The Implications of Inclusion on Teachers and the Exceptional Student

Connie Brown & Shirley Sitarz

Florida Gulf Coast University

Dr. Tyler

Introduction

Public Law 94-142 and Public Law 101-476 (IDEA) requires schools to meet the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements. To be in compliance with the law, it is essential that schools ensure each exceptional student is included as much as possible with non-disabled peers. At the same time the student must receive, according to the law, an appropriate and free education. Turnbull et al. (1995, p.?.) indicates interpreting and defining LRE has become a dilemma for many schools. On one side of the topic are the full inclusion supporters. On the other side are the supporters of a separate but equal education. The topic of full inclusion is a hotly debated issue (Woolfolk, 1995, p.?.). The trend is toward inclusion, although much debate centers on LRE for social and academic reasons (Turnbull, 1995, p.?.). Although inclusion is the term of the 90’s the heart of the concept has been implemented in the schools for decades. It has been implemented in the form of the Regular Education Initiative, mainstreaming and the continuum of services to meet the LRE requirements. According to research by Scruggs & Mastropiere (1996, p.?.), only one fourth to one third of teachers surveyed agreed they had sufficient time, training, or material/personnel resources to implement mainstreaming/ inclusion successfully. Along with this debate there is the staggering number of students labeled with disabilities. According to Houck and Rogers (1994, p.?.) the number of school age student and youth with learning disabilities has grown from 797,213 to over 2.1 million .

In the hotly debated topic teachers along with students will be affected. The general education students and the exceptional students will be impacted. According to Combs and Harper (1967, p.?.), this situation leads to the concern expressed by some parents of non-handicapped children that there will be a reduction in time and attention their children will receive, if children with handicaps are present in the same class. Another concern is the labeling of students. They go on to state, significant members of the environment may respond to the exceptional child in accordance with attitudes toward the label, rather than factual information and understanding. If these attitudes are negative, the behavior of others toward the child may serve to foster and extend the exceptionality, rather than to help the child adjust. It may be concluded that labels do affect the attitudes of teachers toward exceptional children.

The use of labels or instruments has been further criticized because labels are associated with preconceived notions about behaviors and characteristics which can often lead to negative attitudes (Gajar, 1983, p.?.). Brophy and Good (1970, p.?.) concluded from their research on communication of teacher expectations that students perceived by teachers as high achievers received more positive attention, while students perceived as low achievers received more negative attention. Children with handicaps receive the similar negative attention as well as decreased cueing, prompting, praising and reinforcing.

Not only do students with handicaps receive negative attention, but they also must survive in a room where they are not welcomed. Research conducted by Scruggs and Mastropeiri (1996, p.?.) indicates when teachers were asked in general if they supported mainstreaming/inclusion most agreed. Overall 4,801 of 7,385 teachers surveyed, 65% indicated support of the concept. In contrast, responses to other more intensive questions about mainstreaming/inclusion were consistently lower at 40.5%. Although it appears that most teachers are supportive of mainstreaming/inclusion, when asked to indicate the levels of support for including students with different conditions of disabilities, Shotel et al. (1972, p.?.) found 71.9% of the teachers supported the concept for students with learning disabilities. However, only 22.8% supported mainstreaming for students with educable mental retardation. In an additional study, 92.0% of a sample of 23 teachers expressed a willingness to teach students with a variety of disabilities, but not students with severe disabilities or mental retardation. Therefore, the results from the survey gave mixed indications.

Research by Murphy (1996, p.?.) in a study of 22 schools in Colorado, relates that 70% of the respondents agreed that inclusion would work well in their schools. But the same study goes on to say that 60% of the respondents disagreed that regular education staff want exceptional students in their classes full time. The research goes on to indicate that a survey of 400 teachers who belong to the American Federation of Teachers and who reported their schools either had or were moving toward inclusion showed that 77% opposed the practice.

The research indicated that although teachers indicated inclusion is a good concept and would work well in their school, the attitudes of the teachers indicated a different response. The teachers were opposed to implementing the concept (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, p.?.; Murphy, 1996, p.?.; Shotel et al., 1972, p.?.).

