Investigating the attitudes of head teachers of Cypriot primary schools towards inclusion

Investigating the attitudes of head teachers ofCypriot primary schools towards inclusionjrs3_1195 66..81

Kika Hadjikakou1 and Marina Mnasonos2

1Ministry of Education and Culture, Cyprus; 2European University Cyprus, Cyprus

Key words: Inclusion, head teachers, attitudes, Cyprus, disabilities.

This paper reports the results of a study that hasbeen carried out for the first time in Cyprus, with theaim of exploring the views of head teachers oninclusion. Data were collected by means of ques-tionnaires and a focus group meeting; 185 headteachers participated in this study. The findingsindicated that overall, head teachers held positiveattitudes towards inclusion of children with disabili-ties. The relationship among the head teachers’background factors, such as sex, administrationexperience, contacts with people with disabilities,possession of postgraduate titles in special educa-tion and attitudes towards inclusion were reported.This study has brought out that head teachers heldoverall positive attitudes towards inclusion. Thefindings are meaningful to the understanding of theeffects of inclusion and entail various implicationsto facilitate it.

IntroductionInclusive education has become compulsory in more andmore European countries as well as in the USA and Aus-tralia through legislative and administrative changes, andrecent trends in educational philosophy (Thomas andVaughan, 2004; United Nations, 1989; United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994).

As a result, teachers’ attitudes1 have become critical (Avra-midis, Bayliss and Burden, 2000; Stoiber, Gettinger andGoetz, 1998). The school head teacher, who serves as aneducational leader in school life, plays a major function inimplementing change (Avissar, 2000). Previous researchhas shown that the attitudes of school head teachers are ofdecisive importance for the implementation of inclusiveeducation (Heimdahl Mattson and Malmgren Hansen,2009; Horrocks, White and Roberts, 2008). Praisner (2000)suggests that ‘for inclusion to be successful, first and fore-most, the school administrator must display a positive atti-tude and commitment to inclusion’ (p. 136). Previousstudies also show that the continuous encouragement fromthe head teachers is instrumental in the creation of positive

attitudes to inclusion among the teaching staff (Avissar,Reiter and Leyser, 2003; Center and Ward, 1987; Chazan,1994; Janney, Snell and Beers et al., 1995).

Solomon, Schaps and Watson et al. (1992) identified fourkey roles for head teachers in facilitating inclusive prac-tices: (1) providing support for teachers as they learn andgrow; (2) working to establish caring relationships withstudents and faculty; (3) developing a school-wide disci-pline programme that reflects insight into students and theirproblems; and (4) setting a tone of support and caring in theschool community while providing resources for students,staff and parents.

Most of the current studies suggest that among the schoolpersonnel, head teachers hold the most positive attitudestowards the inclusion of children with special needs(Avissar et al., 2003; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Cook,Semmel and Gerber, 1999; Garvar-Pinhas and Schmelkin,1989; Lee and Kong, 2007).

It has been suggested that the more positive attitudes ofhead teachers may be attributed to their limited contactswith pupils and teaching (Avissar et al., 2003; Avramidisand Norwich, 2002; Cook et al., 1999; Kavale, 2000). Spe-cifically, Avramidis and Norwich (2002, p. 132) suggest‘that school district staff who are more distant from stu-dents, such as administrators and advisers, express morepositive attitudes to integration than those closer to theclassroom context, the class teachers.’

In what follows, previous studies investigating solely theperceptions of head teachers towards inclusion, indepen-dently of the attitudes of other professionals, are reviewed.The majority of those studies was carried out in the USA(Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Brotherson, Sheriff andMilburn et al., 2001; Cox, 2008; Horrocks et al., 2008;Lasky and Karge, 2006; Praisner, 2003; Ramirez, 2006),and only a few of them were conducted elsewhere, forexample, in Israel (Avissar et al., 2003), Sweden (HeimdahlMattson and Malmgren Hansen, 2009), Hong Kong(Sharma and Chow, 2008), and Korea (Lee and Kong,2007).

In previous studies, it was reported that head teachers withmore positive attitudes towards inclusion were more likely

1 Attitudes are generally considered to be enduring feelings that one has about a

person, object or issue (Olson and Zanna, 1993).

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 12 · Number 2 · 2012 66–81doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01195.x

66© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

to believe that less restrictive placements were most appro-priate for pupils with disabilities, both in primary (Praisner,2003; Ramirez, 2006) and in secondary schools (Cox,2008). It was also brought out that head teachers supportedthe inclusion of children regardless of the severity of thedisability, being either mild (Barnett and Monda-Amaya,1998) or severe (Horrocks et al., 2008).

As regards the outcomes of inclusion, researchers suggestedthat inclusion facilitated the educational and social devel-opment of children with and without disabilities (Lasky andKarge, 2006). However, Avissar and his colleagues (2003)found in their study that head teachers expected socialsuccess of included students to be higher than theirexpected educational success. In another study on headteachers’ attitudes within a 10-year period (HeimdahlMattson and Malmgren Hansen, 2009), it was reported thathead teachers’ focus had not been on the national tests assuch, but rather on a school’s ability to eliminate obstaclesto learning.

It has been reported that despite the fact that the headteachers supported inclusion for young children with dis-abilities, they were not adequately prepared to implementinclusive practices (Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998), forvarious reasons (e.g., scarcity of qualified personnel, moreand more children with a diversity of disabilities, etc.)(Brotherson et al., 2001).

However, the findings in a small number of studies wererather different, as head teachers did not advocate full inclu-sion. They preferred schools that provided a continuum ofservices and supported pull-out programmes for specialeducation services (Dyal and Flynt, 1996), or continued tofavour the traditional placements in self-contained specialeducation classrooms for students with severe disabilities(Livingston, Reed and Good, 2001). It was also reportedthat very few head teachers had undertaken any trainingfocusing on the education of these students (Sharma andChow, 2008).

Previous studies (Avissar et al., 2003; Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Cox, 2008; Horrocks et al., 2008; Lee andKong, 2007; Praisner, 2003; Ramirez, 2006; Sharma andChow, 2008) also highlighted the relationships betweenattitudes towards inclusion and other variables such as train-ing and experience, type of disability and head teachers’personal characteristics, such as sex, age or educationalbackground.

Specifically, it was found that positive experiences withdisabilities and exposure to special education are associatedwith a more positive attitude towards inclusion (Cox, 2008;Horrocks et al., 2008; Lee and Kong, 2007; Praisner, 2003;Sharma and Chow, 2008). However, Avissar and colleagues(2003) found that head teachers with more in-service train-ing in the area of inclusion practised more pull-outprogrammes.

Regarding gender, Ramirez (2006) did not find any relation-ship between a head teacher’s gender and school size, and

attitudes towards inclusion. However, head teachersbelieved that certain disability categories that tend to fit in‘academically’ are more appropriate for inclusive settings(Avissar et al., 2003; Cox, 2008; Praisner, 2003). However,in the study carried out by Ramirez (2006), the disabilitycategory, as well as the percentage of students in specialeducation in a head teacher’s school, was not a significantfactor in the head teacher’s attitude towards inclusion.

Avissar and colleagues (2003) found in their study signifi-cant correlations among level of education, age and inclu-sion practices in school, as follows. Head teachers with ahigher level of education practised more pull-out pro-grammes. The older the head teachers, the fewer full-inclusion practices were implemented, whereas morepull-out programmes were used. Ramirez (2006) did notfind in her study any significant difference in the attituderating towards inclusion between older and younger headteachers.

As regards experience, Avissar et al. (2003) found that headteachers with more experience and seniority were less sup-portive of inclusion, as shown also in previous researches(Horrocks et al., 2008; Sharma and Chow, 2008). However,other studies (Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Ramirez,2006) revealed no relationships between positive or nega-tive attitudes towards inclusion and the number of years inadministration.

Inclusion of children with disabilities began in Cypruswhen the Cyprus parliament voted in 1999 the 113(1)99Special Education Law that stresses, among other things,the responsibility of the state to provide the least restrictedenvironment possible for children with special needs andtheir inclusion in general schools. This law stipulates alsothat the general school is the most appropriate educationalenvironment for children with special needs, unless other-wise established. In July 2001, the regulations of the lawwere also ratified by the Cyprus parliament (Hadjikakou,Petridou and Stylianou (2008).

However, there is little published research data availableregarding the attitudes of head teachers towards inclusion inCyprus, with the exception of the study carried out byHadjikakou et al. (2008). Those researchers reported theattitudes of head teachers towards the inclusion of deaf andhard of hearing (d/hh) children along with the perceptionsof general teachers, of parents of d/hh children and of thed/hh children themselves. Head teachers responded posi-tively towards the inclusion of d/hh children into generalschools.

Because of the growing awareness of inclusion, andbecause school head teachers are central in the implemen-tation of school innovation and policy, we considered ittimely and important to investigate how Cypriot schoolhead teachers felt about inclusion. The majority of the pre-vious studies employed either quantitative methods orqualitative methods (e.g., Bailey and Du Plessis, 1997;Livingston et al., 2001), but only a couple of them (e.g.,

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 66–81

67© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Brotherson et al., 2001) used both methods that could high-light better the current situation. Similarly, Lee and Kong(2007) suggested that further studies employing not onlyquantitative methods, but also ‘diverse methodologies suchas case studies, observations, and interviews are needed tohelp us to understand head teachers’ perceptions towardsinclusion and their roles in implementing successful inclu-sive education.’

This paper explores, for the first time in Cyprus, the atti-tudes of head teachers of primary schools towards inclu-sion, for the following reasons: (1) head teachers’ beliefsare key personal and socio-political elements that deserveinvestigation; (2) great value of international perspectiveson head teachers’ attitudes on inclusion; and (3) lack of anysuch research in Cyprus.

In addition to the above-mentioned general aim of the study,in this paper, answers to the following questions are sought:(1) How prepared do the head teachers feel to include chil-dren with disabilities in their classrooms?; (2) What are theperceptions of the head teachers regarding the barriers andfacilitators to inclusion?; (3) What are the relationshipsbetween head teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion andother variables such as contacts with people with disabili-ties, possession of postgraduate qualifications in specialeducation, experience, type of disability and head teachers’personal characteristics, such as sex and age?; and (4) Whatare head teachers’ suggestions for improvements ininclusion?

MethodologyIn order to overcome the problem of ‘method boundness’,triangulation (i.e., the use of two or more methods of datacollection in the study) was applied to ensure that the datagenerated are not the product of one method of collectionbut the outcome of more than one different methods (Cohenand Manion, 1994). Thus, apart from the questionnairesused, the current paper also employs one focus groupmeeting.

The participantsThe participants were all the head teachers of primaryschools in Cyprus (N = 185). Out of these participants, 73(39.9%) were male, and 110 (60.1%) were female (two ofthe participants did not identify their sex). Regarding theirages, 28 (15.22%) of them were between 36 and 45 yearsold, and the rest of them (84.78%) were older than 46 years(one of the participants did not identify his/her age). Con-cerning their education level, 142 (77.17%) were holders offirst degrees, 36 of them (19.57%) did postgraduate studies(seven of them in special education) and six (3.26%) weredoctors (one participant did not answer the relevant ques-tion). Regarding the participants of the focus groups, threewere women, and two were men. Their ages rangedbetween 40 and 55 years old. Two of them did postgraduatestudies (not in special education).

InstrumentsRegarding the quantitative methods, a questionnaire wasdesigned and used. The questionnaire consisted in the main

of closed questions (multiple choice questions and/or theuse of a Likert scale) for the convenience of the participants,when they were filling them in. The head teachers’ ques-tionnaire consisted of 80 questions divided into six parts.

The first part consisted of a demographics section thatrequested participants to provide descriptive informationabout themselves. The second part, which was originallyused by Stoiber et al. (1998) and was entitled ‘My thinkingabout inclusion scale’, was a 28-item scale and was dividedinto three subparts: (1) core perspectives, which measuredthe head teachers’ agreement with the claim that childrenwith disabilities are entitled to education together with theirtypically developing peers in inclusive classrooms;(2) expected outcomes of inclusion, which is associatedwith expectations from the children with disabilities; and(3) classroom practices, which examines how inclusioninfluences classroom dynamics and general teaching prac-tices. There were 14 reverse questions (e.g., ‘Inclusion isnot a desirable practice for educating most typically devel-oping students’). To complete the questionnaire, partici-pants indicated their degree of agreement for beliefstatements using a five-point scale (1 = strongly accept, 2 =agree, 3 = undecided/neutral, 4 = disagree and 5 = stronglyreject). A score of 1 is construed as a positive attitude, and5 represents a negative attitude; thus, a score of 3 representsan average score. Examples of the statements that wereincluded in the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the threesubscales of the questionnaire in the present study were a =0.70 for core perspectives, a = 0.79 for expected outcomesand a = 0.57 for classroom practices, and they were con-sidered satisfactory.

In the rest of the questionnaire, ‘Pragmatics’ sections wereincluded, which were originally designed and used byStoiber et al. (1998). Specifically, in the third part, practitio-ners were presented with a list of 12 disability profiles (seeAppendix A) and were asked to ‘indicate the ease that youbelieve each of the following types of disabilities can beaccommodated in an inclusive classroom setting’ (1 = no orvery little accommodation, 2 = minor accommodation, 3 =much accommodation, 4 = major accommodation). Thesame 12 disability profiles were presented in part 4, andparticipants were asked to indicate the ‘level of preparednessthat you feel you have in teaching children in full inclusiveclassroom setting’(1 = not prepared, 2 = somewhat prepared,3 = very prepared, 4 = extremely prepared) (see Table 2). Inthe fifth part, head teachers were requested to rate the extentto which eight factors, such as limited knowledge or lack ofexperience, interfered with inclusion practices from 1 (doesnot) to 4 (does extremely) and, in the sixth part, to rank 10methods for improving inclusive practices in terms of use-fulness from best (1) to least preferred (10) (see Table 3).

Two researchers who were fluent in both languages trans-lated this questionnaire independently, in Greek and backinto English. Once the questionnaires had been completed,a small pilot study was carried out, the aim of which was toexamine the structure and efficiency of the questionnaires in


68 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

gathering information. Six head teachers pre-tested the finaldraft by filling in the questionnaires as they would if theywere part of the survey; the data from these head teacherswere not included in this study. The participants were askedto comment on the design and the content of the question-naire, discussing with the researchers any problems theyhad and making suggestions regarding the wording andmeaning of the questions. Minor changes were then made,mainly in terms of meaning and wording.

Regarding the focus group meeting, the general issues to beinvestigated were formulated as an interview guide. Six setsof questions related to the research questions of the studywere explored with respondents. The first set focused onlegislation. The second set covered advantages and disad-vantages of inclusion. The third set of questions focused onparents. The fourth set of questions covered teaching,including teaching modifications, and the teachers’ trainingand experiences with children with disabilities. The fifth setfocused on social and academic inclusion. The sixth set ofquestions covered suggestions for effective inclusion.

Procedure – analysisAs regards the questionnaires’ distribution, the question-naires were mailed to all head teachers of primary schools(N = 298) in Cyprus. To encourage response, an explanatorynote was printed on the first page of the questionnaire,emphasising the importance of the research and assuringanonymity and confidentiality. Stamped addressed enve-lopes were sent with the questionnaires. Reminder tele-phone calls were also made. All data were coded andsubjected to statistical analysis using the SPSS (SPSSInc.233 South Wacker Drive, 11th Floor, Chicago, IL)system. Out of 298 head teachers, 185 head teachers filledin the questionnaire sent to them, resulting in a responserate of 62.08%. Descriptive statistics as well as inferentialstatistics (the t-test and the analysis of variance) wereapplied to analyse the questionnaire data.

As far as the focus group meeting is concerned, the fiveinvitees were seated in a manner that provided maximumopportunity for eye contact with both the moderator andother group members. At the beginning, the moderator (theresearcher) attempted to create an atmosphere of trust, andthe invitees were assured of anonymity. The introductionsof group members were made to build a sense of being in a‘group’. After that, the moderator introduced the topic fordiscussion, and the discussion started. During the meeting,all respondents were encouraged to speak. The meetinglasted approximately 2 hours, and it was audiotaped to savethe information generated. Ethical issues regarding ano-nymity, confidentiality and access to the research findingswere discussed with the participants who gave an informedconsent prior to data collection.

Regarding the analysis of the data deriving from the focusgroups, a qualitative approach, which relies on direct quo-tation of the interviews, was applied to analyse the datacollected (Knodel, 1993). Three steps were followed in theanalysis of the interviews: (1) text transcription: the first

step in the analysis of the interviews was to arrange for thetranscription of the detailed notes and audio/video tapes ofthe interviews; (2) code procedures: when a printed docu-ment of all interviews had been produced, the researchersstudied the transcript and identified those sections of it thatwere relevant to the research questions of the study. Accord-ing to Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, p. 105) ‘this codingprocedure requires several passes through the transcript ascategories of the topics evolved and the analyst gainedgreater insight into the content’ of the interview. The inter-view topics served as a general guide for developing codecategories. A set of six primary code categories was created:legislation; advantages and disadvantages of inclusion;teaching; social inclusion; academic inclusion and sugges-tions for effective inclusion; and c. search procedures; oncethe code categories were assigned and noted in the marginsof interviews, the data were copied, cut and pasted, andsorted into separate code folders. A printout was produced,which was used as supporting material within an interpre-tative analysis.

ResultsQuantitative findingsHead teacher beliefs regarding inclusion. Table 1 showsthat Cypriot head teachers had overall positive attitudestowards the inclusion of children with disabilities (giventhat a score of 3 represents an average score, also seeMethodology). Head teachers held more positive attitudestowards expected outcomes than core perspectives andclassroom practices.

The independent t-test showed that male head teachers heldmore positive attitudes towards inclusion of children withdisabilities than female head teachers, both overall [t(181) =-3.299, P = 0.001] and in two subscales, core perspectives[t(180) = -3.177, P = 0.002] and expected outcomes [t(180)= -3.108, P = 0.002].

Regarding the impact of age on the head teachers’ attitudestowards inclusion, despite the fact that no statistical differ-ence (P � 0.05) was identified between older and youngerhead teachers, younger head teachers held more negativeattitudes towards inclusion, both overall (mean aged 36–45> mean aged 45+: 2.90 > 2.79) and in three subscales, coreperspectives (mean aged 36–45 > mean aged 45+: 2.86 >2.76), expected outcomes (mean aged 36–45 > mean aged

Table 1: Means and standard deviations (SDs) ofparticipants’ scores in core perspectives, expectedoutcomes and classroom practices

Attitudes Mean SD

Core perspectives 2.77 0.451

Expected outcomes 2.64 0.510

Classroom practices 3.26 0.557

Whole scale 2.81 0.386

Note: Rated on a 1–5 scale, where 1 = not at all and 5 = a lot. The highestscore being more negative.



45+: 2.70 > 2.63) and classroom practices (mean aged36–45 > mean aged 45+: 3.41 > 3.23).

Likewise, regarding the working years of experience ashead teachers, despite the fact that no statistical differences(P � 0.05) were found between head teachers with more orfewer years of experiences, head teachers with fewer yearsof working experience held more negative attitudes towardsinclusion than head teachers with more years of workingexperience, both overall (mean years of experience 1–9 >mean years of experience 10+: 2.89 > 2.54) and in threesubscales, core perspectives (mean years of experience 1–9> mean years of experience 10+: 2.78 > 2.47), expectedoutcomes (mean years of experience 1–9 > mean years ofexperience 10+: 2.65 > 2.39) and classroom practices (meanaged 36–45 > mean aged 45+: 3.26 > 3.07).

Head teachers’ contacts with people with disabilities.Nearly half of the participants (49.44%) stated that they hadcontacts with people with disabilities; 42 of them (46.67%)stated that they knew people that had disabilities, 28 ofthem (31.11%) had relatives with disabilities, 14 (15.56%)had friends with disabilities and 6 (6.67%) had colleagueswith disabilities.

Regarding the frequency of contacts, Figure 1 shows thatthe majority of the head teachers had contacts with peoplewith disabilities on an everyday basis.

The independent t-test also showed that head teachers whohad contacts with people with disabilities had more positive

attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities thanthose who did not have such contacts, both overall [t(175) =-3.108, P = 0.002] and in two subscales, core perspectives[t(176) = -2.181, P = 0.031] and expected outcomes [t(175)= -2.227, P = 0.027].

Head teachers’ perceptions related to accommodation.Head teachers indicated that children with specific learningdifficulties and with mobility disabilities can be most easilyaccommodated in general schools. They felt that the great-est amount of classroom adaptation is needed for childrenwith autism and neurological impairments (see Table 2).

Participants’ gender was related to their beliefs about accom-modation. Table 3 shows that male head teachers felt that agreater amount of classroom adaptation is needed for almostall children with disabilities than female head teachers.

The age of head teachers was also related to their accom-modation beliefs. Table 4 illustrates that older head teachersfelt that a greater amount of classroom adaptation is neededfor almost all children with disabilities than younger headteachers.

Head teachers’ possession of postgraduate qualifications inspecial education was also related to their accommodationbeliefs. Table 5 shows that head teachers without post-graduate qualifications in special education felt that agreater amount of classroom adaptation is needed foralmost all children with disabilities than head teachers withpostgraduate studies in special education.

Figure 1: Head teachers’ frequency of contacts with people with disabilities



Head teachers’ contacts with people with disabilities wererelated to their beliefs on accommodation. Table 6 illus-trates that head teachers who had no contacts with peoplewith disabilities felt that a greater amount of classroomadaptation is needed for almost all children with disabilitiesthan head teachers who had contacts with people withdisabilities.

Head teachers’ perceptions related to preparedness. Headteachers reported feeling more prepared to include childrenwith specific learning difficulties and with emotional dis-turbance (see Table 2). Conversely, head teachers indicatedthat they felt least prepared to include children with autismand neurological impairments. Interestingly, these disabil-ity types concern children who needed the least amount ofaccommodation.

Participants’ gender was related to their preparedness toinclude children with disabilities. Table 7 illustrates that

male head teachers felt more prepared to include childrenwith disabilities than female head teachers.

Head teachers’ age was also related to their degree of pre-paredness to include children with disabilities. Table 8shows that younger head teachers felt more prepared toinclude almost all children with disabilities than older headteachers.

Head teachers’ possession of postgraduate qualifications inspecial education was also related to their degree of pre-paredness to include children with disabilities. As can beseen in Table 9, head teachers without postgraduate studiesin special education felt more prepared to teach childrenwith disabilities than head teachers without postgraduatestudies in special education.

Head teachers’ contacts with people with disabilities wererelated to their views on accommodation. Table 10 shows

Table 2: Degree of accommodation and level of preparation according to disability

Disabilities

Accommodation Preparation

Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD

Brain injury/neurological 12 3.46 0.81 1 1.29 0.67

Autism 11 3.28 0.83 2 1.37 0.67

Challenging behaviour 10 2.76 0.76 12 2.52 0.79

ADHD 9 2.67 0.72 8 2.22 0.84

Emotional disturbance 8 2.61 0.76 8 2.22 0.79

Visual impairment 7 2.50 0.84 3 1.49 0.73

Moderate intellectual disability 6 2.49 0.76 5 2.04 0.84

Hearing impairment 5 2.37 0.83 4 1.69 0.81

Mild intellectual disability 4 2.28 0.72 7 2.11 0.83

Speech and language delay 3 2.13 0.72 6 2.09 0.78

Specific learning difficulties 2 2.05 0.67 11 2.28 0.79

Mobility disabilities 1 1.96 0.80 10 2.25 0.92

Note: Degree of accommodation and sense of preparation rated on 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater.ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3: Head teachers’ perceptions related to accommodation according to their sex

Disabilities

Men Women t-Test

Mean SD Mean SD tdf P-value

Speech and language delay 2.16 0.71 2.10 0.73 t176 = 0.542 0.589

Specific learning difficulties 2.12 0.60 2.00 0.73 t178 = 1.197 0.233

Moderate intellectual disability 2.49 0.75 2.48 0.79 t175 = 0.105 0.916

ADHD 2.73 0.63 2.64 0.83 t176 = 0.786 0.567

Visual impairment 2.65 0.73 2.39 0.90 t177 = 2.041 0.043*

Hearing impairment 2.53 0.84 2.26 0.82 t177 = 2.115 0.036*

Mobility disabilities 2.06 0.79 1.90 0.82 t175 = 1.296 0.197

Emotional disturbance 2.62 0.70 2.61 0.81 t176 = 0.104 0.917

Brain injury/neurological 3.48 0.75 3.43 0.86 t176 = 0.391 0.696

Note: Degree of accommodation rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater. *Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.



that head teachers who had no contacts with people withdisabilities felt that they were more prepared to includechildren with disabilities than head teachers who had con-tacts with people with disabilities.

Head teachers’ perceptions related to barriers and facili-tators. Table 11 shows that limited time and current workcommitments received the highest ratings as barriers tosuccessful inclusion, whereas teacher attitudes received thelowest rating.

Table 12 illustrates that female head teachers rated higheron all obstacles to inclusion than male head teachers.

Table 13 shows that younger head teachers were ratedhigher on all obstacles to inclusion than older head teachers.

The independent t-test showed statistically significant dif-ferences between the ratings of younger and older headteachers regarding current work commitments [t(180) =2.844, P = 0.005] and limited opportunities for collabora-tion [t(180) = 2.947, P = 0.004].

Table 14 illustrates that head teachers without postgraduatestudies in special education rated higher on all obstacles toinclusion.

As can be seen in Table 15, the most preferred methods forimproving inclusion practices were consultation activitieswith other teachers, specialists and parents, and in-servicetraining/workshops; collaborative experiences with univer-sity teachers were least preferred.

Table 4: Head teachers’ perceptions related to accommodation according to their age

Disabilities

Aged 36–45 years Aged 45 years t-Test


Speech and language delay 1.85 0.66 2.17 0.72 t176 = -2.193 0.030*

Specific learning difficulties 1.78 0.70 2.10 0.67 t178 = -2.286 0.023*

Mild intellectual disability 2.07 0.67 2.30 0.72 t176 = -1.544 0.124

ADHD 2.52 0.77 2.47 0.76 t176 = -1.199 0.232

Visual impairment 2.37 0.84 2.52 0.85 t177 = -0.847 0.398

Hearing impairment 2.37 0.84 2.38 0.83 t177 = -0.027 0.979

Mobility disabilities 1.59 0.64 2.03 0.81 t175 = -2.667 0.008**

Emotional disturbance 2.44 0.58 2.64 0.79 t176 = -1.236 0.218

Challenging behaviours 2.44 0.75 2.81 0.76 t177 = -2.348 0.020*

Brain injury/neurological 3.22 0.85 3.49 0.81 t176 = -1.576 0.117

Note: Degree of accommodation rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater. *Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). **Meandifference is significant at the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.

Table 5: Head teachers’ perceptions related to accommodation according to their possession of postgraduatequalifications in special education

Disabilities

Postgraduate studiesin special education

No postgraduate studiesin special education t-Test


Speech and language delay 2.00 0.89 2.13 0.72 t174 = -0.430 0.667

Specific learning difficulties 1.67 0.52 2.07 0.69 t176 = -1.405 0.162

Mild intellectual disability 1.83 0.75 2.89 0.73 t174 = -1.508 0.133

Moderate intellectual disability 2.33 0.82 2.49 0.76 t173 = -0.496 0.621

ADHD 2.00 0.89 2.70 0.72 t174 = -2.346 0.020*

Visual impairment 2.16 0.98 2.49 0.83 t176 = -0.940 0.348

Hearing impairment 2.17 0.98 2.36 0.82 t176 = -0.564 0.573


Challenging behaviours 2.50 0.55 2.78 0.78 t176 = -0.870 0.386


Autism 3.00 1.10 3.29 0.83 t175 = -0.823 0.412

Note: Degree of accommodation rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater. *Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.



Qualitative findingsLegislation. All participants spoke in favour of the exist-ence of the Special Education Law, because it ensures equalrights to all children:

‘The existence of the Law is deliberate, essential andnecessary, since the rights of children with specialneeds can be ensured. And as the rest of the children(those with typical development), children with specialneeds have the same rights. Hence, the existence ofthe Law places limits to all of us and ensures therights of children.’ (P3)

Advantages and disadvantages of inclusion. The partici-pants reported a number of advantages deriving from inclu-

sion, for children without disabilities and for the teachers,because they learn to accept people, who are different fromthem.

‘You can consider how positive it can be for children,who do not have a disability to realize that later intheir life, they are supposed to accept people withcertain particularities and this helps, and I believeit is positive for a school to have such children.’(P2)

‘Inclusion offers the opportunity both to teachers andto children to get aware about issues troubling otherpeople, who have more needs and they need oursupport. (. . .) It helps us think about different people

Table 6: Head teachers’ perceptions related to accommodation according to their contacts with peoplewith disabilities

Disabilities

Contacts with peoplewith disabilities

No contacts with peoplewith disabilities t-Test


Speech and language delay 2.09 0.73 2.18 0.72 t172 = -0.779 0.437

Specific learning difficulties 2.00 0.69 2.07 0.63 t173 = -1.117 0.266

Mild intellectual disability 2.17 0.74 2.40 0.69 t171 = -2.191 0.030*

Moderate intellectual disability 2.48 0.78 2.53 0.73 t170 = -0.503 0.616

ADHD 2.59 0.73 2.77 0.73 t171 = -1.682 0.094

Visual impairment 2.32 0.82 2.63 0.81 t172 = -2.512 0.013*

Hearing impairment 2.18 0.84 2.50 0.78 t172 = -2.616 0.010**

Mobility disability 1.78 0.78 2.13 0.80 t172 = -2.912 0.004**


Challenging behaviours 2.67 0.80 2.87 0.72 t172 = -1.737 0.084


Autism 3.12 0.91 3.42 0.75 t171 = -2.344 0.020*

Note: Degree of accommodation rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater. *Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). **Meandifference is significant at the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.

Table 7: Head teachers’ perceptions related to sense of preparedness according to their sex

Disabilities

Men Women t-Test




Mild intellectual disability 2.23 0.81 2.03 0.83 t177 = 1.634 0.104


ADHD 2.30 0.72 2.15 0.91 t177 = 1.177 0.241

Visual impairment 1.52 0.67 1.46 0.73 t176 = 0.587 0.558

Mobility disability 2.33 0.89 2.17 0.93 t175 = 1.155 0.250

Emotional disturbance 2.37 0.70 2.10 0.84 t177 = 2.231 0.027*

Challenging behaviours 2.63 0.70 2.44 0.84 t177 = 1.563 0.120


Autism 1.49 0.73 1.30 0.62 t175 = 1.773 0.078

Note: Sense of preparation rated on 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.



and different needs, and the school should focus ondifferent identities and different needs.’ (P5)

Another advantage that was mentioned was the fact thatpositive behaviours are developed by children without dis-abilities towards children with disabilities, such as support,mutualism and collaboration.

‘When children with disabilities are included, the restof the children experience feelings of love, friendshiptowards those children and this makes both thechildren and us the teachers better people.’ (P3)

The participants reported advantages for children with dis-abilities deriving from their socialisation.

‘With regard to the children, I believe the bigger gainis the socialization that is offered to them.’ (P4)

Despite the fact that all the participants were supportivetowards inclusion, they also emphasised some disadvan-tages that may occur. In particular, some participants indi-cated that children with disabilities may be marginalisedfrom the rest of the children or they may be bullied.

‘They might be marginalized, or become object ofteasing.’ (P4)

Some participants also expressed the opinion that childrenwith disabilities, sometimes, create problems in the class.

‘Teachers are not educated in order to teach themeffectively and these children may create problems inthe classroom.’ (P1)

Some of the participants also stressed that teachers needmore preparation for a lesson when students with

Table 8: Head teachers’ perceptions related to sense of preparedness according to their age

Disabilities

Aged 36–45 years Aged 45 years t-Test





ADHD 2.26 0.81 2.20 0.85 t177 = 0.754 0.314

Mobility disabilities 2.59 0.89 2.18 0.92 t175 = 2.156 0.032*


Challenging behaviours 2.62 0.69 2.50 0.80 t177 = 0.786 0.433


Autism 1.44 0.70 1.37 0.67 t175 = 0.552 0.582

Note: Sense of preparation rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.

Table 9: Head teachers’ perceptions related to sense of preparedness according to their possession of postgraduatetitles in special education

Disabilities

Postgraduate studiesin special education

No postgraduate studiesin special education t-Test


Speech and language delay 2.83 0.75 2.06 0.78 t174 = 2.381 0.018*

Specific learning difficulties 3.00 0.89 2.24 0.78 t175 = 2.339 0.020*

Mild intellectual disability 3.17 0.75 2.07 0.82 t175 = 3.243 0.001**

Moderate intellectual disability 2.83 1.17 2.01 0.83 t175 = 2.343 0.020*

ADHD 3.17 0.75 2.17 0.83 t175 = 2.912 0.004***

Visual impairment 1.83 0.75 1.49 0.73 t174 = 1.134 0.258

Hearing impairment 2.00 0.89 1.69 0.81 t175 = 0.922 0.358

Mobility disability 2.67 1.03 2.22 0.92 t174 = 1.153 0.250

Emotional disturbance 2.83 0.75 2.19 0.78 t175 = 1.991 0.048*

Challenging behaviours 3.17 0.41 2.49 0.79 t175 = 2.074 0.040*

Brain injury/neurological 2.00 1.26 1.27 0.63 t173 = 2.652 0.009***

Autism 1.83 0.98 1.36 0.66 t174 = 1.704 0.090

Note: Sense of preparation rated on 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). **Mean difference is significant at the 0.001 level (P < 0.001). ***Mean difference is significantat the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.



disabilities are in their classes; sometimes, they get con-fused, mainly because they do not know how to cope withchildren.

‘In a class with many children, the teacher mayneglect them and because there are no special booksfor those children, the teacher has to make his/herown adaptations.’ (P5)

Teaching. Regarding teaching, most of the head teachersreported that they try to help children with disabilities tounderstand a lesson. They also noted that they sometimesmodify the lesson for those children or they personally helpthem, when necessary.

‘I have a child, who needs me to look at him in theeyes when I talk or, otherwise, he won’t listen to me.This is a special kind of treatment with tact.’ (P1)

‘If you include children with disabilities the teacherneeds to have in mind that he/she may be asked togive further explanations, or to work individually withthe child with disabilities, whilst the rest of thestudents work in groups, or that teachers may have toexempt a child with disabilities from part of anexercise; e.g., not to fill in the whole of an exercisesheet, having talked to him/her in advance.’ (P3)

Moreover, a head teacher said that the presence of a childwith disabilities may have negative effects, because theteacher needs to try more, and this fact may hold up theclass. The rest of the participants evaluated the presence ofa child with disabilities in a positive way, because in suchcases, the teacher continually tries to improve his/her workand also allows time for the rest of the children to under-stand the lesson.

‘When I had children with disabilities in myclassroom, I adjusted my teaching in order to be surethat those children understood what I was teaching. Ibelieve that this made me a better teacher and also,by modifying the lesson and by saying something inmany ways, I helped the rest of the children in theclassroom to understand better what I was teaching.’(P4)

Social inclusion. All the participants expressed similarviews, and, in particular, they pointed out the importance ofinclusion for the socialisation of children with disabilities.They also acknowledged that inclusion helps the childrenwith disabilities to be more easily included in the society asadults.

‘School is a small society and children withdisabilities are members of this small society, as they

Table 10: Head teachers’ perceptions related to sense of preparedness according to their contacts with peoplewith disabilities

Disabilities

Contacts with people with disabilities t-Test

Yes No

tdf P-valueMean SD Mean SD





ADHD 2.27 0.88 2.10 0.78 t172 = 1.344 0.181

Hearing impairment 1.78 0.82 1.62 0.79 t172 = 1.296 0.197

Mobility disability 2.38 0.93 2.08 0.87 t170 = 2.191 0.030*


Challenging behaviours 2.64 0.80 2.37 0.76 t172 = 2.238 0.027*


Autism 1.41 0.68 1.30 0.61 t170 = 1.079 0.282

Note: Sense of preparation rated on 1–4 scale, where 1 = least and 4 = greater.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05).ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; SD, standard deviation.

Table 11: Mean ratings for barriers to inclusion

Reason MeanStandarddeviation

Limited time 3.17 0.70

Current work commitments 3.05 0.72

Little knowledge in this area 3.03 0.72

Little support from the Ministry of

Education and Culture

3.03 0.78

Lack of experience regarding inclusion 2.98 0.71

Limited opportunities for collaboration 2.95 0.68

Parent attitudes 2.77 0.77

Teacher attitudes 2.44 0.71

Note: Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 =does not and 4 = does extremely.



Table 12: Head teachers’ ratings for barriers to inclusion according to their sex

Obstacles

Men Women t-Test

Ranking Mean SD Ranking Mean SD tdf P-value

Limited time 1 2.94 0.68 1 3.33 0.67 t164 = -3.637 0.000*

Current work commitments 2 2.92 0.73 5 3.10 0.80 t179 = -2.385 0.018**

Little knowledge in this area 3 2.89 0.66 2 3.15 0.74 t172 = -2.546 0.012**

Little support from the Ministry of Education and Culture 4 2.86 0.66 3 3.14 0.75 t179 = -1.566 0.119

Lack of experience regarding inclusion 5 2.82 0.66 6 3.03 0.69 t179 = -3.137 0.002***

Limited opportunities for collaboration 6 2.78 0.70 4 3.11 0.70 t179 = -2.030 0.044**

Parent attitudes 7 2.63 0.70 7 2.88 0.80 t178 = 2.186 0.030**

Teacher attitudes 8 2.43 0.65 8 2.45 0.76 t179 = -0.174 0.862

Note: Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = does not and 4 = does extremely.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.001 level (P < 0.001). **Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). ***Mean difference is significantat the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).SD, standard deviation.

Table 13: Head teachers’ ratings for barriers to inclusion according to their age

Obstacles

36–45 years old Older than 46 years t-Test

Ranking Mean SD Ranking Mean SD tdf P-value

Limited time 1 3.40 0.65 1 3.13 0.70 t165 = 1.812 0.072

Current work commitments 2 3.39 0.63 4 2.98 0.72 t180 = 2.844 0.005*

Little knowledge in this area 3 3.29 0.53 6 2.88 0.69 t180 = 0.632 0.528

Little support from the Ministry of Education and Culture 4 3.21 0.74 3 3.00 0.78 t180 = 1.342 0.181

Lack of experience regarding inclusion 5 3.18 0.67 5 2.94 0.72 t180 = 1.626 0.106

Limited opportunities for collaboration 6 3.11 0.74 2 3.01 0.72 t180 = 2.947 0.004*

Parent attitudes 7 2.82 0.86 7 2.76 0.76 t179 = 0.356 0.722

Teacher attitudes 8 2.50 0.75 8 2.43 0.71 t180 = 0.484 0.629

Note: Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = does not and 4 = does extremely.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).SD, standard deviation.

Table 14: Head teachers’ ratings for barriers to inclusion according to their possession of postgraduate studies inspecial education

Obstacles

Postgraduate studies in special education t-Test

Yes No

tdf P-valueRanking Mean SD Ranking Mean SD

Limited time 1 3.20 0.84 1 3.17 0.70 t162 = 0.950 0.924

Current work commitments 2 2.86 0.69 2 3.06 0.72 t177 = -0.722 0.471

Little knowledge in this area 3 2.71 0.95 3 3.05 0.71 t177 = -1.201 0.231

Little support from the Ministry of Education and Culture 4 2.57 0.79 3 3.05 0.77 t177 = -1.597 0.112

Lack of experience regarding inclusion 4 2.57 0.79 5 3.01 0.71 t177 = -1.591 0.113

Limited opportunities for collaboration 6 2.43 0.79 7 2.80 0.77 t177 = -2.672 0.008*

Parent attitudes 6 2.43 0.98 8 2.44 0.71 t176 = -1.228 0.221

Teacher attitudes 8 2.29 0.49 6 2.97 0.67 t177 = -0.006 0.995

Note: Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1–4 scale, where 1 = does not and 4 = does extremely.*Mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).SD, standard deviation.



will be members of a greater society as adults.Therefore, they have to face reality and difficulties andalso to accept the help that is given to them.’ (P1)

They added that children with disabilities take part in all theextra-curricular activities of the school, and they are con-sidered equal members of the school community.

‘They participate in all extra-curricular activities,even in the sport activities. We will make some slightchanges, to make them feel equal members of theteam. All children participate. For instance, a childwho cannot jump a high obstacle, he/she will have theoption of jumping a lower one.’ (P2)

Some participants stressed the importance of informing therest of the children about the implications of the disabilitiesof their peers in a discrete way (during their absence) so asto facilitate their social inclusion.

‘It is absolutely essential to inform the rest of thestudents, during their absence, so as to make themmore easily accepted. (. . .) Just to help the rest of thechildren to understand, that they are different and thatspecial behaviour towards them is required.’ (P2)

Academic inclusion. The participants expressed differentviews about the academic inclusion of children with dis-abilities. They acknowledged the fact that not all the chil-dren with disabilities are capable of following theclassroom lesson and, moreover, that some of them arehelped by special teachers or teaching aides who help themto understand the lesson. Despite the fact that the headteachers do not get proper training to teach children withdisabilities, they all mentioned that they do everything pos-sible to offer those children the best environment for theiracademic progress.

‘There are some cases when children with disabilitiesbehave normally, like the other children and they onlyneed some extra help. But we also have children whocan’t participate to the lesson, or they have limitedparticipation.’ (P3)

The participants mentioned that children with some dis-abilities (e.g., specific learning difficulties) can be moreeasily included than other children with disabilities.

‘Children with specific learning difficulties can bemore easily included than the rest of the children.’(P1)

‘Children with hearing impairments can be moreeasily included. On the other hand blind childrencould be fully included, but they require specialscreens, and special treatment. If these prerequisitesare not in place, then the inclusion cannot besuccessful.’ (P5)

Despite the fact that the participants avoided defining chil-dren with disabilities, whose inclusion in general classroommay not be successful, they gave some general descriptions.

‘I’m not a specialist, and I don’t know all the cases ofchildren with disabilities; but as I told you before,children who cause problems in the functioning of theclassroom should not be included, but rather theyshould attend a school environment more appropriateto their needs.’ (P3)

Suggestions for effective inclusion. The participants madeseveral suggestions for effective inclusion and for improv-ing the conditions under which children with disabilities areeducated. They mostly stressed the need for schools to beprovided with the necessary equipment for children withdisabilities; they also suggested suitable and appropriateclasses for their lessons.

‘They should always have their own place where theycan go with their teacher, the special teacher who willbe able to help them on specific issues.’ (P2)

‘It’s unacceptable, due to lack of space, for a childwith disabilities to have his/her tutorial in the storageroom! Thus, it is necessary to make environmentalmodifications. For instance, adapted buildings withramps, special toilets for children with mobilitydisabilities, the lifts should be in place, for effectiveinclusion.’ (P3)

Some head teachers also noted that all the teachers shouldreceive pre-service and in-service training in order to beable to educate children with disabilities. They also empha-sised the need for increased awareness for disability issuesamong the children without disabilities.

‘The rest of the children (without disabilities) needproper education, so as to accept the children with

Table 15: Mean rankings for methods of improvinginclusive practices

Method MeanStandarddeviation

Consultation activities with other teachers,

specialists and parents

3.12 1.98

In-service training/workshops 3.26 2.31

Observation of other teachers in inclusive settings 4.72 2.61

Direct teaching experience with children with

disabilities

4.85 2.74

University coursework 5.02 2.97

Discussion groups on inclusive practices 5.30 2.04

Exposure to children with disabilities 5.72 2.54

Independent reading 6.98 2.39

Collaborative experiences with university faculty 7.48 2.65

Research involvement 7.73 2.23

Note: Items were ranked with 1 = most preferred and 10 = least preferred.



disabilities, regardless of their condition, and thegeneral teacher needs to be more prepared for thelesson in an inclusive setting.’ (P2)

Moreover, the head teachers suggested that special teachersshould be in the general classroom, next to the child, so asto help him/her to understand the lesson, or to advise andsupervise the work done, for the situation to improve.

‘There should be a special teacher in the class, so thatthe children with disabilities will not have to leave theclass; that will also help the general teacher not toget confused.’ (P5)

Another head teacher stressed the urgent need for evalua-tion of inclusion.

‘Children with disabilities have been includedofficially for more than ten years in Cyprus. Both timeand money have been spent for the support of thechildren with disabilities. But nobody has everevaluated what has been done. You cannot spendmoney without evaluating the outcome. Has all thismoney had any positive effect? Is there anything thatneeds to be changed? I feel that there is an urgentneed for an evaluation.’ (P3)

DiscussionThese findings coincide with data reported in similarstudies in other countries. Specifically, in this study, it wasfound that in general, head teachers held positive attitudestowards inclusion of children with disabilities, as reportedin previous studies (Avissar et al., 2003; Barnett andMonda-Amaya, 1998; Brotherson et al., 2001; Cox, 2008;Heimdahl Mattson and Malmgren Hansen, 2009; Horrockset al., 2008; Lasky and Karge, 2006; Praisner, 2003;Ramirez, 2006).

This study brought out that the head teachers held morenegative attitudes about classroom practices than about theexpected outcomes of inclusion and core perspectives intheir responses in the questionnaires. Analytically, despitethe fact that the head teachers expressed rather positivebeliefs about more theoretical issues related to inclusion,such as the outcomes of inclusion or how they perceivedinclusion, they expressed serious concerns about practicalissues and, more specifically, about how inclusion impactson classroom life and actual instructional practices.Similar findings were also reported in the studies byBailey and Du Plessis (1997) and Cox (2008); theseresearchers stressed that in terms of practice, the headteachers in their studies adopted a point of view that is atodds with their philosophy.

In this study, the head teachers stressed the social aspects ofinclusion over the academic aspects. These findings coin-cide with those reported in previous studies (Avissar et al.,2003; Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Praisner, 2003).During the focus group meeting, the head teachers men-tioned that inclusion is beneficial both for the children with

disabilities (e.g., for their socialisation) and for the childrenwithout disabilities (e.g., for getting familiar with disabilityissues, for being prepared to live in an inclusive society inadult life). Similarly, the participants in the study by Leeand Kong (2007) stated that inclusion had a positive effectnot only on promoting the social skills of students withdisabilities but also on their ability to adjust to society. Italso enhanced typically developing students’ capabilities tounderstand their peers with disabilities and to work withthem.

In addition to the benefits of inclusion for students, theparticipants (during the focus group meeting) identifiednegative impacts of inclusion on students. As similarlyreported by Lee and Kong (2007), the negative impacts ofinclusion related to how individual needs of students withspecial needs may not be met in inclusive classrooms or thatstudents with special needs may be teased by their peers.The negative aspect of inclusion for typically developingstudents is, according to the participants, that the teachingprocess may slow down for children with disabilities forthem to be able to follow the class.

Head teachers reported that they felt more prepared toinclude children with specific learning difficulties or withemotional disturbance; however, they felt least prepared toinclude children with autism and neurological impairments.Head teachers also indicated that children with specificlearning difficulties and with mobility disabilities can bemost easily accommodated in general schools. In previousstudies, it was reported that head teachers believed thatcertain disability categories that tend to fit in ‘academically’are more suited to inclusive settings (Bailey and Du Plessis,1997; Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Cox, 2008;Praisner, 2003).

In this study, limited time and current work commitmentsreceived the highest ratings as barriers to successful inclu-sion, whereas teacher attitudes received the lowest rating.The head teachers in the study carried out by Lee and Kong(2007) noted that the biggest obstacle to inclusion was thelack of understanding of inclusion on the part of studentsand their parents.

Regarding the relationship between the head teachers’background factors and attitudes towards inclusion, the fol-lowing observations were recorded. As far as head teachers’gender is concerned, it was found that female head teachersheld more positive attitudes towards inclusion than malehead teachers. Female head teachers also believed that lessamount of classroom adaptation is needed for children withall types of disabilities than male head teachers; femalehead teachers also felt more prepared to teach children withall types of disabilities than male head teachers. However,Ramirez (2006) and Leyser, Kapperman and Keller (1994)did not find any relationship between head teachers’ genderand attitudes towards inclusion.

Another background variable of head teachers, which wasrelated to the degree of their acceptance of students with



disabilities, was the head teachers’ age. Younger headteachers held more negative attitudes towards inclusion, andthey rated higher in all obstacles to inclusion than olderhead teachers. The above facts are inconsistent with thestatements of younger head teachers that they felt moreprepared and that they believed that less amount of class-room adaptation is needed to include almost all childrenwith disabilities than older head teachers. These findingsraise several challenging thoughts, not only because thesepeople will continue to be the head teachers in Cyprusschools in the following years, but also because despite thefact that they stated that they felt more prepared to teachchildren with disabilities (because they had acquired theirdegrees more recently, it is probable they had betterin-service training on inclusion issues), they express nega-tive attitudes towards inclusion. In the study carried out byAvissar et al. (2003), it was found that older head teachersimplemented fewer full-inclusion practices and more pull-out programmes.

As regards administration experience, teachers with feweryears of working experience as head teachers held morenegative attitudes towards inclusion than head teachers withmore years of working experience; it is possible that theirlack of administrative experience makes them more cau-tious towards inclusion. The findings in the study carriedout by Barnett and Monda-Amaya (1998) and Ramirez(2006) revealed no relationships between positive or nega-tive attitudes towards inclusion and the number of years inadministration.

Head teachers who had contacts with people with disabili-ties held more positive attitudes towards inclusion of chil-dren with disabilities than those who did not have suchcontacts. However, head teachers without postgraduatequalifications in special education felt that a greateramount of classroom adaptation was needed for almost allchildren with disabilities than head teachers with post-graduate studies in special education or who had contactswith people with disabilities. These findings coincide withthose of previous studies reporting that positive experi-ences with disabilities and exposure to special educationwere associated with a more positive attitude towardsinclusion (Cox, 2008; Horrocks et al., 2008; Lee andKong, 2007; Livingston et al., 2001; Praisner, 2003;Sharma and Chow, 2008).

Regarding the methods for the improvement of inclusion,the participants rated the most preferred methods forimproving inclusion practices: consultation activities withother teachers, specialists and parents, and in-servicetraining/workshops; collaborative experiences with univer-sity faculty were least preferred. The head teachers in aKorean study by Lee and Kong (2007) stressed that in orderto achieve a successful inclusion, the perceptions of teach-

ers, students and parents of students with disabilities shouldbe changed in a positive way, and teachers should promotetheir capabilities to teach all the students in inclusiveclassrooms.

During the focus group meeting, the participants madesimilar suggestions for the improvement of inclusion. Theysuggested in-service training for general teachers, environ-mental modifications, disability awareness courses for chil-dren without disabilities, evaluation of inclusive practicesand presence of special teachers in general classrooms.Regarding the latter, in the study carried out by Lee andKong (2007), the head teachers considered the use of para-professionals in inclusive settings very beneficial, becauseparaprofessionals could help students with special needs toparticipate in regular classrooms, and they could alsoimprove students’ adaptive behaviours and self-esteem.

Some limitations of this study need to be noted. The alphafor classroom practices in the questionnaire used is ratherlow, and this needs to be taken into consideration whenevaluating the findings in relation to that aspect. Then,despite the fact that the views of all head teachers ofprimary schools all over the island have been exploredexplicitly for the first time in Cyprus, and both qualitative(interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires) methods havebeen employed, in future studies, the use of direct observa-tion relating their attitudes to their behaviour may highlightaspects of inclusion that were impossible to have beenexplored through the use of the methods employed. In thefuture, the views of head teachers in primary schools couldbe studied along with those of head teachers of secondaryschools.

It has been reported that the beliefs of practitioners influ-ence both the process of change and the standards of prac-tice (Stoiber et al., 1998). This study has variousimplications for facilitating inclusion. First, pre- andin-service training on inclusive education or special educa-tion (e.g., about strategies and processes that support inclu-sion) has been recognised as necessary for enhancing headteachers’ understanding of inclusive education, as similarlyreported in previous studies (Avissar, 2000; Barnett andMonda-Amaya, 1998; Elkins, Kataoka and Van Kraay-enoord, 2004; Lasky and Karge, 2006; Praisner, 2003). Theneed for disability awareness courses for children withoutdisabilities has also emerged. Then, the role of head teach-ers in removing obstacles to inclusion was highlighted,because teachers’ heavy workloads (e.g., many students)and additional responsibilities were highlighted as the mainobstacles to inclusion. Finally, employing paraprofessionals(e.g, special education specialist) to aid general educationteachers’ work needs to be addressed, in terms ofco-teaching, cooperative learning, providing advice withmodification and adaptation of curricula, and support withtechniques for handling challenging behaviours.



Appendix A: Sample of questions used in the secondpart of the questionnaire

Core perspectives

Students with special needs have the right to be

educated in the same classroom as typically

developing students.

1 2 3 4 5

Inclusion is not a desirable practice for educating

most typically developing students (R).

1 2 3 4 5

Expected outcomes

Inclusion is socially advantageous for children

with special needs.

1 2 3 4 5

Children with special needs will probably develop

academic skills more rapidly in a special,

separate classroom than in an integrated

classroom (R).

1 2 3 4 5

Classroom practices

Children with special needs monopolise teachers’

time (R).

1 2 3 4 5

The behaviours of students with special needs

require significantly more teacher-directed

attention than those of typically developing

children (R).

1 2 3 4 5

R, reverse questions.

Address for correspondenceKika Hadjikakou,PO Box 20653,Nicosia 1661,Cyprus.Email: [email protected].

ReferencesAvissar, G. (2000) ‘Views of general education teachers

about inclusion: an international perspective.’ <http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/papers_a/avissar_2.htm> (accessed 17 June 2010).

Avissar, G., Reiter, S. & Leyser, Y. (2003) ‘Principals’views and practices regarding inclusion: the case ofIsraeli elementary school principals.’ EuropeanJournal of Special Needs Education, 18 (3), pp.355–69.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) ‘A surveyinto mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards theinclusion of children with special educational needs inthe ordinary school in one local educational authority.’Educational Psychology, 20, pp. 193–213.

Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002) ‘Teachers’ attitudestowards integration/inclusion: a review of theliterature.’ European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 17 (2), pp. 129–47.

Bailey, J. & Du Plessis, D. (1997) ‘Understandingprincipals’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling.’Journal of Educational Administration, 35 (5), pp.428–38.

Barnett, C. & Monda-Amaya, E. L. (1998) ‘Principal’sknowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion.’Remedial and Special Education, 19 (3), pp. 181–200.

Brotherson, J. M., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P. & Schertz, M.(2001) ‘Elementary school principals and their needsand issues for inclusive early childhood programs.’Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 (1),pp. 31–45.

Center, Y. & Ward, J. (1987) ‘Teachers’ attitudes towardsthe integration of disabled children into regularschools.’ Exceptional Child, 34, pp. 41–56.

Chazan, M. (1994) ‘The attitudes of mainstream teacherstowards pupils with emotional and behaviouraldifficulties.’ European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 9, pp. 261–74.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods inEducation. London: Routledge.

Cook, G. B., Semmel, I. M. & Gerber, M. M. (1999)‘Attitudes of principals and special education teacherstoward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities.’Remedial and Special Education, 20 (4),pp. 199–207.

Cox, P. E. (2008) ‘A consideration of the influences thatpredict middle school principal attitudes.’ AcademicLeadership, 6 (1). <http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/262.shtml> (accessed 16September 2009).

Dyal, A. B. & Flynt, S. W. (1996) ‘Schools and inclusion:principals’ perceptions.’ Clearing House, 70 (1),pp. 32–9.

Elkins, J., Kataoka, M. & Van Kraayenoord, E. C. (2004)‘Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of learningdisabilities: a study from Nara Prefecture, Japan.’Learning Disability, 27 (3), pp. 161–75.

Garvar-Pinhas, A. & Schmelkin, P. L. (1989)‘Administrators’ and teachers’ attitudes towardmainstreaming.’ Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), pp. 38–43.

Hadjikakou, K., Petridou, L. & Stylianou, C. (2008) ‘Theacademic and social inclusion of oral deaf andhard-of-hearing children in Cyprus secondary generaleducation: investigating the perspectives of thestakeholders.’ European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 23 (1), pp. 17–29.

Heimdahl Mattson, E. & Malmgren Hansen, A. (2009)‘Inclusive and exclusive education in Sweden:principals’ opinions and experiences.’ EuropeanJournal of Special Needs Education, 24 (4), pp.465–72.

Horrocks, L. J., White, G. & Roberts, L. (2008)‘Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of childrenwith autism in Pennsylvania public schools.’ Journalof Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38 (8), pp.1462–73.

Janney, R. F., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K. & Raynes, M.(1995) ‘Integrating children with moderate and severe



disabilities into general education classes.’ ExceptionalChildren, 61, pp. 425–39.

Kavale, A. K. (2000) Inclusion: Rhetoric and RealitySurrounding the Integration of Students withDisabilities. Des Moines, IA: The Iowa Academy ofEducation.

Knodel, R. A. (1993) ‘Quality control in focus groupresearch.’ In D. L. Morgan (ed.), Advancing the Stateof the Art, pp. 65–85. London: SAGE Publications.

Lasky, B. & Karge, D. B. (2006) ‘Meeting the needs ofstudents with disabilities: experience and confidenceof principals.’ NASSP Bulletin, 90 (1), pp. 19–36.

Lee, H. J. & Kong, N. Y. (2007) ‘Integrated literaturereview of Korean principals’ perspectives oninclusion.’ <http://www. docflock.wikispaces.com/file/view/Integrated+literature+review+of+Korean+principals.doc> (accessed 17 June 2010).

Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G. & Keller, R. (1994) ‘Teacherattitudes toward mainstreaming: a cross-cultural studyin six nations.’ European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 9 (1), pp. 1–15.

Livingston, M., Reed, T. & Good, J. W. (2001) ‘Attitudesof rural school principals toward inclusive practicesand placements for students with severe disabilities.’Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 1 (1),pp. 50–62.

Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (1993) ‘Attitudes andattitude change.’ Annual Review of Psychology, 44,pp. 117–54.

Praisner, C. L. (2000) Attitudes of Elementary SchoolPrincipals toward the Inclusion of Students withDisabilities in General Education Classes. Doctoraldissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

Praisner, L. C. (2003) ‘Attitudes of elementary schoolprincipals toward the inclusion of students with

disabilities.’ Exceptional Children, 69 (2),pp. 135–45.

Ramirez, C. R. (2006) ‘Elementary principals’ attitudestowards the inclusion of students with disabilities inthe general education setting.’ <http://hdl.handle.net/2104/4849> (accessed 12 September 2009).

Sharma, U. & Chow, S. W. E. (2008) ‘The attitudes ofHong Kong primary school principals towardintegrated education.’ Asia Pacific Education Review,9 (3), pp. 380–91.

Solomon, D., Schaps, E., Watson, M. & Battistich, V.(1992) ‘Creating caring school and classroomcommunities for all students.’ In R. A. Villa, J. S.Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (eds),Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: AnAdministrative Guide to Creating HeterogeneousSchools, pp. 41–60. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990) FocusGroups: Theory and Practice. London: SAGEPublications.

Stoiber, K., Gettinger, C. & Goetz, D. (1998) ‘Exploringfactors influencing parents and early childhoodpractitioners’ beliefs about inclusion.’ Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 13, pp. 107–24.

Thomas, G. & Vaughan, M. (2004) Inclusive Education:Readings and Reflections. Berkshire, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

United Nations (1989) The UN Convention on the Rightsof the Child. London: UNICEF.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (1994) The Salamanca Statement andFramework for Action on Special Needs Education.Paris, France: UNESCO.



Documents

Investigating the attitudes of head teachers of Cypriot primary schools towards inclusion