Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 199-217, 1996
INCLUSION: IS IT STRESSFUL FOR TEACHERS? 1
Chris Forlin The University of Southern Queensland
JohnHattie The University of North Carolina
Graham Douglas The University of Western Australia
This paper presents the results of research undertaken in Western Australia regarding educators' beliefs about the stress of inclusive practices. The responses of educators from Education Support Centres and regular primary schools (n --273) are compared regarding the degree of stress attributed to a regular class teacher when asked to cope with a child with a mild intellectual disability. Findings of the research indicate distinct differences in beliefs about the stress of inclusion between principals and teachers depending upon their current involvement in an inclusive program. In addition, beliefs vary between educators from the two types of schools. The implications of this are discussed from the perspective of improving partnerships between educators from Education Support Centres and regular primary schools in order to maximize the effectiveness of inclusive practices.
The movement towards inclusive rather than segregated edu- cation has resulted from considerable world-wide importance placed on the rights of a child, regardless of a disability, to receive
1Address for correspondence: Chris Forlin, Faculty of Education The University of Southem Queensland Toowoomba Qtd 4350 Australia Te# (076)312319(wk) Fax: (076)312828 Email: forlinc @ usq.edu.au
1326-978X/96/030199-19 ©1996 Australian Society for the Study of Intellectual Disability Inc.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
200 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
an appropriate education along with his/her peers. Since the 1960's there has been a change in emphasis from a welfare perspective to one of justice (Freeman, 1992). The ethics of distributive justice requires that decisions made regarding the placement of a child with a disability into a regular class are fair and that services are allocated equitably, but with due regard to need (Buchanan & Brock, 1990; Rawls, 1971). Determination of social justice for the education of children with a disability is now multifaceted. It must consider not only children' s 'rights ' but 'equality ' of those rights and the availabil- ity of the 'opportunity ' to attain them by accessing educational services.
United Nations covenants and charters on the protection of human rights (including the right to education) have provided the stimulus for individual countries and states to develop their own code of ethics and legislation. The United Nations documents advocate that chil- dren are now considered to have the right to education on the basis of equal opportunity and to the development of their fullest potential. In many instances this has been interpreted to mean the inclusion of all students, regardless of disability, in regular classrooms.
A determinant of what constitutes 'equali ty ' of educational opportunity has traditionally focused on the rights of the child with the disability rather than on the rights of the regular class child or on the educators who are expected to enforce those rights. The outcome of the search for equality of access and opportunity for a child with a disability has been a large increase in inclusive practices, although it has been argued by Kauffman (1993) that "perhaps the ultimate degradation of special education occurs when it embraces a fanatical allegiance to the imageology and ideology of place - even if it doesn ' t work" (p. 8). The need to ensure that social justice and equity goals are met is now a challenge for regular schools and in particular for the classroom teachers who have to cope with this change on a daily basis. Elkins (1992) proposes that this challenge requires 'differen- tiation without discrimination' as a necessary first step to maximizing educational outcomes for all children.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 201
In Australia, most states and territories have upheld, in their individual policy statements, the rights of a child with a disability to equal educational opportunities by placement in regular classrooms. Such a movement from segregated to inclusive practice has inevitably led to a change in the nature of special and regular education. Educators' roles and responsibilities have become less clearly defined and this has led to a redefinition of the role of both the special education and regular class teacher (Westwood & Palmer, 1993). Special education teachers require different skills and knowledge (Glomb & Morgan, 1991), and their role has altered from that of service provider to one of consultant, or outreach support teacher (Dyson, 1990). Their roles now focus on a more multidisciplinary approach involving the use of good collaborative skills (Idol, 1992).
The role of the regular educator has also changed as a direct outcome of inclusive practices. Regular class teachers are required to cater for a diverse range of student abilities (Bauer & Shea, 1989) and assume greater responsibility for their education (Choate, 1993). As suggested by D'Arienzo, Moracco, and Krajewski (1982), "mainstreaming of handicapped (sic) and other special needs stu- dents is forcing regular classroom teachers to teach children and cope with particular problems for which they have not been adequately trained" (p. 20).