With the inclusion debate a factor to consider is the attitudes of the teachers. Shotel et al. reports that one of the foremost problems in the mainstreaming/inclusion of handicapped children is the regular teachers’ attitude toward the student with a disability. The report indicates if children with special needs are to be integrated into the regular classroom for even part of the school day, the attitudes of regular classroom teachers toward these children emerges as a major concern. It is also interesting to note that teachers were generally more positive in their attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed child than were toward the educable retarded child. Additionally the report indicated conclusions from Stephens and Braun. It stated 39% of the teachers surveyed indicated they were not willing to integrate the children with special needs (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, p.?.; Murphy, 1996, p.?.; Shotel et al., 1972, p.?.).

One factor that may negatively influence teacher’s attitudes is the amount of additional work inclusion will make. Reynolds (1996, p.?.) reported that 498 out of 610 general classroom teachers (81.6%) agreed that mainstreaming/inclusion would create "additional work" (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, p.?.). Similarly, Murphy indicates that 53% of the 22 schools in Colorado responded that including exceptional students in regular education classrooms created too much additional work for the staff.

Along with creating additional work, teacher training becomes an important topic. As shown in the results from Schmelkin (1981, p.?.), there is a positive correlation between positive results and proper training. Murphy (1996, p.?.) indicated in her study of the American Federation of teachers, that only 22% of teachers’ inclusive classrooms said they had received special training, and just half of those teachers thought their training was good. Similarly, according to Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996, p.?.), in a study of 2,900 respondents, 29.2% agreed that general education teachers had sufficient expertise or training for mainstreaming/inclusion. He goes on to cite two other studies where the results are similar. One is 22.8% and the other is 24.2% that teachers are properly prepared for placement of students with disabilities in their classes.

Additionally, another factor that may effect teachers’ attitudes is classroom size. In four investigations, teachers were asked about preferred numbers of students in classes which included students with disabilities. In three of these investigations 270 of 379 teachers (71.2%) agreed class size should be reduced (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, p.?.). Murphy adds that although parents would like to see smaller classes, downsizing regular classes would likely be economically unfeasible for most schools. In fact, a recent survey of school policies and practices regarding mainstreaming showed that although almost all regular education teachers who had exceptional students in their classes did receive consultation, many fewer were provided relevant in-service training, classroom aides, or reduced class size. The report goes on to say, teachers agree that their class size should be reduced to fewer than 20 students, if students with disabilities are included.

As to the factor of time, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996, p.?.) surveyed 614 teachers across the country and found only 27.7% of the teachers agreed they had sufficient time to undertake mainstreaming/inclusion. The majority 71.3% did not agree. Overall, most teachers did not agree they had sufficient time for mainstreaming/inclusion. Although the research by Scruggs & Mastropeiri (1996, p.?.). indicates teachers did not have sufficient time, training, or material/personnel resources to implement mainstreaming/ inclusion successfully, in regards to academic achievement, other research by Schmelkin indicates a positive attitude toward mainstreaming/inclusion when tied to academic achievement. Her groups disagreed with statements indicating that mainstreaming/inclusion will have a negative effects on academic achievement. This overall positive attitude toward mainstream/inclusion on the part of the groups studied is in contrast to what appears to be negative attitudes toward mainstreaming/inclusion on the part of general public and regular teachers. Her belief is attitudes toward mainstreaming are complex and multifaceted. One possible explanation for the relatively positive attitudes of the groups under study in the present investigation is that they are due to their experience and training. One cannot overlook the possibility that with increased publicity and governmental efforts on behalf of the population with disabilities, these expressed attitudes may also constitute, at least in part, socially desirable responses.

As to the topic of attitudes, the authors informally surveyed the administrators and staff at Fort Myers High School. They support the inclusion model and overall agree it is good for the students. Although the staff overwhelmingly agrees that the infrastructure is not in place to properly implement the model. The staff also concludes with the research that inclusion will create them additional work.

The authors also interviewed the staff at Fort Myers High School on the factor of training. The findings once again agreed with the research. The teachers felt additional training and resources are needed to properly handle the needs of all of the students.

Along with the teachers agreeing with the factors of training and resources, the results of the surveys were in agreement with the research that lower class size is essential. Overall the surveys were consistent with the research.

The implications of this topic will have a great impact on the authors’ future teaching. The authors currently teach in the inclusion setting and deal with the implications of inclusion. The research and reported surveys appear to be consistent. Teachers and students will be effected by the topic of inclusion. The teacher’s attitudes towards the students, the additional time and resources needed to serve their needs continue to strain the already weakened relationship. In the midst of this, inclusion continues to be a hotly debated topic (Woolfolk, 1995, p.?.). The research indicates exceptional students are affected greatly because of the negative way they are perceived in the classroom, teachers feel they are not adequately trained and do not have the adequate time and resources to fulfill the student’s needs (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, p.?.; Shotel wt al ., 1996, p.?.; Hirshoren & Burton, 1979p.?.).

Although we believe to have positive attitudes towards the inclusion students, we’ve experienced the lack of planning time, materials, and resources as our research indicated. We have learned from our experience that when students do not have an ESE label attached or when we are unsure of the label, we tend to treat them differently than when we know the label. For example , in the beginning of the year, when we were given our class rosters, we were given the names of students without their labels. After a couple of weeks, we were required to document the exceptionalities in our classroom. After learning the labels of the students, we began looking for stereotypical behaviors associated with the labeled disability. If we, as teachers of the exceptional student, verify what research states, it can only be magnified by the general education teacher. For this reason, we have come to the conclusion, that changes must be made for all educators. We believe teachers need to use strategies to meet the needs of all learners. As professional educators, we do not want to fall in the trap of prejudging our students based on their label. If that happens, according to Combs and Harper (1967, p.?.), the label applied to the illness becomes about as damaging as the illness itself.

We agree with the findings of the research that teachers do not have sufficient time to implement inclusion. One solution to the problem would be to create more planning time. Currently, Connie does not have any planning with her co-teacher. One immediate solution would be to ask the administration to provide a substitute once a month to cover half a day to enable the two teachers some planning time together. Improvements could be made for next year such as requesting synchronized schedules for the co-teachers.

Training is the next issue that needs to be addressed. Although Shirley had adequate exposure to the inclusion model in her undergraduate classes, Connie did not. Without exposure to actual classroom experience, it is difficult to meet the expectations of the inclusion model. Teachers now are held accountable for student achievement. This additional pressure can cause negative attitudes toward teaching especially when the teacher has not had training in how to meet the unique individuals needs. This is an example of how teachers can easily become frustrated when including exceptional students. As we have learned from Vygotsky, you cannot learn what you need to know by simply reading a book. Experiences must be relevant and related to real life experiences. To solve this problem, we have both taken it upon ourselves to further our education on the inclusion model. We believe that education is a life long process therefore we need to become lifelong learners.

Another issue is the availability of resources, such as materials, which are necessary for instruction. Our experience has proven that teachers are not given the resources they need. When teachers are not provided with the tools they need to educate students, we believe this could lead to negative attitudes. We believe we need to learn more about what our students are legally entitled to and become advocates for them.

The final factor that has an impact on inclusion is the number of students in each class. It is our belief that our inclusion classes are over filled. Again, it is not possible to meet the diverse needs of all students when the class sizes are so large.

It is the opinion of the authors, that there will be a positive correlation between proper resources and teacher’s attitudes when adequate time, money and training is spent to aide the teachers. Only then will the attitudes of the teachers improve in accepting exceptional students in the inclusive setting. In conclusion, all these factors combined reinforce our beliefs that the expectations of teacher responsibilities are too high. "There is simply too much on our plates".

References

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teachers’’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.

Combs, R., & Harper, J. (1967). Effects of Labels on Attitudes of Educators toward Handicapped Children. Exceptional Children, 399-403.

Dieker, Lisa. Current, Best Ideas for Making Inclusion Work. Bureau of Education & Research. (1998).

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive Schools Movement and the Radicalization of Special Education Reform. Exceptional Children, 60, (4), 294-309.

Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, (10), 745-752.

Gajar, A. (1983). The relevance of problems encountered in attitudinal research: a personal perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 586-587.

Hirshoren, A., & Burton, T. (1979). Willingness of regular teachers to participate in mainstreaming handicapped children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12 (4), 93-99.

Houck, C., & Rogers, C. (1994). The Special/General Education Integration Initiative for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: A "Snapshot" of Program Change. Journal of Learning Disabilities,27, (7), 435-453.

Murphy, D. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The Elementary School Journal, 96, (5), 469-487.

Schmelkin, L. (1981). Teachers’ and nonteachers’ Attitudes toward mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 48, (1), 42-47.

Scruggs, T., & Mastropeiri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion. Exceptional Children, 63, (1), 59-72.

Shotel, J., Iano, R., & Mcgetingan, J. (1972). Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 38, 677-683.

Stephens, T., & Braun, B. (1980). Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudes toward handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, (4), 292-294.