10 to +10

b) the 'teacher's feelings about him/herself' (15 items)(Possible range -15 to +15)

c) the 'teacher's feelings about resources (5 items) (Possible score -5 to +5)

to give three sub-sections. (see table 2). The two remaining items were not included in any sub-section.

Results and discussion

154 subjects responded between October and December 1998, yielding a response rate of 57.5%. Of these 60 were male and 94 female. 5 cases were excluded from the analysis as they contained a large amount of missing data, thus giving a final response rate of 55.6%. Of the 149 subjects included in the analysis 69.8% were born in 1970 or later, giving them an age of 28 or less at the time of the study. The distribution of respondents by teaching subject is given in table 1.

We would have expected a higher overall response rate considering the mode of distribution. The response rate from the Primary PGCE students (22%) was particularly poor. There is, however, evidence to suggest that not all students were given an equal opportunity to take part in the research.

Responses to attitude questions

Table 2 displays the results of the main questions addressing attitudes.

Table 2: Percentage responses on main attitude question

(N=149)

The overall attitude score derived from responses to 32 attitude items yielded a range of -8 to +22 with a mean of +9.8 (see Figure 1). Two points need to be made concerning the sample. This was a selected sample (all were training to be teachers) and it was a self-selected sample (some students chose not to take part in the study).

Concerning the issue of resources the trainee teachers expressed concern about support. Most of the sample did not feel that teaching children with a speech and language difficulty would take up too much of their time or scarce resources. The authors consider these to be positive attitudes. Only 18.1% of the sample felt they would have adequate support but a large percentage (61.7%) did not feel adequately prepared to teach children with a speech and learning disability. It must be remembered that this questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the PGCE course and this attitude could have changed by the end.

The teachers' feelings about themselves were mixed. It was disturbing to find that only 10.5% of the sample felt competent to teach children with speech and language difficulties, with a further 33.6% saying that they would not be competent. There was a general feeling of interest in this group of children, with the majority of the sample feeling that teaching this particular group would be worthwhile. However, the numbers of teachers, despite being in the minority, expressing negative attitudes such as 'feeling sorry for the child' (29.5%), 'scared of working with..' (13.4%) 'feeling pity' and being self-conscious' (both 11.4%) and 'not feeling happy working with children with a speech and language difficulty (10.1%) are cause for concern.

The findings in the section relating to the teachers' expectations of the child were on the whole very positive, with very few expressing negative attitudes towards the child 'being helpless' (0.7%) or lazy (2.0%). This section was composed of strongly stereotypic attitude statements and although most of the sample strongly disagreed, some did agree with them. For example, 'children would be likely to be deprived' (4.7%), 'disruptive' (3.4%), 'friendly' (10.7%), 'intelligent' (6.7%) and 'withdrawn' (8.1%). It would be interesting to explore more fully the group who neither agreed or disagreed with the statements in order to more fully understand their views.

Figure 1.

Contact with/knowledge of person/s with speech and language difficulties

47% (70) of respondents) knew someone (not necessarily a child) with a speech and language difficulty. The most difficulty most frequently experienced by that person was a stutter or stammer (N=24), followed by pronunciation difficulties (N=14), hearing impairment/ deafness (N=8) language difficulty (N=7).

A T test for independent samples were carried out to determine whether knowing someone with a speech and language difficulty was significantly related to the attitude scores. No significant differences for either the total score or any of the three sub-sections referred to in table 2 were found, although those with a family member or work colleague had lower (more negative) total scores and those with a friend had higher (more positive), scores than respondents who did not know someone in those categories. This is an interesting finding and may be explained by the fact that friends are chosen and family/work colleagues are not. This indicates the need for further research.

When respondents were asked how they would feel about having a child with a speech and language difficulty in their class from the next week, 141 people responded, making between them a total of 290 comments. Again, although it is impossible to make objective judgements, the authors considered that 33 of the comments were positive, 72 were neutral or unclear and 185 were negative. The most frequent positive comment was that the respondent felt positive (N=9) and the most frequent negative comments related to feelings of nervousness, apprehension and anxiety. Some comments were explicitly negative, for example 'panic', and 'I would feel not prepared to face the challenge'. For many of the comments which appeared to be superficially positive the authors would argue that they are in fact 'negative' because they are often conditional, for example: 'I would really want to help the child, but would find it difficult to manage the whole class as well'; 'I would feel faced with a challenge but would look for help and advice'; 'depend on the type of speech difficulty and the type of help I received'; 'I feel it would be a positive challenge but I would like to be supported e.g. someone in class to sit and help in class and help the child or take them out of the lesson to work in a unit of some kind'.

The conditions placed on these comments were mainly related to the teachers' perceptions of their own lack of training to work with 'these children', the need for more information about the difficulties and disabilities, the lack of physical resources and ideas about how they expected the child to feel, for example: 'I would feel unprepared but would do everything I could to educate myself so that the child wouldn't feel isolated' and 'I would need advice and training on how to cope otherwise the child may not receive the training he deserved'

Attitudes towards education

Respondents were asked about appropriate educational placement for children with a range of disabilities. They were most in favour of mainstream schooling for a child who stammers (95.2%) and least in favour of it for a child with no speech (12.8%). (Other results were for a child with a sever speech sound difficulty: 19.6%, a wheelchair user 91.4%: a child with severe neurofibromatosis: 55.3%) There was no significant correlation between views on educational placement for children with different types of disability apart from a weak positive correlation between 'a child with severe speech sound /pronunciation difficulty' and 'a child who does not speak at all'. Using 139 valid cases, a Cramer's V value of 0.383 was obtained (p=0.00)). There was also a low positive correlation between responses to educational preference for 'a child who uses a wheelchair' and 'a child who has severe facial neurofibromatosis'. (Using 126 valid cases, a Cramer's V value of 0.138 was obtained (p=0.307)). None of the other items were significantly correlated with one another. This may suggest that respondents have opinions on education that are not blanket judgements about children with disabilities in general, but make judgements specific to each type of disability. Previous research suggests that some disabilities are more acceptable to the public than others (Lloyd, 1993, Corbett and Ralph, 1995).

Table 3: Respondents' views on children with a range of disabilities being in this/her own class

Similar results were obtained when respondents were asked about their views on having children with the same range of disabilities in their own classes, although more were prepared to have a child in their own class than in mainstream schools in general. This may be seen as a positive sign of many students' views on inclusion. Comments on this question included: 'I'd probably not welcome the extra workload if extra workload were involved'; 'Depends a lot on the severity and whether highly differentiated work was involved'. Although most students did not indicate that they would not welcome a child with a disability into their class, again riders were attached, such as dependence upon the severity, or extra workload. Tables 4-7 demonstrate and compare the responses to questions about education of children in general and educational placement in the respondent's class (Only those items which relate to speech and language difficulties are included here)

Table 4: Views on the educational placement of children who stutter/stammer

Table 5: Views on the educational placement of children who have a severe speech sound problem

Table 6: Views on the educational placement of children who do not speak at all

Table 7: Views on the educational placement of children who have a cleft lip/palate

Overall these four tables demonstrate that for the majority of respondents, their views on educational placement showed some consistency i.e. if they thought that a child with a particular disability should be placed in a mainstream then they were also prepared to teach them. Correspondingly, if they thought that the child should be placed in a special school then many were not prepared to teach the child. For each type of child there was a group of respondents who thought that the children should be placed in a unit in a mainstream school and there was a split response over whether they themselves would be prepared to teach such a child. These results may reflect the differing experiences or understanding of units, as this issue was not explored in the questionnaire.

Overall responses to this item give cause for concern about the implications for inclusion as a significant number of teachers still consider that children with severe speech and language difficulties should be educated in special schools.

Discussion

Discussion In this research trainee teachers were asked about their attitudes towards children with speech and language difficulties and what type of schooling they thought this group of children should receive. Although the attitude scores obtained figure 1 appear to be positive, on closer examination some of these positive feelings are couched in negative manners. For example, voices such as: 'I'd feel positively challenged BUT would need more information, to know the history of the child, the nature and cause of the disability, special training and more resources'; 'I would be OK but what about the child themselves and the other children in the class? Would it be fair to either side?'; 'Worried that the child would be stretched from the work that I did in class'

The positivity in many cases, is conditional and in others the hesitancy comes from a feeling 'of course I would be willing ……. but would it be fair?' Although we would not dispute the need for knowledge, we question the concept of the 'extra need to know', which appears to be restricted to the case of disabled children.

As Oliver (1995:73) so powerfully points out, 'In my view, teaching is teaching, regardless of the range or needs of the pupils …Traditionally the education of disabled children has been provided as a 'separate, segregated and special basis' (p.67) and that the study of inclusion and exclusion, in the context of inclusive education, 'is commonly thought to concern a group of students already distinguished, and singled out for potential exclusion, by their category as having 'special needs' (Booth, 1996 cited in Booth, Ainscow and Dyson, 1997, p.338). Oliver (1995) believes that this history of exclusion can only be broken by completely reorganising the system, in contrast with the minor adjustments that the Warnock report and others recommended. Otherwise inclusion will continue to be defined in terms of both inclusion and exclusion, as Booth, Ainscow and Dyson (1997:337), have described them: 'inclusion in and exclusion from education as respectively the processes of increasing and reducing the participation of students in the cultures, curricula and communities of local mainstream schools' rather than: 'Inclusive education is concerned with reducing all exclusionary pressures and all devaluations of students whether on the basis of disability, attainment, 'race', gender, class, family structure, lifestyle or sexuality' (p. 338). This second definition represents a major rethink of how schools should be managed to include all children. What this means is that it will take more than teachers acquiring extra skills and knowledge in order to facilitate the process of integration. Fundamental changes in the system need to take place.' …the arguments usually advanced against the integration until teachers have been properly trained can be seen as rationalisations to preserve the status quo rather than genuine concerns about the abilities of teachers to cope with a whole range of new demands' (Oliver, 1995:72). He went on to say that 'an essential prerequisite of inclusion is the acquisition of a commitment on the part of all teachers to work with all children, regardless of their needs. Only when teachers acquire this commitment can inclusion be truly achieved." (p.73)

A few of our sample seemed to have this type of commitment. For example, 'The child is just another child'; The majority were very concerned with resources and special training. For example,'(I would feel) under prepared and ill equipped not having sufficient training'; 'I would feel ill prepared to deal with such a child although with training and support this would not be a problem'; 'I haven't been trained to deal with this.' However, our sample were still insisting that additional training was essential if children with speech and language difficulties are to be included in mainstream education. One student said: 'This questionnaire has made me realise just how very little I know about children with language and speech difficulties and I would like to learn more about such children's needs'. This is supported by previous research findings over the last twenty-five years (Baker and Gottlieb 1980; Gans 1985; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera and Lesa 1991; Whinery, Fuchs and Fuchs 1991; Houck and Rogers 1994. Gallagher (1985;) Gans (1985) and Leyser, (1988) thought that training could increase awareness and that 'students' attitudes become more positive after extended training' (p. 69).

Our research suggests that with regard to PGCE courses and disability issues, the emphasis needs to be focused on the inclusion debate as a precursor to discussing resources and special training. We agree with Oliver (1995) that education needs to be radically restructured to include and not exclude all students and that teacher education needs to challenge existing traditional attitudes towards the education of disabled children. A significant percentage of our sample, despite trying to be positive, still gave stereotypical answers to questions relating to inclusion. That is, all children should in principle be included, but the following considerations needed to be taken into account: the severity of the disability; that extra training would be required; extra resources would be needed etc. One worrying response to the question that 'would you be prepared to have a child with a speech and language difficulty in your class said, 'I consider I should have been asked first because it represents more stress, work and responsibility plus will have an impact on the way I teach'. If we are to change attitudes and move towards inclusive education for all students we have much work to do at the level of teacher training.

From the perspectives of this study's participants', the three main obstacles to the inclusion of children with speech and language difficulties appear to be: lack of time, lack of resources and lack of training, all of which are supported by previous research. Lack of training has already been already discussed. Lack of resources, which included both materials and personnel were also mentioned by Gans (1985); Coates (1989); Myles and Simpson (1992). Both Gans' and Myles and Simpson's research identified reduced class size as being important. Lack of time was also a factor in studies by Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, and Lesa (1991); Diebold and Von Eschenbach and Gans (1985). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1995:71) state 'a majority of teachers agreed with the general concept of mainstreaming/inclusion, and a slight majority were willing to implement mainstreaming/inclusion practices in their own classes'. Our research has similar findings with similar proportions. Most other studies start from the question of what training/resources are needed and, although we agree that these are important issues, we feel very strongly that attitudes should be challenged in order to maximise the effects of any improvements in training /resources. Fundamentally we support Oliver's (1995) view that the whole system needs a 'radical rethink' whereby we tackle attitudes first and resources/training second.

Limitations of the study

This study has many limitations and raises further research questions. For example the questionnaire contained mainly closed questions, study reflects self-reported perceptions and the sample may have been biased towards those participants and tutors with an interest in the topic.

Implications for the training of teachers

Although these data were collected at the start of the PGCE course (when it could be argued that students may be no different in their opinions than members of the public), they still provide valuable data about the baseline values which teacher trainers need to start from. The authors consider that the changes needed to improve teachers' attitudes towards children with speech and language difficulties require changes which go beyond issues restricted to children with speech and language difficulties. We suggest that two conditions need to be met to improve teachers' abilities to include children with speech and language difficulties. The first is a commitment to the philosophy of including all children within the mainstream school setting and to define inclusive education in a truly inclusive manner. Given the historical tendency for special education to remain as a separate field that works in parallel with the mainstream system, it is essential that the term 'inclusive education' should not simply become a new way of referring to traditional practices.

The second condition is increased knowledge. Whilst we consider that that the commitment to inclusion is vital, we also acknowledge that there are specific knowledge, skills and information related to children with speech and language difficulties, which would increase teachers' abilities to fulfil such children's potential. It is our view that if the first condition is in place, then it will facilitate desire to achieve the second, but the second condition may fail if met in isolation from the first. We are not arguing that it is pointless to offer disability specific information until an appropriate philosophy has been developed, rather that the two aspects must be developed in tandem. Thus, helping teachers to assist children with speech and language difficulties, to the best of (both of) their abilities requires a consideration of the wider issues regarding teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers who enter the profession when it was considered the norm for children with disabilities to be educated in a separate and segregated system, will need to be offered the opportunity for further study to discuss the philosophy of inclusive education. From our study we have found that trainee teachers are still placing an emphasis on their perceived lack of knowledge to enable them to teach this group of children. This perception may be the result of a combination of attitudes and experiences, such as fear of disability and their own experiences with disabled people. All teachers need to be confident so that they can teach all children. In our view this may be achieved by further training, but above all by encouraging them to discuss their fears of teaching disabled children and by encouraging them to re-consider their attitudes towards the inclusion of all children in mainstream schools.

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (1997) Towards Inclusive Schooling. British Journal of Special Education. 24 (1) 3-6.

Baker, J. and Gottlieb, J. (1980) Attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming in children.

J.Gottlieb (Ed.) Educating mentally retarded persons in the mainstream. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bennett, W. and Runyan, C. (1982) Educators' perceptions of the effects of communication disorders upon educational performance. Language speech and hearing services in schools, 13, 260-263.

Booth, T. (1996) Stories of exclusion: natural and unnatural selection. In E. Blyth and J. Milner (eds.), Exclusion from School (London: Routledge).

Booth, T., Ainscow, M. and Dyson, A. Understanding inclusion and exclusion in the English competitive system. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol.1 No. 4, pp. 337- 355, October - December 1997.

Coates, R.D. (1989) The regular education initiative and opinions of regular classroom teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 532-536.

Diibold, M.H. and Von Eschenbach, J.F. (1991) Teacher educator predictions of regular class teacher perceptions of mainstreaming. Teacher education and Special Education, 14, 221 -227.

Gans, K.D. (1985) Willingness of regular and special educators to teach students with handicaps. Exceptional Children,8, 188-197.

Gallagher, P.A. (1985) In-service: A mandated special education course and its effects on regular classroom teachers. Teacher education and Special education. 8(2) 59-65.

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

Leyser, Y. (1988) The impact of training in mainstreaming on teacher attitudes, management techniques, and the behavior of disabled students. The Exceptional Child. 35 (20 85-97.

Lloyd, T. (1993) The Charity Business, London; John Murray.

Mittler, P. (19996) Preparing to teach all children. Managing Schools Today. 13-15.

Myles, B S and Simpson, R.L. (19920 Regular educators' modification preferences that facilitate acceptance of students with behavioural disorders and learning disabilities. Behavioural Disorders, 17, 305-315.

Oliver, M. (1995) Does Special education have a Role to Play in the twenty-first Century? REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland. Vol.8, No. 2, pp. 67-76.

Corbett, J. and Ralph, S. (1995) The Changing Image of Charity Advertising, British Journal of Special Education, Volume 22, No. 4, December, 19995 ppp155-160.

Schratz, M. (1993), Qualitative Voices in Educational Research. London, Falmer.

Scruggs, T and Mastropieri, M A (1996) Teachers' Perceptions of Mainstreaming/Inclusion A Research Synthesis. Exceptional Children, Vol. 63, No.1, pp59-74.

Seligman, C., Tucker, G. and Lambert, W. (1972) The effects of speech style and other attributes on teachers' attitudes toward pupils. Language and Society, 1, 131-142.

Semmel, M. Abernathy, T.V.; Butera, G. and Lisa, S. (1991) teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9-24.

Thomas, G.; Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of Inclusive School. London: Routledge.

Vlachou, A. and Barton, L. (1994) Inclusive education: Teachers and the changing culture of schooling. British Journal of Special Education. 21 (3), pp. 105-107.

Whinnery, K.W. Fuchs, L.S., and Fuchs, D. (1991) General, special, and remedial teachers' acceptance of behavioral and instructional strategies for mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 6-17.

Index