In addition to the move towards inclusive education there have been many other major educational changes in Australia in recent years. Teaching has become more multifaceted and greater account- ability is now required by educators, particularly in the area of the need to be responsible for student outcomes. Devolution of respon- sibility has moved rapidly away from a centralised system towards greater involvement of local school groups and communities. Edu- cators have been required increasingly to extend their professional role to include a range of additional extra curricular activities, while becoming more legally responsible and open to litigation. According to some reports, educators have become progressively more disillu- sioned by these demands and the accompanying pressure placed on their professional role (Gold & Roth,1993). In many instances the effects of these changes have been exacerbated when educators have been expected to accept new policies and practices without consid-
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
202 Inclusion: Is # stressful for teachers?
eration being given to their individual personal beliefs or rights. Inclusive practices are just one of the many changes which have challenged the status quo in schools in recent years. Ainscow (1994) reports that the policy of inclusion has the potential to unsettle educators, which could subsequently inhibit overall school improve- ment.
A major report on the attitudes of regular school principals towards inclusion in Australia was undertaken by Andrews, Elkins, Berry, and Burge (1979). At that time approximately 25% of principals agreed ideologically with the policy of integration, and almost 33 % supported regular school placements provided that adequate support and facilities were available. A later review on inclusion was undertaken in 1985 (Gow Report). While at this stagethere appeared to be an overall trend towards the inclusion of children with a disability into regular schools, in practice there was a marked difference between states and territories in their interpretation and implementation of such programs. The Report concluded that, generally, inclusion had been implemented in an ad hoc manner, was managed unsatisfacto- rily and was lacking in essential support services.
Research on inclusion in Australia has to date focused mainly on placement decisions, administrative concerns, and attitudes towards policy. Educators' attitudes towards inclusion have been found to be closely linked with acceptance of children with a disability into regular classrooms (Casey, 1994; Cole &Chan , 1990; Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996; Jenkinson, 1993; Ward, Center, & Bochner, 1994; Wilton, 1988). In general teachers have been found to be unwilling to accept a child with a disability into the regular classroom (Jenkinson & Gow, 1989). Ward et al. (1994) reported the findings of extensive attitudinal research studies undertaken in New South Wales. Their findings provided evidence of a rank ordering of acceptance towards children across a range of 30 different presenting conditions. They also found significant differences in attitudes towards inclusion between groups of educators and resource personnel.
According to Ward, Center, and Ferguson (1988), there appears to be little doubt that inclusion has made considerable demands on the regular class teacher. Furthermore, it is not clear whether a move towards inclusive practices will actually improve equal access to
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 203
education for all children (Wilton, 1993). As the policy of inclusion continues to gain momentum in Australian schools there is an increasing need to consider not only the attitudes of educators towards the policy, but in addition, the stress associated with its implementation.
A considerable volume of research has demonstrated that most people experience occupational stress-related problems at some time in their working lives (Braczyk, 1987). Further, since the early 1960' s there has been an increasing number of researchers reporting that educators are experiencing physiological and psychological symp- toms of stress (Farber, 1991; Fullan, 1993; Otto, 1986). Teacher stress and burnout has been referred to as a 'crisis in education' (Farber, 1991). Teacher stress is not reduced as a consequence of changes in policy and practice but appears to be even more common in the 1990's (Farber, 1991; Fullan, 1993). As Otto (1986) states, currently for teachers "expectations are formidable " (p. 32).
Wha t exactly is meant by stress? Teacher stress has been viewed as an interactive process which occurs between teachers and their teaching environment which leads to excessive demands being placed on the teacher and resulting in physiological or psychological distress (Bernard, 1990; Farber, 1991). Whether potential stressors invoke negative stressful emotions depends upon a person 's cognit ive appraisal of a given situation (Dewe et al., 1993; Folkman, 1992; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), and this varies according to people ' s beliefs and whether they perceive it as personally relevant. According to Johnstone (1989) teacher stress "is not an objective manifestat ion but a dynamic condit ion open to change and interpretation" (p. 6).
It has been posited that inclusive practices will make teaching more difficult and will promote even more stress among educators. As stated by Farber (1991):
The normal stresses of teaching are necessarily exacerbated by having one or two or several emotionally or physically handi- capped (sic) children in the classroom. Justifications such as "the price is worth it" or "that's what teachers get paid for," overlook the inevitable costs of this action, not just in terms of the amount of teacher work or teacher stress but in terms of the attention that teachers can focus on others in the classroom (p. 61).
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
204 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
Stress has also been linked with commitment suggesting that the more stressed teachers were, the less committed and sympathetic they were towards their students (Farber, 1991). The degree of stress experienced by educators in general has been found to be mediated by several variables including teaching experience, gender, specific school role, and type of students confronted (Farber, 1991). Three types of potential teacher stressors have been mentioned frequently in the literature: administrative, classroom, and personal stressors. Coping with the inclusion of a child with a disability in a regular classroom may initiate attributions of stress across all of these domains.
This paper reports the findings of research undertaken in Western Australia on educators' beliefs about the stress associated with a policy of inclusion. In Western Australia the emphasis on inclusion focuses on the movement of children from Education Support Centres (ESC's) into regular classes. Education Support Centres cater for students who require limited to extensive support (AAMR, 1992) and are autonomous in their operation, with their own principal and teaching staff. Although they operate separately, they are based on the sites of regular schools. The inclusion of students in regular classes is encouraged and involves considerable collaboration and cooperation between the regular class teachers and the ESC staff. Differences in attitudes between regular and resource teachers towards inclusion have been noted previously by Center and Ward (1987). This present study, therefore, considers the degree of stress attributed by both the regular and the ESC educators as differences between both groups are likely to affect their acceptance of a policy of inclusion and their support for its implementation.
S A M P L E
The subjects selected for the present study were teachers and principals (hereinafter referred to as educators) from Government ESC's and associated primary schools in Western Australia. Re- sponses from 273 educators from 19 ESC's and 19 primary schools were included in the analyses.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 205
Five independent variables and their interactions were considered. School included educators from either an ESC (n = 73) or a regular primary school (n = 192); Teaching experience was tr ichotomised into educators with less than 6 years (n = 54), 6 - 10 years (n = 74), and greater than 10 years teaching experience (n = 128); Teacher status involved the two categories of principals (n = 42) and teachers (n = 225); Gender included males (n = 65), and females (n = 202); Inclusion referred to educators who were either currently involved (involved) with the inclusion of a child with a disabili ty (n = 224), or those who were not currently involved (not involved) with including such a child (n = 43) in a regular classroom. Overall, e ighty-four percent of educators were involved with the inclusion of children with a disability. This consisted of 82% of the regular class educators who indicated that they had a child with a disabili ty in their classrooms, and 90% of the ESC staff who were involved in the placement of a child with a disabili ty into a regular classroom.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
In consideration of the complex and subjective nature of the term ' stress' particular attention was given to the development of a reliable measure to assess educators ' appraisal of the severity of stress associated with inclusion. Magni tude scaling was selected and two reliable scales were developed which allowed for direct comparisons to be made between educators. Magni tude scaling is a direct method of measurement which has developed from the work of Stevens (1936). It has been found to have considerable strengths over category scaling in that it places no investigator-imposed restraints upon response measures, and allows for direct comparisons to be made so that judgments are subsequently precise and dependable. According to Cross (1974) construct validity is increased further by basing a magnitude scale on multiple items and by al lowing educators to design their own reference line. In a major review of magnitude scaling by Lodge (1981) he demonstrated that a large body of empirical research and many psychophysical studies had provided support for Stevens ' Law concerning cross-modali ty matching relations.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
206 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
In this present study educators were required to rate the amount of stress they attributed to a specific Year 3 female teacher in her fourth year of teaching when including a target child (Bobby) with a mild intellectual disability into her class. Written scenarios described both the teacher and the target child, and the educators completed sample pages using a magnitude scaling technique prior to completing the questionnaire. Degree of stress was based on the premise that equality of educational opportunity relied on a teacher ensuring that all students achieved to their potential when educated in a regular classroom. The magnitude scaling instrument required educators to draw lines to indicate their perceptions of the severity of stress experienced by the nominated teacher.
Two dependent variables were employed. The first dependent variable (Target Child) required educators to rate their attributions of stress for the nominated teacher when ensuring that the target child achieved to potential during inclusion. The second dependent vari- able (Regular Child) requested attributions of stress for ensuring that a regular class child achieved to potential during the inclusion of the target child. For each dependent variable the educators were first required to rate their attributions of stress for the specified teacher when placing an average new child in her class. This formed each educator's reference line (see sample Question 1).
Question 1
I f a new child o f average ability were to join this class how much stress would the teacher be under to ensure that this average child progresses to the level o f his~her potential?
Educators then completed five "items", or response lines, de- signed to educe perceptions of stress for the teacher when ensuring that a child attained his/her potential academically, socially, person- ally, emotionally, and physically (see sample Question 2).
Question 2
I f Bobby were to join this class, compared with your response to the average child, how much stress would the teacher be under to ensure that Bobby progresses (academically) to the level o f his potent ial?
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 207
The measures employed in this study al lowed educators to designate their own reference line based on their perceptions of the stress for a nominated teacher when coping with an average new child placed in her classroom. This was then compared to educators ' appraisals of stress for the teacher when coping with the inclusion of a child with a mild intellectual disability. Regardless of a person 's perception of how much stress they attributed to coping with an average child, their appraisals of stress for coping with either the target child or the regular child were rated as a magnitude value relative to this.
The two six-item magnitude rating scales were developed accord- ing to the criteria suggested by Lodge (1981). The magnitude value was calculated for each scale to express the relative relationship between the reference line (average child) and the mean of the five response lines, relative to 1:00. The magnitude value was made linear in the measures to be addressed by taking the logm~thm of the ratio of the mean length of the lines drawn by the participants to the length of their reference line. Response lines were measured in mill imeters and the magnitude value derived using the formula: 10x[logl0(rsp/ 5)-logl0(ref)] , where rsp = the total length of the five response lines and ref = the length of the reference line. Cronbach' s coefficient alpha of the five items of the magnitude scale for the dependent variable of Target Child was .93, and for Regular Child was .94.
R E S U L T S
A posit ive correlation o f . 19(p < .01) was found between educa- tors' attributions of stress for coping with the target child and for coping with the regular child. When asked to consider the stress associated with inclusion, educators perceived that not only was it stressful coping with the child with the disability, but further, there was additional stress incurred in coping with the regular children already in their class.
Means and standard deviations
The summary statistics for each level of the five independent variables for both the target and regular child are presented in Table 1. All means are to be interpreted as a magnitude value relative to 1:00.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
208 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
Table 1
Educators' appraisals of severity of stress for coping with a target child and a regular child during inclusion: Means and standard deviations for total sample and biographical subgroups.
Severity of stress Targetchild Regtdarchild
Subjects Category n ~ SD n ~, SD
Total 273 4.95 3.66 273 2.90 3.16
Gender Male 65 4.46 4.21 64 2.74 3.58 Female 202 5.11 3.47 206 2.95 3.02
Teacher status Principals 42 3.87 2.53 42 3.02 3.09 Teachers 225 5.15 3.81 228 2.88 3.18
School Regular 192 5.09 3.92 193 3.11 3.41 ESC 73 4.65 2.88 75 2.35 2.39
Teaching experience 1 - 5 Yrs 54 5.28 3.84 57 2.52 3.01 6- 10Yrs 74 5.17 3.57 74 3.27 3.05 11 + Yrs 128 4.77 3.71 128 2.93 3.37
Inclusion Involved 224 5.10 3.77 227 2.73 2.83 Not Involved 43 4.16 2.96 43 3.81 4.46
Note. Total n may vary for each biographical subgroup due to missing data
In all instances the mean severity of stress for coping with the target child was greater than for coping with the regular child. Relative to the stress attributed to coping with an average new child placed into the target teacher ' s classroom, the mean stress level for coping with the child with an intellectual disabili ty was 4.95 times greater. In addition, the mean stress level for coping with the other regular class children during the inclusion of the child with an intellectual disability was 2.90 times greater than for coping with the average new child.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 209
Independent variables
The experimental design employed a 2 (school) x 3 (experience) x 2 (teacher status) x 2 (inclusion) x 2 (gender) x 2 (type of child) analysis of variance. Because of the commensurate nature of the two dependent variables for type of child (Target and Regular) a repeated measures analysis was employed on the final factor. For all quanti- tative analyses the alpha level was set at .05. Whi le the total group size was reasonably large (n = 273) several of the subgroups were too small to provide useful data. Consequently all 3-way and higher-order interactions were pooled as error.
Considerat ion of the independent variables revealed that signifi- cant interactions were found for the between-groups effects of Teacher status x Inclusion F ( 1 ,241 ) = 7.85, p < .01 and Teacher status x Gender F (1 ,241) = 4.24, p < .05. A significant interaction was also found for the within-groups effects for Inclusion x Child F(1,242) = 9.11,p < .01. There was a significant main effect for child F (1 ,242) = 59.31, p < .001, al though no other significant two-way interactions or main effects were found.
Inclusion x Child interaction
Involvement in an inclusion program had a significant effect on educators ' appraisal of stress for coping with the target and regular child. Analysis of the means revealed a disordinal interaction. Educators who were involved with the daily reality of including a child with a disabili ty attributed substantially higher levels of stress for coping with the target child than for coping with the regular child, whereas those who were not involved with inclusion attributed approximately equal stress to coping with the target child and the regular child. From Figure 1 it can be seen that attributions of severity of stress for coping with the regular child were greatest for those educators who were not involved in an inclusion program. Appraisal of stress for coping with the target child was, however, highest for those who were involved in an inclusion program.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
210 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
7 '
6 "
4 ,
3
" . , '...,
'.,.. ".,...,
:::::
,,,,,,,, ,j,,,,,,, ! !
Target Regular
Type of Child
tnclusiolt
' ,,,-.!!i!i:..... Involved
. . . . . ~ ...... Not Involved
Figure 1. Educators' appraisals of stress for the Inclusion x Child interaction.
The actual stress of coping with the regular child when involved in an inclusion program was less than predicted by educators who were not involved with inclusion, whereas, the stress of coping with the target child was greater than expected by those who were not involved with inclusion.
T e a c h e r s ta tus x I n c l u s i o n I n t e r a c t i o n
Regardless of type of child or school, differences in appraisals of severity of stress were noted between teachers and principals depending upon their current involvement in an inclusion program. Teachers attributed similar levels of severity of stress for coping, whether involved or not involved with inclusion, although attributions were slightly higher for those teachers who were involved in an inclusion program (~ = 4.11), than for those who were not involved (~ = 3.73). Principals attributed different levels of severity of stress depending upon involvement in an inclusion program. This disordinal interaction is illustrated in Figure 2. Principals who were involved with inclusion attributed the least stress (~ = 3.12), and those who were not involved the greatest stress (~ = 6.54) for coping during inclusion.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 211
i i
Principal Teacher
Teacher Sta tus
Inclusion
...... i)i:i .... Involved
~""'~~'~ Not Involved
Figure 2. Educators' appraisals of stress for the Teacher Status x Inclusion interaction.
Although a noticeable difference was found for the mean of principals who were not involved with inclusion compared with those who were involved, further investigation indicated a small cell size (n = 4). This small number of principals (all from regular schools), currently not involved in some form of inclusion program, reflected the momentum towards inclusion but results will need to be inter- preted with caution because of the l imited cell size.
T e a c h e r S t a t u s x G e n d e r i n t e r a c t i o n
While teachers gave similar attributions of stress, regardless of gender, the mean magnitude value of stress for female principals was higher (x = 4.25), than it was for male principals (x = 2.86). Figure 3 demonstrates these results. Female principals attributed the highest levels of stress to the nominated regular class teacher for coping during the inclusion of the target child. Male principals attributed significantly less stress than female principals and the lowest levels of stress overall for coping during inclusion.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
212 Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers?
7
6 -
p
, . , . . , . . - '
. . . . . . / - ' "
::iC-"
, i I
Principal
Teacher Status
Gender
........ i:!!i:"" " Male
~ ' 0 ~ " Female
Figure 3. Educators' appraisals of stress for the Teacher Status x Gender interaction.
Although not significant at the .05 level it is pertinent to note the statistics for the main effect for school F ( 1 , 2 4 2 ) = 3.50, p = .06. Educators from the regular school settings attributed considerably greater severity of stress to coping during inclusion than did those from the ESC' s. This was not affected by either type of child or the five biographical variables investigated.
S U M M A R Y OF F I N D I N G S
Educators attributed the severity of stress associated with includ- ing a child with a mild intellectual disability in a regular classroom to be high for coping with both the child with the disability and the regular class child. The stress of coping with the child with a mild intellectual disabili ty was attributed to be considerably higher by those educators who were currently involved with inclusion, whereas, attributions of the stress for coping with the regular child was greatest for those who were not currently involved with inclusion. Teachers attributed similar levels of stress regardless of involvement in an inclusion program, or gender. Male principals attributed inclusion to be considerably less stressful than did their female colleagues or teachers. Educators from the regular schools who were to receive the
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 213
child with a disability, perceived inclusion to be more stressful than did educators from the ESC's , who were promoting the placement of children into regular classrooms.
D I S C U S S I O N
The concept of inclusion is based on the expectation that all educators will be committed to ensuring the right of a child with a disability to equality of placement and opportunity when receiving their education in the regular classroom. These societal rights are determined by political issues and policy and in some coun t fes by legal statutes, and have developed from an ethical and social justice perspective. These rights do not take into account educators ' beliefs about how stressful the policy of inclusion is for them or how they expect to cope.
Previous research has found that inclusion makes additional demands on teachers (Ward et al . , 1988) and that teachers are apprehensive about including children with a disability in regular classrooms (Forlin e t al., 1996; Jenkinson & Gow, 1989). The move towards a policy of inclusion in Australia has not occurred in isolation. Concomitant ly , there has been the introduction of many new educational reforms which have all placed additional stress on the regular class teacher, and are likely to have exacerbated the need for commitment to inclusion. Within this rapidly changing educational arena is inclusion stressful for teachers? The simple answer appears to be a conclusive yes. This present research has found that educators in Western Australia perceive inclusion to be extremely stressful for the regular class teacher. Compared to coping with an average new regular class child, educators consider that when asked to cope with a child with a mild intellectual disability this is five times more stressful for the regular teacher. Further, educators perceive that coping with regular class children, when a child with a mild intellectual disability is placed in their classroom, is additionally three times more stressful for teachers. From the literature it is apparent that teaching has become viewed by researchers as a high stress occupation with prevalence levels increasing during the last decade (Farber, 1991; Fullan, 1993). If, as Firestone and Pennell (1993) argued, the more stressed a teacher was, then the less committed they would be
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
214 Inclusion: Is # stressful for teachers?
towards their students, this discrepancy between appraisals could be construed as an indication that regular class educators would be less committed to ensuring that the child with a disability achieves to potential than to coping with the needs of the regular class child.
This research has found that involvement with inclusion has significantly increased educators' appraisal of the severity of stress associated with coping with a child with an intellectual disability. When comparing perceptions of stress between principals and teachers significant differences arise. It is heartening that for princi- pals in Western Australia their expectations of severity of stress are not fulfilled when they become involved with inclusive practices. It is, however, disturbing that once they are involved with inclusion they appraise it as significantly less stressful than do teachers. This complements earlier findings by Center and Ward (1987) who found that it was the teachers who, when faced with the reality of implementing integration in their classes, were less positive than were their principals who had been involved in the decision to implement such a policy. Such differences need to be considered when planning for inclusive practices.
Similar to the findings of Farber (1991), the degree of stress was also found to be mediated by gender with male principals appraising the stress of inclusion as considerably less severe than all other educators. In the present study it was clear that while gender was a critical determinant this was only so for male principals as female principals recorded similar levels of severity of stress as did teachers. When encouraging inclusive practices male principals in particular need to be aware that their appraisal of the stress associated with inclusion does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of teachers.
A further concern highlighted in the present research is the difference between appraisals of the severity of stress from regular and education support staff. One of the major reasons that Education Support Centres were placed on the grounds of regular primary schools in Western Australia was as an attempt to encourage greater integration of students from the ESC's into the regular classrooms. Ward et al. (1988) reported that there was little doubt that inclusive practices were highly demanding on regular teachers in New South
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Fortin, Hattie, & Douglas 215
Wales. Such a move in Western Australia requires collaboration and cooperation between the staff at both schools. There is also a need for the ESC staff to appreciate what will be required by regular teachers and to have an empathy with their changing roles. This research has found that currently there exists considerable disparity between the staff at both schools regarding their perceptions of the degree of stress a regular class teacher experiences during inclusion. As regular class teachers consider inclusion to be significantly more stressful than do the teachers at the ESC this is unlikely to auger well for promoting greater inclusion. It would seem essential that ESC staff should have a realistic appreciation of what is involved for the regular class teacher, and how stressful teachers perceive inclusion to be. Educators ' beliefs about the policy of inclusion will provide the context for their appraisal of inclusion and are likely to determine their commitment to its implementation. If this mismatch between attri- butions of stress from ESC staff and regular school staff is not addressed, attempts to include more children with a disability into regular classrooms are potentially problematic.
This present research considered educators ' appraisals of stress for the inclusion of a child with only a mild intellectual disability into a regular classroom. Previous research by Ward e t al. (1994) reported that attitudes towards inclusion vary depending upon the type and degree of disability of a child. Further research studies are necessary to investigate educators ' perceptions of stress associated with including children with different disabilities, as it is likely that the stress levels reported here will be heightened further when considera- tion is given to children with more severe disabilities.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (1994). Special needs in the classroom: A teacher education guide. London: J. Kingsley Publishers (UNESCO).
Andrews, R. J., Elkins, J., Berry, P. B., & Burge, J. A. (1979).A survey ofspecial education in Australia. University of Queensland: Fred and Eleanor Schonell Educational Re- search Centre.
Bauer, A. M., & Shea, T. M. (1989). Teaching exceptional students in your classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bernard, M.E. (1990). Taking the stress outofteaching. Melbourne, Victoria: Collins Dove.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
216 Inclusion: Is # stressful for teachers?
Braczyk, H. J. (1987). Industrial work and social risks. In F. Lolas, & H. Mayer (Eds.), Perspectives on stress and stress-related topics (pp. 44-62). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Buchanan, A.E., & Brock, D.W. (1990).Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Casey, K. (1994). Teaching children with special needs. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.
Center, Y., & Ward, J. (1987). Teachers' attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 34, 41-56.
Choate, J. S. (1993). Successful mainstreaming: Proven ways to detect and correct special needs. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cole, P. G., &Chan, L. K. S. (1990).Methods and strategies for special education. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Cross, D. V. (1974). Some technical notes on psychophysical scaling. In H. R. Moskowitz, B. Scharf, & J. C. Stevens (Eds.),Sensation and Measurement, (pp. 23-36). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
D' Arienzo, R. V., Moracco, J. C., & Krajewski, R. J. (1982).Stress in teaching. A comparison of' perceived occupational stress factors between special education and regular classroom teachers. Washington: University Press of America.
Dewe, P. J. (1993). Work stress and coping: Common pathways for future research? Work and Stress, 7, 1-3.
Dyson, A. (1990). Effective learning consultancy: A future role for special needs coordina- tors. Support for Learning, 5, 116-123.
Elkins, J. (1992). Differentiation without discrimination: Principles and practices for the education of students with disabilities and other special educational needs. Proceed- ings of the 16th national conference of the Australian Association of Special Educa- tion (pp. 37-41). Perth, Western Australia: Australian Association of Special Education.
Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: How accepting are teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43, 119-134.
Farber, B. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the Auwrican teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.),PersonaI coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31-46). Westport: Praeger.
Freeman, M. D. A. (1992). Introduction: Rights, ideology and children. In M. Freeman & P. Veerman (Eds.), The ideologies of children's rights (pp. 3-6). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.
Glomb, N. K., & Morgan, D. P. (1991). Resource room teachers' use of strategies that promote the success of handicapped students in regular classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 25, 221-235.
J In
telle
ct D
ev D
is D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Tor
onto
on
05/1
0/10
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas 217
Gold, Y., & Roth, R. A. (1993). Teachers managing stress andpreventing burnout. London: Falmer Press.
Gow, L. (1985, May). Report of the working party on special education on Commonwealth policy and direction in special education. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education.
Idol, L. (1992, May). Collaborative consultation. Paper presented at a Ministry of Education conference, Perth, WA.
Jenkinson, J. C. (1993). Integration of students with severe and multiple learning difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 8, 320-335.
Jenkinson, J. C., & Gow, L. (1989). Integration in Australia: A research perspective. Australian Journal of Education, 33, 267-283.
Johnstone, M. (1989). Stress in teaching. Midlothian, Great Britain: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Kauffman, J. M. (1993). The effects of the sociopolitical environment on developments in special education. Australian Journal of Special Education, 17, 3-13.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-169.
Lodge, M. (1981). Magnitude scaling: Quantitative measurement of opinions. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications.
Otto, R. (1986). Teachers under stress. Melbourne: Hill of Content. Rawls, J. (1971).A theory ofjustice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stevens, S. S. (1936). A scale for the measurement of a psychological magnitude: loudness.
Psychological Review, 43, 405-416. Ward, J., Center, Y., & Bochner, S. (1994). A question of attitudes: Integrating children with
disabilities into regular classrooms? British Journal of Special Education, 21, 34-39. Ward, J., Center, Y., & Ferguson, C. (1988). Integration of children with disabilities: Design
of a naturalistic study. In A. F. Ashman (Ed.), The Exceptional Child Monograph No. 1 (pp. 249-259). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Westwood, P., & Palmer, C. (1993). Knowledge and skills for special educators in the 1990's: Perceptions from the field. Australian Journal of Special Education, 17, 31-41.
Wilton, K. (1988 ). Research on integration of children with mild intellectual disabilities: Issues and problems. In A. F. Ashman (Ed.), The Exceptional Child Monograph No. 1 (pp. 189-206). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Wilton, K. (1993). Acknowledging quality in New Zealand special education. Australian Journal of Special Education, 17, 14-19. J
Inte
llect
Dev
Dis
Dow
nloa
ded
from
info
rmah
ealth
care
.com
by
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to o
n 05
/10/
10Fo
r pe
rson
al u
se o
nly.
