general and special education teachers' perceptions of inclusion

General and Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion

by

Donna Tortu

Dissertation submitted to the School of Education at Holy Family University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in

Educational Leadership and Professional Studies

Approved by

Dissertation Committee

Brian Berry, Ph.D., Chair

Elizabeth Jones, Ph.D.

Jennifer Lapin, Ph.D.

Kevin Zook, Ph.D., Dean

School of Education

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2015

Keywords: General Curriculum, Inclusion, Inclusive Practices, IDEA, Teacher Perceptions

Copyright 2015 Donna Tortu

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3682704

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3682704

ii

Abstract

Despite legislation mandating inclusive practices in general education classrooms, teachers and

school districts still struggle with how to implement this effectively. Previous research indicates

that the success of inclusive practices in the general education classroom depends on teachers’

perceptions of inclusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions, attitudes,

and beliefs of teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general

education classroom and to examine if there were significant differences in general and special

education teachers’ perceptions. Specifically, the study sought to identify if differences exist in

the perceptions of general and special education teachers in the areas of professional

development, supports for inclusive practices, levels of use of inclusive practices, and beliefs

about inclusive practices and their effects on students. Thirty-six general and 25 special

education middle school teachers responded to questions on The Inclusion Inventory (Becker,

Roberts, & Dumas, 2000). Between samples t-test analysis comparing the two groups of

teachers’ responses indicated that there were no differences in perceptions regarding professional

development, supports, implementation, and effects of inclusive practices. Significant

differences in the perceptions of general and special education teachers in the areas of levels of

use of inclusive practices and beliefs about inclusive practices were noted. The impact of these

findings as they relate to the future implementation of inclusive practices is discussed.

Keywords: general curriculum, inclusion, inclusive practices, IDEA, teacher perceptions

iii

Dedication

First, I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Irene Tortu, who passed away before I

even began my master’s program, but who always was my greatest cheerleader and who told me

I could do anything as long as I put my mind to it. My mother, along with my father Armando,

instilled a great respect for education in my brother Christopher and me. Even though she has

been gone for nine years, she continues to inspire me every day. Whenever I am faced with a

difficult decision, I ask myself, “What would mom do?” and I reflect on her life, and what she

taught me, and usually come up with a meaningful direction to guide me. I know that

somewhere, she is supporting me still.

Second, I dedicate this dissertation to my twin sons, Matthew and Phillip. My sons, who

at 15 years old at the time of this writing, have seen me resume my academic career later in life,

have motivated me to not only be the best teacher I can be, but also the best mother and role

model I can be. Because of my sons and their inspiration, I have found a career in teaching to be

the most rewarding experience a person could ever have. Because of my sons, I go into the

classroom every day and reach out to students because each one of them could be my son or

daughter, and I treat them as such. As my mother did, my boys inspire me to be the best at what

I do, whether it is for them or for my students. Their love and support has been immeasurable.

iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals whose guidance and dedication

made this dissertation possible. First, I want to acknowledge Dr. Brian Berry, my dissertation

chair. Dr. Berry was my university supervisor when I was a student teacher in the master’s

program at Holy Family University and is an incredible resource with his expertise in the area of

disability and education. In the doctoral program, Dr. Berry has provided me with insight into

how to improve school culture with respect to students with disabilities. As I continue my

studies beyond the doctorate to obtain certification as a school principal, I trust that the

experience with my research as it pertains to leadership will inspire me to infuse my leadership

opportunities with the perspectives of my staff as well as my students.

Second, I want to acknowledge Dr. Elizabeth Jones, who during her time as director of

the doctoral program here at Holy Family University and faculty member, has been a champion

for her students throughout this entire process. Dr. Jones has provided invaluable insight,

mentoring, suggestions, and overall support for my research project and has maintained a

supportive role throughout the program.

Third, I want to acknowledge Dr. Jennifer Lapin whose statistical expertise helped make

my research project stronger. Her insight into my study and her direct approach to assisting me

in completing the data analysis has been extremely helpful and greatly appreciated.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Dedication ................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 1

Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 4

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Showing Components That Affect Teacher Perceptions of

Inclusion ................................................................................................................................ 10

Planning and Professional Development ............................................................................ 10

Supports for Inclusive Practices ......................................................................................... 11

Teacher Use and Implementation of Inclusive Practices ..................................................... 12

Teacher Beliefs About Inclusive Practices .......................................................................... 13

Purpose of Study and Research Questions .............................................................................. 14

Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 14

Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 15

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 15

vi

Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................................ 18

Organization of the Study ...................................................................................................... 20

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature...................................................................................... 21

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 21

Search Procedure ............................................................................................................... 21

Background on Inclusive Practices ........................................................................................ 22

Planning and Professional Development ................................................................................ 25

Professional Development: Building Level ........................................................................ 28

Professional Development: District and State Level ........................................................... 33

Teacher Preparation Programs............................................................................................ 34

Support for Inclusive Practices .............................................................................................. 35

Providing Leadership for Implementing Inclusive Practices ............................................... 36

Planning/Collaboration Time ............................................................................................. 37

Modifying and Adapting Curriculum ................................................................................. 38

Teacher Use and Implementation of Inclusive Practices ......................................................... 40

Levels of Use ..................................................................................................................... 40

Acceptance and Alignment of Inclusive Practices .............................................................. 41

School Climate .................................................................................................................. 42

Teacher Beliefs About Inclusive Practices ............................................................................. 44

Challenges With Defining Access ...................................................................................... 44

vii

Student Benefits From Inclusion ........................................................................................ 45

Teacher Preparedness ......................................................................................................... 46

General Education and Special Education Teacher Responses ............................................... 49

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 52

Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 53

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 53

Research Design .................................................................................................................... 53

Sample .................................................................................................................................. 54

Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................................. 55

Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................... 57

Reliability .......................................................................................................................... 61

Validity .............................................................................................................................. 62

Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 63

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 65

Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 66

Potential Risks to Participants ................................................................................................ 66

Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................ 68

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 68

Background ........................................................................................................................... 69

Years Working in K-12 Education ..................................................................................... 69

viii

Years Working at Current School ....................................................................................... 69

Years Using Inclusive Practices ......................................................................................... 70

Time Working with Students.............................................................................................. 71

Teacher Experience by Category Served ............................................................................ 72

Professional Teaching Staff in the Classroom..................................................................... 73

Individuals who Plan Daily Instruction .............................................................................. 74

Teachers Responsible for Implementing Daily Instruction.................................................. 75

Participants on Inclusion Team .......................................................................................... 76

Frequency of Meetings for the Inclusion Team................................................................... 77

Paraprofessional Time in the Classroom ............................................................................. 78

Responses to Individual Survey Questions ............................................................................. 79

Section II: Professional Development and Planning for Inclusive Practices ........................ 79

Section III: Support for Inclusive Practices ........................................................................ 82

Section IV: Use of Inclusive Practices ................................................................................ 83

Section V: Implementation of Inclusive Practices ............................................................... 84

Section VI: Beliefs About Inclusive Practices .................................................................... 87

Section VII: Beliefs About the Effects of Inclusive Practices ............................................. 89

Relationship Between Research Questions and Survey Sub-Scales ....................................... 90

Findings for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 90


ix



Summary .............................................................................................................................. 95

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 97

Summary of the Study ........................................................................................................... 97

Overview of the Problem ................................................................................................... 97

Purpose Statement and Research Questions ........................................................................ 98

Limitations......................................................................................................................... 98

Review of the Methodology ............................................................................................... 99

Findings Related to the Literature ........................................................................................ 100

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................ 101

Planning/Staff Development for Inclusive Practices ......................................................... 101


Support for Inclusive Practices ......................................................................................... 102


Use of Inclusive Practices ................................................................................................ 103

Implementation of Inclusive Practices .............................................................................. 105


Beliefs About Inclusive Practices ..................................................................................... 107

Effects of Inclusive Practices ........................................................................................... 109

x

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 110

Implications for Action ........................................................................................................... 111

Recommendations for Further Research .................................................................................. 112

References .............................................................................................................................. 115

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 128

Appendix A: The Inclusion Inventory .................................................................................. 128

Appendix B: Permission to Use The Inclusion Inventory ..................................................... 142

Appendix C: Principal Permission Letter ............................................................................. 143

Appendix D: Recruitment Letter .......................................................................................... 144

Appendix E: Holy Family University Institutional Review Board Consent Form ................. 145

xi

List of Tables

Table 1. 2011 School District LRE Percentages/SPP Targets and Title I Funding ..................... 57

Table 2. Linkages of Research Questions to Survey Items ........................................................ 60

Table 3. Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients for The Inclusion Inventory ......................... 61

Table 4. Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients and Scale Statistics for The Inclusion

Inventory .................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 5. Work Experience ........................................................................................................ 70

Table 6. Years Using Inclusive Practices .................................................................................. 71

Table 7. Time Working With Students ..................................................................................... 71

Table 8. Teacher Experience by Categories Served .................................................................. 73

Table 9. Professional Teaching Staff in the Classroom ............................................................. 74

Table 10. Individuals Who Plan Daily Instruction .................................................................... 75

Table 11. Teachers Responsible for Implementing Daily Instruction ......................................... 76

Table 12. Participants on Inclusion Team .................................................................................. 77

Table 13. Frequency of Meetings for the Inclusion Team .......................................................... 78

Table 14. Paraprofessional Time in the Classroom .................................................................... 79

Table 15. Planning and Staff Development ............................................................................... 81

Table 16. Support for Inclusive Practices .................................................................................. 82

Table 17. Levels of Use of Inclusive Practices .......................................................................... 84

Table 18. Frequency of Implementation of Inclusive Practices ................................................. 86

Table 19. Beliefs about Inclusive Practices ............................................................................... 88

xii

Table 20. Effects of Inclusive Practices .................................................................................... 90

Table 21. Planning/Staff Development Scale Differences ......................................................... 91

Table 22. Support Scale Differences ......................................................................................... 92

Table 23. Levels of Use Scale Differences ............................................................................... 93

Table 24. Implementation Scale Differences ............................................................................ 93

Table 25. Beliefs Scale Differences .......................................................................................... 94

Table 26. Effects Scale Differences .......................................................................................... 95

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Problem Statement

Despite legislation mandating educating students with disabilities in general education

classrooms, teachers and school districts still struggle with how to perform this effectively

(Becker et al., 2000; Hines & Johnston, 1997; Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2014; Waldron,

McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). United States federal law mandates access to the general curriculum,

also known as “inclusion,” for all students with disabilities (Rogers, 1993). Research suggests

that positive perceptions of teachers and administrators – those in charge of implementing

inclusion – have a great effect on its success with students (Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999;

Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000; Fuchs, 2010; Horrocks, White, & Roberts, 2008; Ross-

Hill, 2009; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996). Specifically, the main purpose of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, also IDEA), was to

ensure the equal protection under the law for students with disabilities. Educating all students

with disabilities in the “least restrictive environment” is one of the law’s six principles (IDEA,

2004). The law defines access to the general curriculum, also known as the Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE), as being a placement in which

to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including

children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated

with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling,

or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational

environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a


child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary

aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 2004, §5A)

The United States Department of Education considers 80% or more of the school day

spent in the general education classroom (primary placement) as meeting this high standard (Aud

et al., 2013). Categories on the continuum of educational placements for students with

disabilities as defined by the United States Department of Education (1995) are as follows. The

“regular class” includes students who spend 80% or more of their school day in a general

education classroom (inclusion). The “resource room” includes students who receive special

education and related services outside the general education classroom between 21% and 60% of

the school day. A “separate class” includes students who receive special education services

outside the general education classroom for more than 60% of the school day. A “separate

school” includes students who receive special education services in a separate day school for

50% or more of the school day. A “residential facility” includes students who receive education

in a public or private residential facility for 50% or more of the school day. Finally, the

“homebound/hospital environment” includes students who receive special education in

homebound or hospital settings. School districts and states operate and report on access to

general education for students with disabilities by these measures.

The state of Pennsylvania has target goals that it expects of school districts with respect

to the percentage of students with disabilities who are educated in the general education

classroom for 80% or more of the school day. This complies with IDEA (2004), Rule (2006)

which states that


except as provided in Sec. 300.324(d)(2) (regarding children with

disabilities in adult prisons), the State must have in effect policies and

procedures to ensure that public agencies in the State meet the LRE

requirements of this section and Sec. Sec. 300.115 through 300.120. (p.

46764)

Removing a student from the general education classroom should only occur when access

to the general curriculum with supplementary aids and services is not achievable (Villa et al.,

1996). Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, and Scheer (1999) found a positive relationship

between a teacher’s understanding of inclusion and that teacher’s beliefs that he or she can

effectively provide special education services to students with disabilities in the general

education classroom. In addition, Kamens, Loprete, and Slostad (2000) found that teacher

perceptions influence overall successful implementation of inclusive practices and that negative

perceptions about students with disabilities in the general education classroom affect teacher

behavior negatively. Further illustrating how school districts and others still struggle with

attaining this goal, Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) argue that the success of federally mandated

legislation depends on positive general education teacher attitudes specifically.

Research studying the perceptions of teachers with respect to the challenge of including

students in the general education classroom successfully, despite the mandate of previous

legislation and litigation, has spanned almost two decades (Cook et al., 1999; Fuchs, 2010;

Horrocks et al., 2008; Ross-Hill, 2009; Villa et al., 1996). Thus far, the research suggests that

teachers’ perceptions include various areas that need improvement with respect to successful

implementation of inclusion, including professional development, administrative support, and

planning time (Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000; Fuchs, 2010; Horrocks et al., 2008;


Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008; Rice, 2006; Ross-Hill, 2009; Villa et al., 1996; Waldron et

al., 2011). For example, Cook et al. (1999) specifically studied the perceptions of administrators

and special education teachers. The authors suggested there were fewer studies measuring the

perceptions of special education teachers compared to general education teachers. Despite this

lack of research, the perceptions of special education teachers appear to be critical in determining

the successful of implementation of inclusive practices and warrant further research.

Rationale

In discussing the development of The Inclusion Inventory, which is the survey used in

this dissertation, Becker et al. (2000) provided background information regarding previous

literature and mentions that “a growing body of research has examined the effects of inclusive

educational practices on students” (p. 59). The authors cited studies that have documented

educational success for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms without negatively

affecting other students. Becker et al. (2000) claim that these studies also documented that this

educational success for students partially depends on administrators providing necessary

supports for teachers and students. Becker et al. (2000) suggested that implementing inclusive

practices challenges “the educational system to make changes in areas such as school finance,

policies, and teacher training and support” (p. 58). The authors cited a conclusion of Smith

(1997) who stated the need for further research exploring the relationship between teachers’

perceptions of inclusion and their expectations of outcomes for students with disabilities. Becker

et al. (2000) stated, “methods and procedures to assess implementation of inclusive educational

practices, and educators’ attitudes toward these practices, have received less attention” (p. 58).

More specifically, Cochran (1998) stated, “If the movement toward inclusion continues, and


teachers' attitudes are a significant variable related to the success of students with disabilities,

additional research is warranted” (p.5).

Cochran (1998) further suggested that

Potential areas for research are: (a) examining differences in teachers'

attitudes toward students with special needs, (b) identifying relationships

between teachers' attitudes to students with special needs and teachers'

attitudes toward disabled persons in general, (c) predicting the success of

students with special needs from teachers' attitudes, (d) desensitizing

regular education teachers with negative attitudes toward students with

special needs, (e) promoting positive attitudes toward these students

through in-service training, and (f) screening prospective teachers for the

presence of positive attitudes toward students with special needs. (p. 5)

In a review of the literature regarding inclusion, Hines and Johnston (1997) indicated that

quantitative studies measuring the effects of inclusion are scarce, particularly studies that focus

on middle schools. In addition, Buell et al. (1999), who reported on a study by the New Jersey

Department of Education comparing the perceptions of general and special education teachers

and what they need in order to implement inclusive practices, found that general educators

reported receiving less resources and support than special educators did. The researchers

contend that teachers’ perceived level of support can affect their confidence and affect the

educational outcomes of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Therefore, they suggest

that teacher perceptions warrant further study.


Horne (1985), Semmel (1986), as well as Villa et al. (1996) state that positive perceptions

of key school personnel are critical requirements for inclusion to be successful. For example,

Cook et al. (1999) studied the attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the

inclusion of students with mild disabilities. The researchers examined the attitudes of principals

and special education teachers in order to provide “a unique comparison of those who determine

school policy and school-level resource allocation (i.e., principals) and those with the most

training and experience regarding the instruction and management of students with mild

disabilities (i.e., special education teachers)” (p. 200). They also note that schools need the

support and leadership of principals for successful school change, successful inclusion, and

effective schools. In addition, they acknowledge that principals’ perceptions are a powerful

influence on policy implementation in their buildings and that their positive attitudes about

inclusion can increase its implementation. Therefore, examining teacher perceptions of

administrative support could provide insight as to how this aspect affects the successful

implementation of inclusive practices.

Inclusion also requires collaboration between general education and special education

teachers (Daane et al., 2000). Researchers Becker et al. (2000) and Daane et al. (2000) stress

that additional studies are necessary to examine teachers’ perceptions of including students in the

general education classroom. They assert that teacher expectations influence student

achievement, self-esteem, and classroom behavior. In addition, Fuchs (2010) states that it is

necessary to address teacher perceptions about educating students with disabilities in the general

education classroom so that teacher preparation programs may understand the challenges

teachers face in this regard. Fuchs (2010) found that


general classroom teachers continue to express frustration with their perceived

lack of support from administrators and special education staff, as well as concern

for their inadequate teacher preparation with regard to including students with

disabilities in the general classroom setting. (p. 31)

The following studies demonstrate the need for examining the differences in perceptions

of inclusion between general education and special education teachers. For example, Kantor

(2011) analyzed both strengths and weaknesses in how general education teachers perceived

their pre-service preparation for teaching in mixed-ability classrooms. The author found that

there was a perceived difference between general education and special education teacher

preparation. The general education teachers in that study reported that they identified differences

in their perceived teacher training. As a result, the researcher recommended including the

addition of specific special education coursework for general education certification for pre-

service teachers and ongoing in-service training for public school teachers.

Dodge-Quick (2011) echoed Kantor (2011) and studied the perceptions of general

education teachers and their abilities to meet the educational needs of students in the general

education classroom and the teachers’ perceived lack of training in special education issues.

Dodge-Quick (2011) suggested that studying the perceptions of general education teachers could

be beneficial in helping to ease the resistance of general education teachers to the concept of

inclusion and enable them to accept it. The study concluded that general education teachers

would benefit from further training in inclusive practices. Therefore, this researcher inferred that

the pre-service and in-service training that general education teachers receive differs from that of

their special education counterparts, and influences general education teacher perceptions of

inclusion in the general education curriculum.


In seeking to examine differences between general education and special education

teacher perceptions of inclusive practices, Hawpe (2013) studied teachers at the secondary level

(middle and high school). Citing limited research regarding teachers at the secondary level, the

author studied the extent to which secondary teachers are willing to provide accommodations

and modifications for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. The study

based teacher perceptions on several factors including gender, school level taught (middle school

or high school), teaching assignment (general education or special education), and whether they

themselves had a disability. The author reported that the teachers had positive attitudes towards

persons with disabilities, but reported mixed results regarding secondary teachers’ willingness to

provide accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities.

Therefore, examining not only teacher perceptions of inclusion in general, but the

differences between general and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion could

further the knowledge of how best to increase students with disabilities’ participation in the

general education curriculum. Examining the perceptions of middle school teachers could

further illustrate how best to address this issue at the secondary level where access to the general

education curriculum could be more difficult.

Conceptual Framework

This study followed a conceptual framework intended to focus on the key components of

general and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion in order to better understand the

implementation of inclusive practices in the general education classroom (see Figure 1). For the

purposes of this study, four components mentioned in the review of the literature that affect

teacher perceptions of inclusion are: (1) professional development and teacher preparation, (2)


support for inclusive practices, (3) teacher use and implementation of inclusive practices, and (4)

teacher beliefs about inclusive practices.

Becker et al. (2000) consider inclusion as a model for delivering special education

services in the general education classroom to be conceptualized as a shift in paradigm, a

reordering of assumptions and values that drive practice. To address this concept of paradigm

shift, or change, teacher perceptions were examined in this study based on research by Hall,

Loucks, Rutherford, and Newlove (1975). These authors suggest that change, or the adoption of

an innovation, does not take place because a mandate deems that it must be so. Rather, the

members of a system need to become proficient in an innovation before they truly adopt it

effectively. With respect to inclusion, despite federal legislation mandating including students

with disabilities in the general education curriculum, how easily teachers adapt to change,

especially if they lack preparation and professional development, affects teacher use and

implementation of inclusive practices. If inclusion and the use of inclusive practices are new

concepts for teachers, their levels of use of those practices can depend on how comfortable they

are with implementing them. According to Hall et al. (1975), before innovations can be put to

use with maximum effectiveness, research recognizes that factors such as “organizational

climate, intervention strategies, and characteristics of decision makers” (p. 52) need to be

considered. Therefore, this study examined teacher perceptions in these key implementation

areas.


Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing components that affect teacher perceptions of

inclusion.

Planning and professional development. General and special education teachers

perceive sufficient staff development as necessary for the successful implementation of inclusive

practices (Fuchs, 2010; Ross-Hill, 2009; Villa et al., 1996). This is especially true in situations

where schools have implemented inclusion for the first time (Daane et al., 2000). For example,

in a study of 182 general education high school teachers that examined their attitudes and

Professional Development:

-Planning/collaboration

-Needs of students w/disabilities

-Roles of personnel

Support:

-Opportunities to meet

-Administrative support

-Teacher support

Levels of Use and Implementation:

- Inclusive strategies shared

- Barriers to inclusion addressed

- Degree of implementation of inclusive practices

Beliefs and Effects:

-Whether inclusive practices require more teacher effort

-Co-teaching issues

-Whether students benefit socially/academically

General and Special Education Teacher

Perceptions of Inclusion


perceptions of inclusion based on educational level and previous training in special education,

Stoler (1992) identified the need for comprehensive and complete teacher training prior to

inclusion taking place.

Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000), Buell et al. (1999), and Kamens et al. (2000)

agree that teachers regularly report the need for more training in areas such as accommodating

and adapting instruction and assignments, assessment techniques, and a variety of instructional

strategies to meet the needs of children with disabilities. This could have a negative effect on

general education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion because of their perceived inability to

accommodate the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms (Campbell, Gilmore, &

Cuskelly, 2003). Teachers also consider inadequate pre-service training as a barrier for

successful inclusion implementation (Villa et al., 1996).

Supports for inclusive practices. Teachers also perceive sufficient administrative

support as necessary for the successful implementation of inclusive practices (Daane et al., 2000;

Villa et al., 1996). Horrocks et al. (2008) state that the principal is the key person responsible for

direct supervision of special education services at the building level and principals need to

demonstrate appropriate behaviors and attitudes as the instructional leaders of the school. For

example, principals have the ability to address the lack of planning and collaboration time among

teachers because of their authority to create and adjust teacher schedules accordingly. Teachers

also mention unrealistic job expectations by administrators as perceived barriers to inclusion due

to the increased demands of the curriculum and inability to deliver the curriculum in the

prescribed instructional time (Fuchs, 2010).


General education and special education teachers who co-teach in the general education

classroom perceive the lack of time provided to them to plan and collaborate as a barrier toward

effective inclusion (Fuchs, 2010; Ross-Hill, 2009). For students with disabilities, their

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) require the implementation of Specially Designed

Instruction (SDI) such as modifications and adaptations to the materials, the curriculum, or both

(IDEA, 2004). Special education teachers have the expertise and training to perform these tasks,

but need to be able to collaborate with general education teachers in many areas to maintain the

integrity of the curriculum while providing appropriate access to the curriculum for the students

with disabilities. In turn, general education teachers need the opportunity to collaborate with

their special education co-teachers in order to become familiar with such modifications and

adaptations in which the general education teachers often have little training or familiarity.

Therefore, positive teacher perceptions regarding administrative support for inclusive practices

are necessary for the implementation of those inclusive practices to occur.

Teacher use and implementation of inclusive practices. General and special

education teachers’ levels of use of inclusive practices are another instrumental area in the

successful implementation of inclusion. “Levels of Use” (Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory, 2014) is a concept which led to an interview tool developed to give administrators

the ability to assess the extent to which staff members are implementing a new initiative and

their proficiency with it. With respect to levels of use, individuals need to be proficient in an

innovation before it is determined to be successful (Hall et al., 1975; Southwest Educational

Development Laboratory, 2014). However, many researchers indicate that teachers feel

unprepared and lack confidence in their abilities to implement inclusive practices and meet the

needs of students in inclusive settings (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns,


1997; Berry, Petrin, Gravelle, & Farmer, 2011; Clayton, Burdge, Denham, Kleinert, & Kearns,

2006; Daane et al., 2000; Hines & Johnston, 1997; Simon & Black, 2011). Teachers who

possess higher self-efficacy are more likely to view the strategy or initiative as being successful

(Werts, Wolery, & Snyder, 1996).

Teacher beliefs about inclusive practices. Finally, general and special education

teachers’ beliefs about inclusive practices are another area perceived to be instrumental in the

successful implementation of inclusion. Dukes and Lamar-Dukes (2009) suggest that inclusive

practices need to be aligned with teacher beliefs and teaching styles in order for them to be

successful. In addition, the authors state that, especially at the middle and high school level,

teachers tend to focus narrowly on academic content and may disagree with the possibility of

modifying or changing the curriculum.

Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008) recounted the frustration of a seventh grade

general education teacher who reported that special education teachers have no familiarity with

content at the secondary (middle and high school) level because they have not taught it except

for the resource room setting. This general education teacher went on to say that until the special

education teacher in their classroom becomes more familiar with the curriculum, that special

education teacher will be nothing more than an aide. In addition, while teachers in that study

declared publicly that they were able to overcome differences in teaching styles, in interviews,

they claimed otherwise. As a result, the authors cite a “de-professionalization among special

education teachers and frustration among the regular education teachers” (p. 125).

Teachers implement various instructional methods and strategies based on their

experience and personal beliefs. Negative teacher perceptions about inclusion make access for


students with disabilities a challenge. Areas that affect teachers’ perceptions regarding inclusive

practices such as professional development, administrative support, use, implementation, and

beliefs were the focus of this study based on the review of the literature, and it is these areas that

guided the formulation of the research questions.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of

teachers regarding inclusion and to examine if there are significant differences in general

education and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion.

The following questions guided this research study:

1. Are there significant differences in the perceptions of general and special education

teachers toward planning and professional development and what teachers need in order to be

prepared for implementing inclusive practices?


teachers toward receiving necessary supports for inclusive practices?

3. Are there significant differences in the levels of inclusive practices used daily among

general and special education teachers?

4. Are there significant differences in general and special education teachers’ beliefs about

inclusive practices and their effects on students?

Delimitations

The delimitations for this study were as follows:


1. The participants in this study were delimited to secondary level general and special

education teachers in six middle schools in three suburban school districts within the

same county in Southeastern Pennsylvania during the 2013-2014 school year. Middle

schools are considered secondary level schools. Secondary schools include middle and

high schools with grades ranging from 7-12. The middle schools in this study included

grades 6-8.

2. The data collection for this study was delimited to the period from April 29, 2014 to June

30, 2014.

3. The data collection for this study was delimited to the use of an online survey instrument.

4. Participation in this research study was voluntary.

Assumptions

There were several assumptions that were involved in this study. First, the researcher

assumed that the participants in the study would answer the questions in the survey truthfully and

accurately based on the fact that their answers were anonymous, that they could withdraw at any

time, and that there were no negative consequences associated with their participation in the

study. Second, the researcher assumed that the participants in the study would understand and be

familiar with the terminology used in the survey. Finally, the researcher assumed that the

participants in the study would answer questions based on their personal experiences and

perceptions.

Significance of the Study

The present study sought to extend the current literature and contribute to the body of

knowledge indicating that general education and special education teacher attitudes affect the


success of including students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. This study

provides information and insight for several groups who provide services for students with

disabilities. Four groups in particular who benefit from the information provided in the study

include general and special education teachers, principals and assistant principals,

superintendents, as well as policy makers at the state and federal levels who monitor least

restrictive environment indicators. Becker et al. (2000) suggested that areas such as school

finance, policies, and teacher training and support require attention with respect to successful

inclusion.

General education teachers and special education teachers can benefit from the findings

of this study by gaining insight into the perceptions of teachers in similar situations, both general

education and special education. Gaining better understanding into teacher perceptions about

inclusive practices can provide added insight into understanding their colleagues and meeting the

needs, ultimately, of their students. Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in the

general curriculum increases the chances of these students meeting with success.

Building administrators, such as principals and assistant principals, can benefit from the

findings of this study by gaining insight into the perceptions, which can help shape their

administrative decision making. Information from this study can inform administrators about

key success factors, including perceived level of support, professional development, and level of

commitment (Bennett et al., 1997; Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000). Principals and

assistant principals may also benefit from teachers’ reported levels of use of inclusive practices

and the factors that influence those levels of use. Principals may use this information to guide

their professional development planning as well as understand how to best utilize staff and


organize schedules to maintain flexible opportunities for increased levels of inclusive practices in

their buildings.

School district superintendents can benefit from the findings of this study by gaining

insight into how teacher perceptions of inclusion influence the levels of inclusive practices

within their districts. School districts still struggle with meeting the United States Department of

Education target for educating students with disabilities inside the general education classroom

for 80% or more of the school day. Therefore, superintendents may be able to gather

information based on the results of this study and present more meaningful program ideas to

their school boards. In addition, they may offer support to building administrators who request

more specific and directed professional development in this area for their teachers.

Policy makers at the state and federal levels can benefit from the findings of this study by

gaining insight into how special education funds are used and to inform Congress regarding

IDEA (Parrish, 2006). For example, the author states that total per pupil expenditures tend to be

higher in environments that are more restrictive such as resource classes, special classes or

special school placements. Therefore, costs of services in specific placements and how these

affect student outcomes are important considerations in light of rising educational costs and

budget concerns. Specifically, as of 2014, the state of Pennsylvania based its special education

funding on a pupil weight basis which provides more funding for students expected to cost more

(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2014). Therefore, as state and local policy makers look

to school districts to increase placements for students with disabilities in the general education

classroom, as per IDEA, the school districts benefit from research examining teacher perceptions

since such research could provide potential areas for improvement.


Definition of Key Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following definitions of key terms were used:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, states are

required to develop and implement an accountability system to ensure that all local educational

agencies and public elementary and secondary schools make progress based on academic

standards. In addition, the state accountability system will include sanctions and rewards that the

state will use to make local educational agencies and public elementary and secondary schools

accountable for student achievement.

Co-Teaching: A classroom with one general education teacher paired with one special education

teacher in an inclusive classroom of general and special education students (Scruggs,

Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).

General curriculum: This is the same curriculum as for nondisabled children.

Inclusion: This is “the commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in

the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support

services to the child ... and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather

than having to keep up with the other students)” (Rogers, 1993, p. 2).

Inclusive practices: These are classroom strategies and teaching practices utilized to include

students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) (Public Law 108-

446): This is the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which, in

turn, strengthened the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by continuing the


Federal Government’s role in assuring that States and local agencies educate students with

disabilities in a way that improves the results for these students and assures them equal

protection under the law.

In-service activities: These involve training that is formal, planned, and scheduled by

administration often to satisfy legal requirements (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2009).

In-service teachers: These are teachers currently teaching in a school

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Public Law 107–110): This is an act “to close the

achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (Title

page, definition following “An Act”).

Pre-service teachers: These are students still enrolled in a teacher preparation program and not

yet certified.

Professional development: According NCLB, under Title IX, Part A, Sections 9101, the term

professional development includes activities that improve and increase teachers' knowledge of

the academic subjects the teachers teach, and enable teachers to become highly qualified; are an

integral part of broad school wide and district wide educational improvement plans; give

teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the

opportunity to meet challenging state academic content standards and student academic

achievement standards; improve classroom management skills; are high quality, sustained,

intensive, and classroom-focused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom

instruction and the teacher's performance in the classroom; and are not 1-day or short-term

workshops or conferences.


Organization of the Study

The researcher organized this study into five chapters, references, and appendices in the

following manner. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature relevant to teacher perceptions of

inclusive practices, particularly related to professional development, supports, and their beliefs

about inclusion in general. Chapter 3 explains the research design and methodology of the study,

describes the survey instrument used to gather the data, the procedures, and the description of the

sample selection process. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the data. Chapter 5 contains the

summary, discussion of the findings related to the literature, conclusions, implications for action,

and recommendations for further study. The study concludes with references and appendices.


Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Introduction

The review of the literature focuses on general education and special education teachers’

perceptions of inclusion and the components of inclusive practices that make educating students

in the least restrictive environment possible. The review followed a conceptual framework of

inclusive education focused on the key components of general and special education teachers’

perceptions of inclusion - (1) professional development and teacher preparation, (2) support for

inclusive practices, (3) teacher use/implementation of inclusive practices, and (4) teacher beliefs

about inclusion. The researcher discusses each component in depth within this literature review.

For example, in a qualitative study, Fuchs (2010) examined general educators’ beliefs and

attitudes about inclusion. The author states that teachers’ negative feelings about inclusion and

inclusive practices can negatively influence their behaviors, student learning, and the success of

inclusive practices in general. This study and other research informs this literature review and

supports the framework regarding the influences of teacher perceptions of inclusion and its

impact on the successful implementation of inclusive practices on the general curriculum. The

review will be organized through major sections 1) background on requirements for inclusive

education 2) the four major concepts of the conceptual framework, an 3) research addressing

differences between perceptions of general and special education teachers.

Search procedure. The researcher limited the search to full text, scholarly (peer

reviewed) articles in the United States to keep the search within the context of federal and state

laws regarding least restrictive environment. The following online databases were used to

conduct the search – Academic Search Premier, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Education

Source, ERIC, Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Proquest Dissertations and Theses,


PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) as well as government

documents via the United States Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Department of

Education. The researcher initially searched for articles within the past ten years, but found

informative resources that pre-dated that time as well. The preliminary keywords the researcher

used to search the literature included those related to the background of inclusion such as IDEA

an NCLB, least restrictive environment, teacher perceptions, and teacher beliefs. After the initial

search results, the researcher expanded the literature search, broadening the terms used, to

include literature pertaining to the four areas in the study connected to general education and

special education teacher perceptions of inclusive practices surrounding students with

disabilities.

After a systematic review of the literature, the researcher created worksheets listing the

research found and categorized them by the name of the reference/research study, the purpose of

the study, the research design, participants, and major results. The researcher created four

worksheets based on the four areas affecting teacher perceptions according to the research

questions – 1) professional development, 2) administrative support, 3) teacher use and

implementation of inclusive practices, and 4) teacher beliefs about inclusive practices.

Background on Inclusive Practices

Federal law mandates access to the general curriculum for all students with disabilities,

via the Education of all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EHA), renamed as IDEA, then later

IDEIA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Specifically, the

IDEIA defines access to the general curriculum, also known as the Least Restrictive

Environment (LRE), as educating children with disabilities, to the maximum extent possible,


with children without disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education considers 80% or more of

the school day to be the maximum extent possible (Aud et al., 2013). According to the principle

of LRE, the option of removing a student from the general education classroom should only

occur when access to the general curriculum with supplementary aids and services is not

achievable.

Access to the general curriculum, for students with significant cognitive disabilities in

particular, continues to be a struggle for educators despite the years that have elapsed since EHA

1975 (Browder, Flowers, & Wakeman, 2008; Browder et al., 2007; Clayton et al., 2006;

Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson, & Slagor, 2007; Kozik, Cooney, Vinciguerra, Gradel, & Black,

2009; Roach & Salisbury, 2006; Smith, 2006; Spooner, Dymond, Smith, & Kennedy, 2006).

In response to the legislation, the practice of including students with disabilities in the

general education classroom has improved over the years. For example, during the 1990-1991

school year, 33.1% of all students age 6-21 with disabilities served under IDEA were educated in

a regular public school, in general education classes, for 80% or more of the school day. During

the 2010-2011 school year, 61% of all students age 6-21 with disabilities were educated in a

regular public school, in general education classes, for 80% or more of the school day (Aud et

al., 2013). However, when the category of all students with disabilities is further delineated by

type of disability, for the school year 2010-2011, only 17% of students with intellectual

disabilities and 13% of students with multiple disabilities were educated in a regular public

school, in general education classes for 80% or more of the school day (U.S. Department of

Education, 2013).


To illustrate the impact of inclusive education on individuals with disabilities, it is helpful

to put the issue in the context of segregation in general. Just as the Brown vs. Board of

Education of Topeka, Kansas Supreme Court decision in 1954 invalidated the laws that

permitted racially segregated schools, it paved the way for special education legislation as well

with over 50 years of litigation and legislation for marginalized students (Smith, 2006). In

addition, since 1996, researchers have focused on the issue of accessing the general curriculum

to try to create a more effective educational system for students with severe cognitive disabilities

(Spooner et al., 2006). The IDEA 1997 amendments addressed access to the general curriculum

for students with disabilities, which was not specifically addressed in the law prior to 1997, using

the student’s Individualized Education Program as the primary tool (U.S. Department of

Education, Archived: IDEA ’97 Regulations, 2003). Access to the general curriculum via grade-

level academic content is compatible with and even essential to the goal of educating students

with disabilities for post-high school, adult living in the community. In general, the purpose of

school reform for all students has been affording them the ability to become competent adults

(Browder et al., 2007).

The literature is clear regarding the positive outcomes for students with significant

cognitive disabilities educated in general education classrooms (Browder et al., 2008; Browder,

et al., 2007; Idol, 2006; Ryndak, Ward, Alper, Montgomery, & Storch, 2010; Smith, 2006;

Spooner et al., 2006). For example, Browder et al. (2008) outline four reasons why access to

grade level academic content for students with significant disabilities is essential for achieving

the goal of adult living in inclusive communities. First, they mention that the goal of school

reform for all students is adult competence. Second, they mention increased expectations for

students with significant disabilities to learn academic content that will increase their community


access and benefit their lives. Third, they argue that access to grade level content for this

population of students increases equal educational opportunities. Finally, the fourth reason is

that access to grade level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities increases

opportunities for self-determination which is associated with a higher quality of life.

In addition, Ryndak et al. (2010) performed a qualitative longitudinal investigation of

adult outcomes for two individuals with significant disabilities who received services across

educational settings. The findings of this study indicate that the student who received special

education services the majority of the time within the general education setting appeared to have

achieved better adult outcomes in the community as compared to the student who received

services in a self-contained special education setting.

Planning and Professional Development

IDEA 2004 and NCLB both state that the responsibility of academic achievement of

students with special needs lies with all teachers involved, meaning general and special

education teachers. The task of providing students with disabilities with access to the general

curriculum, despite the legislation mandating that schools do so, is still a challenge for educators

today. Regardless of the efforts that teachers and administrators have made to create successful,

inclusive classrooms, they continue to cite challenges at every building level as well as at the

district and state level (Fuchs, 2010; Idol, 2006; Kozik et al., 2009; Roach & Salisbury, 2006;

Stidham-Smith, 2013).

For example, Fuchs (2010) studied five general education elementary school teachers

using focus group interviews. The researcher found that the teachers believed that the

responsibilities of general education teachers were unreasonable, that they lacked proper training


in inclusive practices, and that there was a lack of support from school administrators in the areas

of training, collaboration time, and class size. In addition, Idol (2006) performed a program

evaluation of four elementary and four secondary schools (two middle schools and two high

schools) with respect to the degree of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education

classes. The researcher studied the perceptions of general and special education teachers,

instructional assistants, and principals using personal interviews and found that, especially at the

secondary level, teachers indicated that principals needed to improve the balance between being

administrative managers and instructional leaders. The teachers viewed instructional leadership,

which involved being more present in classrooms and helping teachers advance their skills in

teaching a multilayered curriculum, as being important to successful inclusion. Kozik et al.

(2009) also discuss the challenges that secondary schools face with respect to inclusion. They

question why quality inclusion is not implemented more extensively given the fact that evidence

based practices exist in the literature and in practice.

Researchers have found that targeted and effective professional development and teacher

preparation increases teacher efficacy, a large component of successful inclusion and effective

inclusive practices (Berry et al., 2011; Dodge-Quick, 2011; Fuchs, 2010; Kosko & Wilkins,

2009; Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998; Simon & Black, 2011). In addition, through effective

professional development and teacher preparation, pro-inclusion attitudes may be fostered

among general and special education teachers (Kosko & Wilkens, 2009; Orr, 2009). For

example, Kosko and Wilkens (2009) investigated data from the Study of Personnel Needs in

Special Education (SPeNSE) during the 1999-2000 school year, which is funded by the U.S.

Department of Education and Office of Special Education Programs. The researchers found that

any amount of professional development in a three-year period significantly predicted teachers’


perceived ability to adapt instruction. They assert, “peoples’ beliefs about what they are capable

of and what their abilities are help to define their actions as individuals” (Kosko & Wilkins,

2009, p. 2). In a qualitative study of 15 special education teachers from a special education pre-

service program, Orr (2009) discovered that participants believed preparation to be a critical

component of the success of inclusion. The study concluded that appropriate teacher training

and professional development can foster positive perceptions of inclusive practices.

Successful professional development can and should lead to positive student outcomes

according to Frey (2009). In that qualitative case study, the researcher investigated the outcomes

of the use of a project-based online professional development approach with in-service special

education teachers. The findings of that study indicated that the use of project-based

professional development had a positive impact on both teachers and students as demonstrated

by improved understanding of concepts and skills on the part of the teachers in the professional

development activity and improved classroom performance on the part of the students during the

course of the project. In addition, improved student results gave teachers a more positive attitude

about implementing evidence based practices in the future.

In their review of the literature regarding effective practices of inclusion, Alquraini and

Gut (2012) also found that, in addition to other factors, professional development for teachers is

a critical component of successful inclusion for students with severe disabilities in particular.

They examined 72 studies and found that the literature suggests that professional development

pertaining to inclusive practices should be considered by administrators and school districts in

order to improve the knowledge of educators and staff with respect to students with severe

disabilities. The literature also suggests that this cannot be accomplished without the combined

efforts of all parties.


Research, however, does indicate that the professional development that general and

special education teachers receive is inadequate (Frey, 2009; Kosko & Wilkens, 2009; Smith &

Tyler, 2011). For example, Kosko and Wilkens (2009) studied the relationship among teachers’

number of professional development hours, years teaching students with IEPs, and self-perceived

ability to adapt instruction and found that “having 8 hours or more of professional development

is more than twice as effective as less than 8 hours in improving teachers’ self-perceived ability

to adapt instruction” (p. 8). Smith and Tyler (2011) discuss the importance of teacher

preparation and describe the varied online resources available at The IRIS Center for Training

Enhancements, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The researchers report that

educators consistently indicate that they feel ill prepared to meet the needs of diverse learners,

that teacher education programs are lacking, and that professional development includes a

multitude of information regarding new effective teaching practices with which educators feel

overwhelmed to keep up.

Professional development: Building level. Professional development and in-service

training can be confused as being one and the same. However, it is important to distinguish

between professional development and in-service training because they have different meanings

in the literature. Professional development is considered to be more focused on the development

of expertise, while in-service training is considered to be “more for satisfying legal requirements

and less for professional growth” (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2009, p. 38). In addition, NCLB

requires professional development planning to have considerable participation from teachers,

parents, and administrators.

Successful professional development has many components. For example, Jenkins and

Yoshimura (2009) state that the planning and implementation of professional development needs


to follow five steps. The first step is to build readiness based on students’ needs. The second

step is to prepare detailed plans and create goals for the professional development activities. The

third step is to put the plans into practice. The fourth step is to support teachers as they

implement the professional development activities into classroom practice. Finally, the fifth step

is to maintain and monitor the professional development activities, allowing time for reflection.

Simon and Black (2011) state that “effective professional development should be

intensive and sustained over time in order to have a positive impact on student achievement” (p.

162). The authors cite Florida House (2008) as the research base for Florida’s professional

development model. In addition, Simon and Black (2011) report Florida’s Differentiated

Accountability Program, which is a federal incentive policy, funds professional development

including “supporting professional learning communities (PLCs), direct professional

development in non-AYP areas, data-analysis, comprehensive reading programs, research-based

reading materials and strategies, and teaching advanced academics courses based on school

needs” (p. 162). They also state that from a content analysis of Florida’s School Improvement

Plans for 35 elementary schools targeted for improvement, there were questions regarding

whether the plans contained language supporting professional development for either general or

special education teachers who teach students with disabilities. These examples in Florida clearly

show the importance of targeted and ongoing professional development aimed at teachers of

students with special needs.

Echoing Jenkins and Yoshimura (2009) who state that effective professional development

needs to contain specific components such as following a prescribed set of steps, McLeskey and

Waldron (2002) found that in order for professional development surrounding inclusion and

inclusive practices to be effective, three components are necessary. First, professional


development needs to be specifically tailored to each school. Second, an initial engagement of

the attitudes, beliefs, and understandings of teachers and administrators towards inclusion should

be explored. Finally, professional development should address the needs of all learners.

Teachers believe professional development related to including students with disabilities

in the general education curriculum is necessary and they cite specific concerns. For example,

one concern among general and special education teachers is clarification of teacher roles and

responsibilities. For example, in a qualitative study using focus groups and individual interviews

of five elementary teachers in a suburban area of the Midwest, Fuchs (2010) states that general

education teachers feel that the job expectations and responsibilities they have are unreasonable

in light of the lack of pre-service and in-service training they received. In addition, lack of

training regarding the individual needs of students with special needs in their classrooms was a

source of frustration for them. General education teachers mentioned that there was no district

training or professional development to address these needs in their schools and that there was no

district funding for such workshops. The one teacher in the study that did have the opportunity

to attend workshops or in-service training said they were not effective.

Fuchs (2010) also states that general education teachers believe that there is an unequal

distribution of duties and responsibilities between them and special education teachers and that

tension exists between the two groups of teachers as well. General education teachers stated that

they were concerned with a lack of access to information about students with special needs in

their classrooms. Another concern stems from the fact that when general and special education

teachers co-teach, the individual teachers tend to claim responsibility for certain groups of

students and not others. This dispute often results in dividing students into labeled groups within

the classroom such as “my kids” or “your kids.” Hines and Johnston (1997), Daane et al. (2000),


and Orr (2009) echo this concern by noting there is a conflict between general and special

education teachers regarding who is ultimately responsible for the students with special needs in

the general education classroom.

In a qualitative case study done in a suburban middle school in Western Pennsylvania,

Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008) used purposeful sampling to identify participants in

order to examine the factors that affect the implementation and adoption of co-teaching models

among general and special education teachers. The school was in its first year of implementing

co-teaching. Participants included 15 general education and 5 special education teachers who

co-taught at least one class per day, and none of the teachers in the study had co-taught before.

The researchers found that clearly defined co-teacher roles and responsibilities, the interpersonal

relationships between co-teachers, as well as administrative support and validation are factors in

successful co-teaching relationships.

With respect to co-teaching, there are various service delivery models in schools that are

effective in supporting access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities

(Idol, 2006; Kozik et al., 2009; Roach & Salisbury, 2006). These include the consulting teacher

model, in which a special education teacher acts as a consultant to the general education teacher

regarding targeted students; the supportive resource program, in which the special education and

general education teacher collaborate as to the curriculum delivered in the resource room

environment, which is intended to support the general curriculum and assist in transferring the

knowledge from the resource room into the general education classroom; and the use of

instructional assistants or paraprofessional aides to assist students with disabilities in the general

education classroom (Idol, 2006). In general, teachers express the need for more professional


development related to supporting teachers in various methods of service delivery models (Kozik

et al., 2009; Roach & Salisbury, 2006).

Despite the effectiveness and availability of various service delivery models, teachers

describe various needs in terms of professional development (Idol, 2006). Specifically named

are helping teachers learn to make more appropriate instructional and curricular modifications

and supporting various service delivery models such as consulting teaching, paraprofessional

aides, and cooperative teaching. In addition, teachers express a need for more professional

development for paraprofessional aides and the opportunity to observe other schools that practice

inclusion. Finally, another concern is that both general education and special education teachers

are spending more time doing paperwork and not enough time teaching students.

Researchers report additional areas in which teachers have expressed needing

professional development. Studying data from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special

Education, Kosko and Wilkens (2009) state that general education teachers view teaching and

collaboration strategies as being important areas for professional development. Specifically

studying the needs of special education teachers in rural districts, Berry et al. (2011) surveyed

administrators and special education teachers employed in rural districts over the span of two

school years and found that special education teachers view working with parents and

paraprofessionals and training in specific disability categories as the most needed areas of

professional development. Kozik et al. (2009) studied 35 participants from a variety of settings

including higher education, school districts, the New York State Education Department, and

technical support networks. The participants’ purpose was to reflect on the question: “In order

for inclusive adolescent education to be successful, what values, skills, and knowledge should

teachers demonstrate?” Study participants, cited planning time, caseload concerns, and


inadequate preparation as barriers to the successful access of students with disabilities in the

general curriculum.

In a quantitative study of 139 general and special education teachers in K-12 districts,

Kurth, Gross, Lovinger, and Catalano (2012) found that professional development regarding

inclusion can vary significantly between general and special education teachers. Part of the

reason for this variation might be that special educators’ teacher preparation programs differ

from those of other teachers. In addition, Kosko and Wilkins (2009) found that “the more hours

of professional development teachers have the more able they believe they are to adapt

instruction for students with IEPs” (p. 7).

Professional development: District and state level. In addition to building level

challenges to including students with disabilities in the general education curriculum, challenges

at the district and state level continue to confound teachers and administrators. Roach and

Salisbury (2006) provided a context-specific change model designed to focus on providing

professional development from the bottom up, at each level, from local to state, that fosters

communication at all levels. This model, which is already implemented and successful in two

states, involves communication at all levels as the pivotal component of this strategy. The

authors described it as a viable model for teachers and administrators who seek to have a

successful inclusion policy in their schools.

According to Roach and Salisbury (2006), despite implementing instructional and

staffing strategies in schools to foster including students with disabilities, teachers and principals

reported additional challenges at the district and state levels that hamper their efforts. These

challenges include the process of grading students with disabilities, graduation requirements,


recruiting and training qualified teachers, ensuring access to the general curriculum, providing

professional development to staff regarding collaborative planning and teaching, and placing

students in the least restrictive environment. The extent of these challenges is exacerbated by the

federal mandates that influence state and local policy with respect to aligning school-level

practice with IDEIA (Browder et al., 2008; Browder et al., 2007; Clayton et al., 2006; Dymond

et al., 2007; Idol, 2006; Kozik et al., 2009; Roach & Salisbury, 2006; Smith, 2006; Spooner et

al., 2006).

As a result, the Consortium for Inclusive Schooling Practices (CISP) was created in 1995,

with the help of federal funding, to assist with policy implementation and alignment issues

(Roach & Salisbury, 2006). The CISP implemented a strategy in four states that focused on

three areas. These areas included providing professional development to several levels of the

service delivery system, incorporating a unique group of stakeholders into the process, and

integrating feedback forums for every level of the system such as classroom, building, district,

and state. These focus areas of the strategy were intended to promote communication and

problem solving at all levels. There were several positive outcomes for the strategy

implementation. One outcome was to help states and local districts identify barriers to inclusion

and why the barriers existed. