A Survey Into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion Of

7/28/2019 A Survey Into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion Of

1/22

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

On: 18 April 2011

Access details: Access Details: Free Access

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498

A Survey into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion ofChildren with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in oneLocal Education AuthorityElias Avramidis; Phil Bayliss; Robert Burden

Online publication date: 02 July 2010

To cite this Article Avramidis, Elias , Bayliss, Phil and Burden, Robert(2000) 'A Survey into Mainstream Teachers'Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one LocalEducation Authority', Educational Psychology, 20: 2, 191 211

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/713663717URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663717

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663717http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663717http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498


2/22

Educational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000

A Survey into Mainstream Teachers AttitudesTowards the Inclusion of Children with SpecialEducational Needs in the Ordinary School inone Local Education Authority

ELIAS AVRAMIDIS, PHIL BAYLISS & ROBERT BURDEN, Research Support

Unit, University of Exeter, UK

ABSTRACT Attitudes of mainstream teachers towards the inclusion of children with special

needs in the ordinary school were surveyed soon after the release of the Green Paper. The survey

was carried out in one Local Education Authority in the south-west of England and the sample

comprised of 81 primary and secondary teachers. The analysis revealed that teachers who have

been implementing inclusive programmes, and therefore have active experience of inclusion,

possess more positive attitudes. Moreover, the data showed the importance of professional

development in the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion. In particular, teacherswith university-based professional development appeared both to hold more positive attitudes

and to be more condent in meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN. The role that

training at both pre-service and post-service levels has in the development of teachers support

for inclusion is discussed.

The integration of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school has

been a key topic in special education for the last 25 years. However, more recently, the

term `inclusion, which embodies a whole range of assumptions about the purpose andmeaning of schools (Kliewer, 1998), has come to supercede `integration in the

vocabulary of special educators. Integration is dependent on external agency; children

are offered places in the `least restrictive environment and integration becomes a

matter of `placement decisions (Fish, 1985). Such placement decisions are seen as

failing some children because integration may not meet specic needs of children with

signicant disabilities. This is because integration as a process does not imply a

restructuring of the educational environment to accommodate the needs of a small

number of children with signicant disabilities. (Thomas, 1997). By contrast, inclusion

ISSN 0144-3410 print; 1469-5820 online/00/020191-21 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DownloadedAt:11:4518

April2011


3/22

192 E. Avramidis et al.

implies such a restructuring of mainstream schooling that every school can accommo-

date every child irrespective of disability (accommodation rather than assimilation) and

ensures that all learners belong to a community. Such an argument locates the

discussion in a social-ethical discourse which is strongly focused on values. The concept

of inclusion thereby becomes part of a broad human rights agenda that argues that all

forms of segregation are morally wrong.Several recent United Nations policies afrm the right of all children to be valued

equally, treated with respect and provided with equal opportunities within the main-

stream system. These include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989),

the UN Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabil-

ities (1993) and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994).

In the UK, the Green Paper, Excellence for All Children, published in October 1997

(DfEE, 1997), vigorously supports the principle that children with special educational

needs should, wherever possible, be educated in mainstream schools. The Paper states

that: Where pupils do have SEN there are strong educational, social and moral

grounds for their education in mainstream schools (p. 34). However, it does not state

that all children currently attending special schools should be immediately transferred

to ordinary schools. Moreover, the Green Paper supports a gradual change towards

greater integration of children in ordinary schools. It is subject to the same caveats as

the 1981 Education Act regarding resources and the assumption that the integration of

a child with signicant disabilities will not affect the education of other children. In this

sense, it is not inclusive in a categorical sense, but it supports the spirit (if not the letter)

of the Salamanca statement.

Whether the inclusive education policies which evolve from the Paper will be adopted

and successfully implemented at the school level remains to be seen. In order for

inclusion, rather than integration, to be effective, it is generally agreed that the school

personnel who will be most responsible for its successthat is, mainstream teachers

should be receptive to the principles and demands of inclusion. Professional attitudes

may well act to facilitate or constrain the implementation of policies which may be

radical or controversial, for the success of innovative and challenging programmes must

surely depend upon the co-operation and commitment of those most directly involved.

Unfortunately, the NAS/UWT immediate response to the Green Paper (De Gruchy,22 October 1997), on the BBCs Today programme took the view that inclusion would

be feasible for pupils with physical disabilities, but stated that the inclusion of pupils

with emotional and behavioural difculties could be a big problem, an absolute

disaster and bring untold misery. To paraphrase Orwells Animal Farm, some

people are more disabled than others. Such differentiation of values cannot describe the

process as one of inclusion; inclusion does not discriminate by category (Bayliss &

Lingham, 1998) but where teachers may discriminate as individuals the bases of such

discrimination (classed under the broad rubric of an `attitude) are crucial. At this

point, before we refer to the aims of our study, it is necessary to present a review of theliterature of both integration and inclusion attitude studies.

Studies of Teachers Attitudes Towards Integration

Although the movement for `inclusive education is part of a broad human rights

agenda, many educators have serious reservations about supporting the widespread

placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools (Florian, 1998). Research

undertaken in Australia about professional attitudes towards integration education has


April2011


4/22

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools 193

provided a range of information in this area. Studies undertaken between 1985 and

1989 covered the attitudes of headteachers (Center et al., 1985), teachers (Center &

Ward, 1987), psychologists (Center & Ward, 1989) and pre-school administrators

(Bochner & Pieterse, 1989), and demonstrated that professional groups vary consider-

ably in their perceptions of which types of children are most likely to be successfully

integrated. (Summary data from these studies were presented by Ward et al., 1994).These studies suggested that attitudes towards integration were strongly inuenced by

the nature of the disabilities and/or educational problems being presented and, to a

lesser extent, by the professional background of the respondents. The most enthusiastic

group were those responsible for pre-school provision; the most cautious group were

the classroom teachers, with heads, resource teachers and psychologists in between.

The researchers concluded that there was no evidence of a consensus in favour of a

total inclusion or `zero reject approach to special educational provision.

Bowman (1986), in her 14-nation UNESCO study, reported a wide difference in

teacher opinions regarding integration. The countries surveyed were Egypt, Jordan,

Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, Botswana, Senegal, Zambia, Australia, Thailand,

Czechoslovakia, Italy, Norway and Portugal. The teachers were found to favour

different types of children for integration into ordinary classes. Although teacher

responses varied in terms of the development of their educational systems in general

and of special education in particular, there was a general hierarchy of conditions that

were more or less regarded as possible for integration. Severe mental handicap and

multiple handicaps were all considered least favourably, while medical and physical

conditions were seen as most easy to manage. Overall, about a quarter of teachers felt

that children with sensory impairments could be taught in mainstream classrooms,

while less than 10% held this view for children with severe intellectual impairment and

multiple handicaps. Interestingly, Bowman noted that in countries which had a law

requiring integration, teachers expressed more favourable views.

Thomas (1985), in a comparative study in Devon (England) and Arizona ( USA),

found that the balance of opinion was against the integration of children with intellec-

tual difculties (the moderate learning difculties group) in England and the educable

mentally retarded (EMR) in the USA. Also, in this study attitudes were more positive

towards integration when the contact special educator also held positive attitudestowards integration, when there was condence in selecting appropriate teaching

methods and when there was a traditional policy of locational integration.

Other attitude studies have suggested that general educators have not developed an

empathetic understanding of disabling conditions ( Berryman, 1989; Horne & Riccia-

rdo, 1988), nor do they appear to be ready to accept students with special needs

(Barton, 1992; Hayes & Gunn, 1988). This can be explained by the fact that inte-

gration had often been effected in an ad hoc manner, without systematic modications

to a schools organisation, due regard to teachers instructional expertise or any

guarantee of continuing resource provision (see the example of Italy where integrationwas radical in the 1980s). Center and Wards (1987) study with regular teachers

indicated that their attitudes to integration reected lack of condence both in their

own instructional skills and in the quality of support personnel available to them. They

were positive about integrating only those children whose disabling characteristics were

not likely to require extra instructional or management skills on the part of the teacher.

The previously mentioned studies suggest that teachers, who are the prime agents of

the implementation of the policy, are often not prepared to meet the needs of students

with signicant disabilities and are more reluctant than administrators and policy-


April2011


5/22


makers. However, a study by Hellier (1988) supported a wider positive view of

integration by those in the front linemainstream teachers. Hellier investigated six

primary schools in the Tayside region of Scotland where children with severe learning

difculties were being integrated. The results revealed that these teachers who had

direct experience of integration held exceptionally positive attitudes towards it. Not

only did they favour integration for the children with SEN, they also mentioned positiveeffects on their own development.

Another UK study by Clough and Lindsay (1991) investigated the attitudes of

teachers towards integration and to different kinds of support. Their research provided

some evidence that attitudes had shifted in favour of integrating children with SEN over

the past 10 years or so. They argue that this was partly the result of the experiences

teachers had had: whether they had developed some competence and if they had not

been `swamped, as some had feared at the time of publication of the Warnock report.

This study also revealed that, although the respondents appeared more supportive

towards integration, they varied in their views regarding the most difcult need to meet.

In particular, teachers identied children with learning difculties and, to a greater

extent, children with emotional and behavioural difculties (EBD) as the most difcult

categories.

Finally, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their meta-analysis of American attitude

studies, which included 28 survey reports conducted from at least 1958 through 1995,

reported that two-thirds of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in total) agreed with the

general concept of integration. A smaller majority was willing to implement integration

practices in their own classes, but responses again appeared to vary according to

disabling conditions. Moreover, only one-third or less of teachers believed they had

sufcient time, skills, training and resources necessary for integration.

Studies of Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion

More recently, studies of teachers attitudes towards inclusion have been reported.

Early American studies on `full inclusion reported results which were not supportive of

a full placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools. A study carried out by

Coates (1989), for example, reported that general education teachers in Iowa did nothave a negative view of pullout programmes, nor were they supportive of `full in-

clusion. Similar ndings were reported by Semmel et al. (1991), who, after having

surveyed 381 elementary educators (both general and special), concluded that those

educators were not dissatised with a special education system that operated pullout

special educational programmes. Another study by Vaughn et al. (1996) examined

mainstream and special teachers perceptions of inclusion through the use of focus

group interviews. The majority of these teacherswho were not currently participating

in inclusive programmeshad strong negative feelings about inclusion and felt that

decision-makers were out of touch with classroom realities. The teachers identiedseveral factors that would affect the success of inclusion, including class size, inad-

equate resources, the extent to which all students would benet from inclusion and lack

of adequate teacher preparation.

However, in studies where teachers had active experience of inclusion, contradictory

ndings were reported; a study by Villa et al. (1996) yielded results which favored the

inclusion of children with SEN in the ordinary school. The researchers noted that

teacher commitment often emerges at the end of the implementation cycle, after the

teachers have gained mastery of the professional expertise needed to implement


April2011


6/22


inclusive programmes. Similar ndings were reported by LeRoy and Simpson (1996),

who studied the impact of inclusion over a 3-year period in the state of Michigan. Their

study showed that as teachers experience with children with SEN increased, their

condence to teach these children also increased. The evidence seems to indicate that

teachers negative or neutral attitudes at the beginning of an innovation such as

inclusive education may change over time as a function of experience and the expertisethat develops through the process of implementation.

The Present Study

Research has suggested that, although teachers attitudes can be affected by several

interacting factors, one of the most important is the level and nature of support that

they receive. Based on this assumption, Clough and Lindsay (1991), referring to the

UK context, have argued that there might be variations in teachers attitudes within the

UK, reecting the levels and history of support in each Local Education Authority.

Indeed, LEAs vary in the provision they make to schools either directly through stafng

and capitation, or through support services (such as special needs support teachers,

educational psychologists) and this is likely to affect the teachers attitudes. Moreover,

some authorities have promoted inclusive education (Bannisteret al., 1998; Lindsay et

al. ,1990), while in others the pace of change has been slow. Consequently, we decided

to carry out our study in one LEA in the south-west of England where considerable

progress has been made over the last few years.

The survey undertaken by the rst author in this LEA into the attitudes of main-

stream teachers towards the inclusion of children with SEN in the ordinary school

sought answers to the following questions:

What were the mainstream teachers attitudes to the general concept of inclusion

as opposed to integrationof children with SEN in the ordinary classroom, given

the current support services provided to assist them?

To what extent did signicant differences in attitude exist among the various

subgroups of teachers under investigation and what was the relationship of atti-

tudes to independent variables such as gender, age, grade level taught, type of

school, class size?

To what extent did SEN training (i.e. diploma in SEN, master in SEN, or simply

in-service training) lead to more positive attitudes?

To what extent did previous active experience of inclusive education lead to more

positive (or negative) attitudes towards inclusion?

The survey not only aimed at producing, in the form of numerical data, indications of

general attitudes of the teacher population, but sought also to identify barriers to the

successful implementation of an inclusive policy, with particular reference to thesupport systems that were currently available in the given LEA. It is our strong belief

that accurate judgements of teachers attitudes to inclusion cannot be made solely by

employing traditional quantitative methodology that has been used in most previous

studies (Avramidis, 1998). The interrelationships of the complex concepts of `SEN,

attitudes and `inclusion, the social desirability factor and cynicism towards question-

naires among some teachers are some of the reasons for rejecting an exclusively

quantitative approach. Therefore, the survey was designed to represent a component of

a `bricolage approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), which will be supplemented by


April2011


7/22


qualitative studies of individual schools which did not contribute (or, more importantly,

refused to contribute) to the quantitative study. The research is ongoing.

Method

For the purposes of our study, we decided to adopt the three component model of

attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This view is based on the idea that an attitude is a

combination of three conceptually distinguishable reactions to a certain object (Rosen-

berg & Hovland, 1960; Triandis et al., 1984). These reactions are specied as affective,

cognitive and conative components. According to this model, attitudes are viewed as

being complex and multidimensional and when we measure attitudes we measure, in

fact, aspects or attributes of the attitudes in which we are interested.

Many researchers in the eld of teachers attitudes towards integration have used

Likert-type inventories in attempting to ascertain the extent to which respondents agree

or disagree with the general concept of integration as related to a range of disabling

conditions. Here, much of the previous research has thusfar been primarily represented

by acceptancerejection issues (addressing only the cognitive component of attitude by

measuring beliefs) without much effort being directed towards uncovering the factors

that may underlie particular attitudes. If attitude research is related to responses to

categorical questions, issues of face validity arise when we are dealing with fuzzy

concepts such as ìnclusion and `SEN. Moreover, the use of labels or categories of

exceptionality raises the issue that the questionnaire respondents in a population may

have multiple interpretations for the same label (Hannah & Pilner, 1983). For example,asking general questions related to categories of disability such as Downs syndrome

would elicit responses which were related to experiences of children with Downs

syndrome. Such experiences might be positive or negative and would be largely

unpredictable across a population of teachers. Also, because the integration of children

with Downs syndrome in mainstream classes is relatively recent, a `halo effect

could arise in a survey which could mask individual differences. Furthermore, the

population of teachers in an LEA is also heterogeneous and, even though the stated

policy might be ìnclusive, the extent to which a school (and thus its staff) would see

itself as ìnclusive would also be variable. A further important dimension is that of`phase, where there might be predicted differences between primary and secondary

schools.

Instrumentation

The main research instrument, which has already been used in a previous study

investigating students teachers attitudes (Avramidis et al., 2000) where it was shown to

provide reliable scores, is a modest attempt to address the multidimensional nature of

attitude and to identify sources of potential inuence. The instrument consisted of

reported personal and situational variables and the following components:

A Likert scale measuring beliefs relative to inclusion (cognitive component),

consisting of 12 items taken from the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming (ORM)

scale (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995; Larrivee, 1982) which were adopted for an

English context (e.g. words like `handicapped and `mainstreaming were replaced

by `students with special educational needs and ìnclusion). These items form two

factors of the original ORM which were initially reported as reecting a general


April2011


8/22


philosophy of inclusion and academic and social growth of the included child. Five

of these items required reverse coding. For example, the scale included statements

like:

Inclusion offers mixed group interaction which will foster understanding and

acceptance of differences.

Isolation in a special class has a negative effect on the social and emotionaldevelopment of a student with special needs.

The challenge of being in an ordinary classroom will promote the academic

growth of the child with special needs etc.

A semantic differential scale consisting of bipolar adjectives (Osgood et al., 1957)

measuring the respondents emotional reactions when they had to deal with newly

included SEN children (affective component). The scale consisted of seven items

and included adjectives such as `anxiousrelaxed, `worriedself-assured, `nega-

tivepositive etc. Where previous literature has shown variable responses to

different kinds of children (physically disabled, Downs syndrome, EBD), we

decided to introduce a differential response to category subsumed under two broad

categories: (a) those with severe or multiple and profound learning difculties and

(b) those with severe emotional and behavioural difculties.

A Likert scale (eight items) measuring intentions (conative component). The scale

included items like:

I will accept responsibility for teaching children with severe learning

difculties within a whole-school policy.

I will change my teaching processes to accommodate children with severe

learning difculties.

I will engage in developing skills for managing the behaviour of children with

severe learning difculties.

In the above Likert scales, the respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their

agreement with each statement by selecting among the following response choices:

Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Undecided (3), Agree (4) and Strongly agree (5).

In the semantic differential scale, the respondents had to circle the number closest to

the adjective which best described their feelings on a scale from 1 to 7. The items weretotalled to generate a composite score for each component; a higher score indicated

positive attitude.

Also, another Likert-type inventory (18 items, with responses again ranging from

1 to 5) was included measuring teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed.

The scale consisted of items like:

I feel condent in diagnosing/assessing specic needs.

I feel condent in collaborating with colleagues to provide coherent teaching

programmes for students with SEN.I feel condent in implementing Individual Educational Plans.

It needs to be stated here that the skills included in the scale are not specically

concerned with teaching children with SEN; rather, we consider them as absolutely

necessary for teaching a diverse group of learners and meeting all their needs.

Additionally, the instrument included ve items assessing the respondents

condence in meeting the IEP requirements of children with SEN at different


April2011


9/22


stages of the statementing process [1]. The items were phrased in the following

way: Ì feel condent in meeting the IEP requirements of children with special educational

needs at Stage 1 (similarly at Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5). The respondents were asked to

indicate the degree of their condence with each statement by selecting among the

following response choices: Not condent at all (1), I have misgivings (2), Neutral

(3), I feel secure in my teaching (4) and Very condent (5).The nal two sections were termed Ìncentives and Àction planning and con-

tained three open-ended items.

The guiding principle in the construction of this new instrument was derived from

Knosters framework (1991) of change in complex systems; if we want to change our

educational system, then we need vision, skills, incentives, resources and action plan-

ning (see LeRoy & Simpson, 1996) [2].

Sampling and Procedures

Prior to the implementation of the study, we sought and gained the approval and

co-operation of the Local Education Authority under investigation. The survey in-

volved 23 mainstream schools, 14 primary and nine secondary, representing urban,

suburban and rural areas of the LEA. Seven primary schools and four secondary were

chosen because the LEA had identied them as examples of good inclusive practice in

the authoritys response to the UK governments recent Green Paper Excellence for

All. According to the LEA, these schools were ìnclusive and their staff had actual

experience of implementing inclusion. These schools were self-selected. The sample

was balanced with another seven primary and ve secondary schools randomly selected

across the rest of the LEA [3].

Of the initial sample, seven schools (ve secondary and two primary) opted out for

the following reasons: in ve schools, the teaching body was protesting about the

ever-increasing amounts of paperwork and, in accordance to their unions decision,

were planning to take action against it. However, two secondary schools rejected the

instrument on the grounds that it would not reect a clear picture of their practice,which they claimed was truly inclusive; nevertheless, they agreed to participate in the

second (qualitative) phase of our research project. The overall sample thus represented

16 schools participating in the survey (12 primary and four secondary).

Questionnaires equal to the number of teaching staff of the primary schools were sent

out (100 in total). From these, 48 questionnaires were returned (28 out of the 52 sent

to the selected schools and 20 out of the 48 sent to the random schools). A pack with

15 questionnaires was sent to every secondary school participating in the study

according to the request of their head teachers (60 in total). From these, 33 question-

naires were returned (15 out of the 30 sent to the selected schools and 18 out of the30 sent to the random schools). The total sample thus consisted of 81 respondents

(50.6% return rate). The study was carried out towards the completion of the school

year and was conducted completely by post with no follow-up data collection.

The Cronbach alpha reliability coefcients for this investigation were: a50.88 for

the scale addressing the cognitive component, a50.85 for the rst affective scale and

a50.90 for the second, a50.88 for the conative component and, nally, a50.88 for

the scale measuring the participants perceptions about the skills they possessed. Some

relevant characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.


April2011


10/22


TABLEI. Gender, age, teaching experience, phase taught and professional development of

the participants

Background variable Groups Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 18 22.2

Female 61 75.3Missing 2 2.5

Age 1823 2 2.5

2430 8 9.8

3145 35 43.2

451 34 42.0

Missing 2 2.5

Teaching experience Less than 1 year 3 3.7

14 years 7 8.6

59 years 8 9.9

1014 years 14 17.3

141 years 47 58.0

Missing 2 2.5

Phase Primary 48 59.3

Secondary 33 40.7

Professional development None 18 22.2

School-based INSET 31 38.3

LEA-based INSET 10 12.3

Specialists qualications 10 12.3

University-based 11 13.6Missing 1 1.2

Total 81 100.0

Findings of the Study

The participants appeared to be generally positive towards the overall concept of inclusion.

Since this was the rst time that the instrument had been used with experienced

teachers, it was not possible to compare the scores of the participants on the attitudescales with previous studies in order to determine whether they were high or low.

However, considering the range of the scales (from 1 to 5 in the scale measuring the

cognitive component, from 1 to 7 in the scale measuring the affective component and

from 1 to 5 in the scale measuring the conative component), it seems reasonable to

suggest that the mean scores of the participants demonstrated positive attitudes towards

the general concept of inclusion (see Table II).

TABLE II. Mean scores of the participants in the scales measuring the c ognitive,affective and conative component of attitude and the scale measuring their perceptions

about the skills they possess

Attitude components N Mean Standard deviation

Cognitive component 80 3.75 0.54

Affective component 77 4.58 1.24

Conative component 79 4.01 0.60

Skills 77 3.54 0.44


April2011


11/22


TABLE III. Mean scores of teachers with active experience of inclusion and teachers from

randomly selected schools in the cognitive, affective and conative component of attitude

Cognitive Affective Conative

Groups of teachers N compone nt component c ompone nt

Teachers from randomly 43 N543 N541 N542selected schools 3.62 4.16 3.85

Teachers with active 38 N537 N536 N537

experience of inclusion 3.92 5.07 4.16

Pupils with emotional and behavioural difculties (EBD) were seen as causing more concern

and stress than other types of SEN.

A paired sample t-test was carried out in order to investigate the nature of the

difference between the mean scores of the participants on the two affective scales. As

previously mentioned, the rst scale was designed to measure emotional reactions to

the placement of a child with a severe learning difculty (a child with Downs

syndrome, an autistic child etc.) in a mainstream classroom, while the second one

examined emotional reactions to the placement of a child with emotional and be-

havioural difculties in the mainstream classroom. The analysis revealed a signicant

difference between the mean scores in the two measures, t54.98, p , 0.001, mean of

the rst affective scale 4.54 and mean for the second 3.88, indicating that pupils with

EBD were more likely to be the cause of more concern and stress to the teachers in this

authority than pupils with other types of special educational needs.

Nine one-way MANOVAs were calculated to test for differences in the cognitive,

affective and conative components of attitude between groups identied in terms of:

gender; age; teaching experience; phase taught; professional development of the partic-

ipants; experience of inclusive education; area of school; size of school; and size of

classroom. The variable àge comprised four groups, the variable `teaching experience

comprised ve groups, the variable `phase taught comprised two groups and the

variable `professional development comprised ve groups (see Table I). The variableèxperience of inclusion comprised two groups: (a) the participants from schools which

had long been implementing inclusive programmes (n538) and (b) those from schools

which had been randomly selected (n543). The variable àrea comprised three

groups: (a) village (n524), (b) small town (n517) and (c) large town (n540). For the

purpose of the analysis, the variable `school size was divided into two groups (median

split): (a) schools with up to 355 pupils (n540) and (b) schools with 365 or more

(n541). Similarly, the variable `class size was divided into two groups (median split):

(a) classes with up to 28 pupils (n542) and (b) classes with 29 or more (n538).

Teachers with active experience of inclusion held signicantly more positive attitudes towards

inclusion than those from randomly selected schools.

The analysis between groups in terms of their experience in inclusive education

indicated a multivariate effect, F (df 3,71)53.68, p , 0.05. A univariate test revealed

that the multivariat e difference was due to differences between teachers from the

randomly selected schools and teachers with active experience of inclusion in all three

components of attitude. In the cognitive component, F (df 1,73)56.08, p , 0.05; in


April2011


12/22


TABLE IV. Mean scores of groups with different professional development in the cognitive,

affective and conative component of attitude

Cognitive Affective Conative

Professi onal devel opment component component Component

None 3.34 3.73 3.79School-based INSET 3.79 4.60 3.89

LEA INSET 3.88 4.80 4.26

Specialists qualications 3.84 4.90 4.11

University-based 4.09 5.47 4.40

the affective component, F (df 1,73)511.03, p , 0.05; and in the conative compo-

nent, F (df 1,73)5 4.95, p , 0.05 (see Table III).

Examination of these mean scores (Table III) indicates that the teachers who had

been implementing inclusive programmes for some years held signicantly more

positive attitudes than the rest of the sample who had apparently little or no such

experience.

The level of the professional development of the respondents was found to be signicantly related

to their attitude towards inclusion.

The second important nding of the study refers to the professional development of

the respondents. The analysis indicated a multivariate effect, F(df 12,207)52.29, p ,

0.01. The univariate analysis revealed that the multivariate effect was again due to

differences in all three components of attitude. In particular, for the cognitive compo-nent, F (df 4,69)54.51, p , 0.01, for the affective component, F (df 4,69)54.06, p

, 0.01, and for the conative component, F(df 4,69)52.56, p , 0.05 (see Table IV).

Post hoc test (Scheffe) revealed that the univariate effect was due to differences between

participants who had received university-based professional development and those

with no training at all in all three components of attitude.

As can be seen in these mean scores (Table IV), teachers with substantial training in

special education held signicantly higher positive attitudes than those with little or no

training about inclusion.

None of the remaining variables was found to be signicantly related to the respondents

attitudes.

The one-way MANOVAs for gender, age, teaching experience, phase taught, area of

school, size of school and size of classroom did not reveal signicant differences in the

attitude components.

The participants demonstrated a lack of condence in meeting the IEP requirements of students

with SEN.

However, the most important nding of this investigation is directly related to the

participants condence in meeting the IEP requirements of children with special

educational needs. Although the participants appeared to be positive towards the

general concept of inclusion (Table II), it was evident (Table V) that their condence

dropped considerably according to the stage at which the children stood in the

statementing process (see also Fig. 1).

Teachers with substantial training demonstrated more condence in meeting the IEP require-

ments of students with SEN.

This decline in the condence of the participants in meeting IEP requirements might


April2011


13/22


TABLEV. Mean scores representing the condence of the participants in meeting

IEP requirements at different stages of a statement

N Means Standard deviations

Stage 1 condence 67 4.18 0.74

Stage 2 condence 67 3.96 0.77Stage 3 condence 67 3.57 1.02



FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the Table V mean scores.

well be considered to be within normal expectations, as children with signicant

disabilities (Stages 4 and 5) present a considerably greater challenge for every teacher.

However, in our attempt to account for this decline, we decided to compare the

respondents condence and their professional development. The following descriptive

table (Table VI) provides some insight into the participants condence in meeting the

needs of children at Stages 4 and 5 (see Table VI and Fig. 2).

Examination of mean scores in Table VI indicates that teachers with substantial

TABLE VI. Mean scores of the condence of different professional groups in meeting IEPrequirements at Stages 4 and 5

Professional development N Means for Stage 4 Means for Stage 5

None 14 2.71 2.79

School-based INSET 24 2.83 2.67

LEA INSET 10 3.40 3.20

Specialists qualications 10 3.40 3.40

University-based 9 3.67 3.70


April2011


14/22


FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representation of the Table VI mean scores.

training were more condent in meeting the needs of students with signicant disabil-

ities (Stages 4 and 5).

Teachers who had received external to the school training were found to be more condent in

meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN than those who had received school-based

training or no training at all.

Next, for the purpose of the statistical comparison, the ve variables measuring the

respondents condence in meeting IEPs requirements in Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were

summed and a new variable assessing their total level of condence was computed.

Also, the categorical variable measuring the professional development of the partici-

pants was recoded so that it represented three groups: (a) those with no training at all,

(b) those with school-based training and (c) those with external training; this last grouprepresented those with LEA-based training, those with specialist qualications and

those with university-based training (the previous 3, 4 and 5 groups). This recoding was

not only considered necessary due to the small size of these groups (see Table I), but

also because of the purpose of the comparison (INSET as opposed to longer-term and

high-quality training). One-way analysis of variance was calculated to test for differ-

ences between these three professional development groups and their perceived

condence in meeting IEP requirements. The analysis revealed a signicant univariate

effect, F (df 2,64)53.16, p , 0.05. The post hoc test (Scheffe) which was conducted

failed to reveal signicant differences between these groups; nevertheless, a strongtendency was evident (Table VII), suggesting that respondents with no training at all

and those with school-based training appear to be considerably less condent than

those who had received training external to the school (see Table VII and Fig. 3).

There was an association between the respondents perceptions of the skills they possessed and

their attitude towards inclusion.

The relationship between teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed and their

attitudes was examined by conducting a correlational analysis between the means of the


April2011


15/22


TABLEVII. Mean s cores of t he overall condence of groups with different professional

development in meeting IEP requirements

Professional development N Means Standard deviations

No training at all 14 16.43 4.26

School-based INSET 24 16.92 4.10External qualications 29 19.21 3.85

FIG. 3. Diagrammati c representation of the Table V II mean scores.

three attitude components and the mean of the perceived skills. This analysis (Table

VIII) revealed that skills were moderately correlated with all three attitude components.

Although this correlational analysis cannot possibly establish causation, it does,

however, suggest an important tendency: that is, that respondents who perceive

themselves as possessing `generic teaching skills appear to hold positive attitudes

towards the inclusion of students with SEN in the ordinary school.

TABLE VIII. Correlations between mean scores of t he cognitive, affective, conative and skills scales

Cognitive Affective Conative Skills

Pearson Cognitive 1.000 0.704** 0.710** 0.404**

correlation Affective 1.000 0.563** 0.469**

Conative 1.000 0.404**

Skills 1.000

** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).


April2011


16/22


TABLEIX. Mean scores of different professional groups in the scale measuring their

perceptions about the skills they possess

Professional development N Means Standard deviations

No training at all 17 3.29 0.43

School-based INSET 30 3.46 0.42External qualications 29 3.75 0.39

High-quality professional development results in the acquisition of teaching skills necessary to

meet the needs of all students.

The association between the respondents perceptions of the skills they possess and

their attitude towards inclusion might well have been expected, as it is reasonable to

assume that teachers who perceive themselves as competent hold positive attitudes.

However, the next step of our analysis was to examine whether there was any

relationship between the three professional development groups (none vs school-based

vs external courses) and teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed. One-way

analysis of variance indicated a signicant univariate effect F (df 2,73)57.46, p ,

0.001. The post hoc test (Scheffe) revealed the univariate effect was due to differences

both between participants with no training and those who had attended external

courses, and between the participants with school-based training and those who had

attended external courses (Table IX).

Examination of these mean scores (Table IX) shows that those who had attended

external courses scored higher compared to those with no training at all and those with

school-based training.

Content Analysis of Open-ended Items

Three open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire in order to give the

respondents the opportunity to raise issues not covered by the attitude scales. The data

were content-analysed and the key points that emerged are presented next.

Factors which could make the participants responses more positive.

The rst open-ended question was posed to the participants immediately after the

affective scale, asking them what extra things they would need in order to make their

responses more positive. The following issues emerged:

Support: 56 teachers (representing 69.13% of the total sample) reported that they

needed more support in teaching classes that included students with signicant

difculties. Moreover, the ancillary support was required to be constant and well

trained. Simply more people in the class was not considered enough; in particular,the need for a stronger SEN department was essential for teachers working in

secondary schools where the role of the SENCO as a co-ordinator and manager,

as well as the importance of the learning support team was stressed in most of the

responses.

Training: 40 teachers (49.38%) felt the need for systematic, intensive training,

either as part of their certication programmes, as intensive and well-planned

in-service training, or as an ongoing process with specialists acting as consultants.

In particular, the respondents asked for more knowledge on how to deal with


April2011


17/22


specic learning difculties, as well as in managing the behaviour of children with

emotional and behavioural needs.

Material Resources: 32 teachers (39.50%) also required adequate curriculum mate-

rials and other classroom equipment appropriate to the needs of students with

disabilities. The data indicate that differentiation of the teaching tasks is absolutely

necessary if the needs of all the students are to be met; however, under the currentcircumstances, it was felt that the increased amount of workload made that

extremely difcult.

Proposed changes in the classroom and school environment.

The remaining two open-ended items asked the participants what needed to be

done/changed (a) in the classroom and (b) at the whole-school level. The following

themes were identied:

Classroom Layout and Restructuring of the Buildings: a different classroom layout and

a physical restructuring of the school to accommodate children with physical

disabilities was reported by 53 teachers (65.43%): layout of chairs, tables, lifts in

the school or stairways more accessible to classrooms, ramps, boards at different

positions around the classroom.

Class Size: 29 teachers (35.80%) agreed that their class size should be reduced to

fewer than 20 students, if students with signicant disabilities were to be included.

More specically, the respondents complained about overcrowded classes which

caused a lack of space.

Time: 27 teachers (33.33%) reported a need for 1 hour or more per day to plan

their work with students with severe learning difculties.

Discussion

Generally, the participants appeared to be positive with the overall concept of inclusion

(see Table II). This nding reects the progress which has been made in the LEA

under investigation over the last few years. However, this nding was coloured by the

participants responses to the open-ended questions where they appeared to ask for

more support, resources, training and time. In this sense, the results of this investiga-tion are in accordance with Scruggs and Mastropieris (1996) meta-analysis which

included 28 survey reports conducted from at least 1958 through 1995. This research

synthesis of teachers attitudes towards integration studies reported that, although

two-thirds of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in total) agreed with the general concept of

integration, only one-third or less believed they had sufcient time, skills, training and

resources necessary for implementing inclusive programmes.

Additionally, pupils with emotional and behavioural difculties (EBD) were seen as

causing signicantly greater concern and stress than pupils with other difculties. This

nding is hardly surprising because teachers have been consistently averse to havingdifcult pupils in their classes (Chazan, 1994; Clough & Lindsay, 1991; Johnson,

1987). Moreover, they are very sceptical about their reintegration even after a period in

a special school or unit (Avramidis & Bayliss, 1998). In the light of a rise in exclusions

in recent years (OHMCI, 1996), teachers need to be provided with training in

managing classroom behaviour and meeting the needs of children deemed to experi-

ence EBD, a need which was reported by half of the respondents (see the content

analysis).

The results of our survey demonstrated clear differences in responses between


April2011


18/22


teachers who had experience of varying degrees and years of including children with

signicant disabilities in their classroom and those with limited or no experience. Our

data indicate also that educating students with signicant disabilities in mainstream

classrooms results in positive changes in educators attitudes. In this, our study

conrms previous research undertaken by Villa et al. (1996), who concluded that

teacher commitment often emerges at the end of the implementation cycle, after theteachers have gained mastery of the professional expertise needed to implement

inclusive programmes. Similar ndings were reported by LeRoy and Simpson (1996),

who studied the impact of inclusion over a 3-year period in the state of Michigan. The

assessment of teacher attitudes was based on the desirability of segregation, the

responsibility for the education of children with severe difculties and the benet of

inclusion for children with disabilities. They found on all three accounts that teacher

attitudes changed in a positive direction over the 3-year period. Their study showed

that, as teachers experience with children with SEN increased, their condence to

teach these children also increased.

Our study also examined the relationship between independent demographic vari-

ables, such as gender, age, phase taught and years of teaching experience, and teachers

attitudes towards inclusion. None of the mentioned variables was found to be

signicantly related to the respondents attitudes. Indeed, in previous studies the

relationship between these variables and attitudes has been inconsistent and what is

evident from reviewing the relevant literature (e.g. Jamieson, 1984; Hannah, 1988) is

that none of the mentioned variables can be regarded as a strong predictor of educator

attitudes. However, our study revealed that teachers with substantial training in special

education had a signicantly higher positive attitude than those with little or no training

about inclusion.

The importance of training has been stressed in a number of surveys (Bowman,

1986; Center & Ward, 1987; Leyser et al., 1994) and, in particular, the importance of

training in the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion was supported by the

ndings of Beh-Pajooh (1992) and Shimman (1990), based on teachers in a tertiary

college. Both studied the attitudes of tertiary college teachers in the UK towards

students with SEN and their inclusion into ordinary college courses. Their ndings

showed that college teachers who had been trained to teach students with learningdifculties expressed more favourable attitudes and emotional reactions to students

with SEN and their inclusion, than did those who had no such training. Our study

supports these ndings because it not only revealed that teachers with substantial

training were more positive to inclusion, but also indicated that their condence in

meeting IEP requirements was boosted as a result of their training.

Another nding of our study is that the means of all the three components of attitude

(cognitive, affective and conative) are signicantly correlated with the mean of the

skills. That is, respondents who perceived themselves as competent enough to cater for

SEN pupils, appear to hold positive attitudes towards inclusion. This reinforces ournding about the importance of training; if skills arise out of skilled-based training

courses as well as out of careful and well-planned INSET courses where practitioners

have the opportunity to discuss and plan collaboratively, then it can be anticipated that

the more effective programmes on inclusion are offered to teachers, the more favour-

able will be their attitudes about inclusion. However, what is interesting here is that the

respondents who had attended external and long-term courses (e.g. LEA-based, univer-

sity-based) scored signicantly higher in the scale measuring their perceptions about

the skills they possessed than those with school-based (INSET) training only. This


April2011


19/22


highlights the importance and effectiveness of substantial self-reective training which

results in the acquisition of generic teaching skills necessary for meeting the needs of all

the children as opposed to short-term technical responses to specic needs.

At this point, it is worth noting that implementing an inclusive programme is likely

to put considerable pressure on teachersespecially at an early stagedue to the

necessary signicant restructuring of the educational environment. In the present study,in their responses to the open-ended questions, the participants stressed the need for

more non-contact time. In a number of studies, teachers have reported that they did

not have sufcient time for inclusion (Diebold & Von Eschenbach, 1991; Semmel et al.,

1991). In particular, in the Myles and Simpson (1989) investigation, 48 out of 55

teachers (87.2%) reported their perceived need for 1 hour or more of daily planning

time for inclusion. Also, the content analysis suggested that teachers have other needs

as well and that there are many obstacles that have to be surmounted if inclusive

programmes are to be successful, for example, overcrowded classrooms, insufcient

pre-prepared materials (differentiated packages), insufcient time to plan with learning

support team, inadequately available support from external specialists and lack of

regular INSET.

The model which seems to underpin the discussion here is that included students

with SEN demand extra time, resources, personnel and co-operation between depart-

ments (in the secondary schools). However, this poses an obstacle in the inclusion

debate as the complete absence or inadequacy of some or all of the above would mean

that the placement of a student with severe learning difculties is unfeasible. In this, the

present study seems to replicate the Center and Ward (1987) and the Clough and

Lindsay (1991) studies whose focus was on `integration. In particular, the content

analysis revealed that the participants are more enculturated into the integration model

in the sense that they were stressing the need for more resources and for more support

from external specialists in order to accommodate children with SEN in their class-

rooms. As was indicated earlier, this is not what inclusion is about. Inclusion is not

about funding and resources (which is a reductionist approach) because there will

always be some children with signicant disabilities who do not `t a particular school

environment. Rather, it is about developing critical thinking and reconstructing the

vision. However, what is important here is that the participants who had receivedtraining of high quality appeared to feel competent in their teaching skills and found the

concept of inclusion easy to deal with. This carries major implications about the level

and depth of teacher training courses, if we are to promote practices that are truly

inclusive.

Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Practice

In reviewing the ndings from this study, readers should be aware of several importantlimitations. Specically, respondents were drawn from one Local Education Authority,

with a great proportion deliberately selected from schools identied as actively imple-

menting inclusive programmes. Moreover, some of the schools dropped out, resulting

in a smaller number of participants than had been anticipated. Another limitation is

that the instrument employed did not provide for a differentiation between attitudes

towards the inclusion of children with different exceptionalities. Therefore, it is possible

that in the case of the more severe presenting conditions, segregationist attitudes were

obscured by a format which referred only to the concept of inclusion.


April2011


20/22


However, recognising these limitations, the results reported from this investigation

offer several important practical implications for policy-makers and administrators.

We would argue strongly that with the provision of more resources and extensive

opportunities for training at both pre-service and post-service levels, teachers attitudes

towards inclusion can become more favourable. However, what was evident in our

investigation is that substantial training, such as university-based courses, fosteringcritical thinking is more likely to result in a critical understanding of ìnclusion and in

the acquisition of generic teaching skills. This means we have to move our thinking

about professional development away from low (INSET) level technical responses to

need, towards longer-term reective practitioner training (Bayliss, 1998). Such training

is more likely to provide the practitioners with both a vision and knowledge skills to

operationalise that vision; skills which allow them to modify their everyday practice in

ways which are ultimately inclusive. This is an outcome and a hypothesis for the next

step.

As far as the issue of resources is concerned, we do recognise that resources are

essential; successful inclusion depends on resources, both human and material, but also

on their successful implementation. Simply more people or more computers are not

enough; rather, how the resources are being utilised is of importance and this issue has

to be addressed in the school level within a whole-school policy and at the LEA level

through a reorganisation of the support services.

Finally, we would like to point out that, however useful the ndings reported in this

study might be, further research is needed. What is recommended here is the follow-up

use of more ecological research methods rooted within qualitative designs. It is planned

that a series of interviews with mainstream teachers will be carried out with the aim of

gaining some insight into their perceptions and of identifying `barriers to inclusion. Of

particular interest will be the participants understanding of inclusion as well as their

ìnstitutional view of inclusion. At a later stage, it is hoped to present a series of case

studies from this work which exemplify best practice and identify areas where further

development is needed.

Correspondence: Elias Avramidis, Research Support Unit, University of Exeter, St

Lukes School of Education, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. Fax (01392) 264736.

NOTES

[1] In t he UK, the `Code of Practice for the Identication and Assessment of Special Educational

Needs (DfEE, 1994) introduced a ve `stage formal assessment process which ranges from Stage

1 (child with mild SEN whose needs can be met wholly by teachers in the regular classroom

without any further assistance), to a Stage 5 `statemented child, where the severity of need requires

formal (legal) recognition by the Education Authorities who guarantee extra resources external to

the school to meet the childs needs. The stages of the Code of Practice therefore represent a

measure of `severity of need. Stages 25 of the Code require teacher to prepare an I ndividual

Educational Plan (IEP) which has formal status of implementation and review.

[2] In order to acquaint t he reader with the demands and wordings of the scales, some examples have

been provided. The whole instrument is available from the authors on request.

[3] Methodologically, it is appropriate to assume that the schools recommended by the LEA have had

experience of some form of ìnclusion, while it is problematic to assume that the randomly selected

group were, or were not, ìnclusiveeither of these positions are possible given the random nature

of selection. Any differences in outcomes for these two groups are dependent on the ndings of the

study rather than on a set of a priori assumptions related to ìnclusive vs `non-inclusive schools.


April2011


21/22


REFERENCES

ANTONAK, R. & LARRIVEE, B. (1995) Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to

Mainstreaming Scale, Exceptional Children, 62, pp. 139149.

AVRAMIDIS, E. (1998) Methodological Issues Relating to the Study of Teachers Attitudes Toward Inclusion,

Paper presented in the E uropean E ducational Research Association, Slovenia 1998.

AVRAMIDIS, E. & BAYLISS, P.D. (1998) An inquiry into emotional and behavioural difculties in twoschools in the southwest of England, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Difculties, 3, pp. 2535.

AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P.D. & BURDEN, R. (2000) Students teachers attitudes towards the inclusion

of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,

pp. 116.

BANNISTER, C., SHARLAND, V., THOMAS, G., UPTON, V. & WALKER, D. (1998) Changing from a special

school to an inclusive service, British Journal of Special Education, 24, pp. 6569.

BARTON, M.L. (1992) Teachers Opinions on the Implementation and Effects of Mainstreaming, (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 802.

BAYLISS, P.D. (1998) Models of complexity: theory driven intervention practices, in: C. CLARK, A.,

DYSON & A., MILLWARD (Eds) Theorising Special Education, pp. 6178 (London, Routledge).

BAYLISS, P.D. & LINGHAM, J. (1998) What is Inclusion?, (Paper presented at the 1998 BPS Conference,

Exeter, UK).

BEH -PAJOOH, A. (1992) The effect of social contact on college teachers attitudes towards students with

severe mental handicaps and their educational integration, European Journal of Special Needs Edu-

cation, 7, pp. 231236.

BERRYMAN, J.D. (1989) Attitudes of the public t oward educational mainstreaming, Remedial and Special

Education , 10, pp. 4449.

BOCHNER, S. & PIETERSE, M. (1989) Preschool directors attitudes towards the integration of children

with disabilities into regular preschools in New South Wales, International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education, 36, pp. 133150.

BOWMAN, I. (1986) Teacher training and the integration of handicapped pupils: some ndings from afourteen nation UNESCO study, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1, pp. 2938.

CENTER, Y. & WARD, J. (1987) Teachers attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into

regular schools, The Exceptional Child, 34, pp. 4156.

CENTER, Y. & WARD, J. (1989) Attitudes of school psychologists towards the integration of children

with disabilities, International Journal of Disability, 36, pp. 117132.

CENTER, Y. WARD, J., PARMENTER, T. & NASH, R. (1985) Principals attitudes toward the integration

of disabled children into regular schools, The Exceptional Child, 32, pp. 149161.

CHAZAN, M. (1994) The attitudes of mainstream teachers towards pupils with emotional and be-

havioural difculties, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, pp. 261274.

CLOUGH, P. & LINDSAY, G. (1991) Integration and the Support Service (London, NFER).COATES, R.D. (1989) The regular Education Initiative and opinions of regular classroom teachers,

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, pp. 532536.

DE GRUCHY, N. (1997) A response to the Green Paper, on Today, 22 October 1997, BBC Radio 4.

DENZIN, N. & LINCOLN, Y. (Eds) (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research (London, Sage).

DFEE (1994) The Code of Practice for the Identication and Assessment of Children with Special Educational

Needs (London, HMSO).

DFEE (1997) Excellence f or All Children: meeting Special Educationa l Needs (London, DfEE).

DIEBOLD, M.H. & VON ESCHENBACH, J.F. (1991) Teacher educator predictions of regular class teacher

perceptions of mainstreaming, Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, pp. 221227.

EAGLY, A.H. & CHAIKEN, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes (San Diego, CA, and Fort Worth, TX,

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).

FISH, J. (1985) Equal Opportunities for All? The Fish report (London, ILEA).

FLORIAN, L. (1998) An examination of the practical problems associated with the implementation of

inclusive education policies, Support for Learning, 13, pp. 105108.

HANNAH, M.E. (1988) Teacher attitudes toward children with disabilities: an ecological analysis, in:

H.E. YUKER (Ed.) Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities, pp. 154171 (New York, Springer).

HANNAH, M.E. & PILNER, S. (1983) Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children: a review and

synthesis, School Psychology Review, 12, pp. 1225.

HAYES, K. & GUNN, P. (1988) Attitudes of parents and teachers toward mainstreaming, The Exceptional

Child, 35, pp. 3138.


April2011


22/22


HELLIER, C. (1988) Integrationa need for positive experience, Educational Psychology in Practice, 4,

pp. 7579.

HORNE, M.D. & RICCIARDO, J.L. (1988) Hierarchy of responds to handicaps, Psychological Reports, 62,

pp. 8386.

JAMIESON, J.D. (1984) Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped, in: R.L. JONES, (Ed.) Attitude

and Attitude Change in Special Education: theory and practice, pp. 206222 (Reston, VA, The Council

for Exceptional Children).JOHNSON, A. (1987) Attitudes towards mainstreaming: implications for in-service training and teaching

the handicapped, Education , 107, pp. 229233.

KLIEWER, C. (1998) The meaning of inclusion, Mental Retardation, 36, pp. 317322.

KNOSTER, T. (1991) Managing Complex Change (Washington, DC, The Association for Persons with

Severe Handicaps Annual Conference).

LARRIVEE, B. (1982) Factors underlying regular classroom teachers attitudes to mainstreaming,

Psychology in the Schools, 19, pp. 374379.

LEROY, B. & SIMPSON, C. (1996) Improving student outcomes through inclusive education, Support for

Learning, 11, pp. 3236.

LEYSER, Y., KAPPERMAN, G. & KELLER, R. (1994) Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: a cross-cul-

tural study in six nations, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, pp. 115.

LINDSAY, G., LEWIS, G., JESSOP, C. & Q UAYLE, R. (1990) Special Needs Review (Shefeld, Shefeld

Local Education Authority).

MYLES, B.S. & SIMPSON, R.L. (1989) Regular educators modication preferences for mainstreaming

mildly handicapped children, Journal of Special Education, 22, pp. 479491.

OFFICE OF HER MAJESTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS (1996) Exclusions from Secondary Schools

1995/96 (London, The Stationery Ofce).

OSGOOD, C.E., SUCI, G.J. & T ANNENBAUM, P.H. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning (Illinois,

University of Illinois Press).

ROSENBERG, M.J. & HOVLAND, C.I. (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of

attitudes, in: C.I., HOVLAND & M.J., ROSENBERG (Eds) Attitude Organisation and Change: an analysisof consistency among attitude components, pp. 114 (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).

SCRUGGS, T.E. & MASTROPIERI, M.A. (1996) Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-inclusion, 1958

1995: a research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63, pp. 5974.

SEMMEL, M.I., ABERNATHY, T.V., BUTERA, G. & LESAR, S. (1991) Teacher perceptions of the Regular

Education Initiative, Exceptional Children, 58, pp. 924.

SHIMMAN, P. (1990) The impact of special needs students at a Further Education College: a report on

a questionnaire, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 14, pp. 8391.

THOMAS, D. (1985) The determinants of teachers, attitudes to integrating the intellectually handicap,

British Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 55, pp. 251263.

THOMAS, G. (1997) Inclusive schools for an inclusive society, British Journal of Special Education, 24,

pp. 103107.

TRIANDIS, C., ADAMOPOULOS, J. & BRINBERG, D. (1984) Perspectives and issues in the study of

attitudes, in: R., JONES (Ed.) Attitudes and Attitude Change in Special Education: theory and practice , pp.

2140 (Virginia, The Council of Exceptional Children).

UNITED NATIONS (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, UN.).

UNITED NATIONS (1993) Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities

(New York, UN).

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (1994) The Salamanca

Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (Salamanca, Spain, UN).

VAUGHN, S., SCHUMM, J.S., JALLAD, B., SLUSHER, J. & SAUMELL, L. (1996) Teachers views of i nclusion,

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 96106.VILLA, R.A., THOUSAND, J.S., MEYERS, H. & NEVIN, A. (1996) Teacher and administrator perceptions

of heterogeneous education, Exceptional Children, 63, pp. 2945.

WARD, J., CENTER, Y. & BOCHNER, S. (1994) A question of attitudes: integrating children with

disabilities into regular classrooms?, British Journal of Special Education, 21, pp. 3439.


April2011

Documents

A Survey Into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion Of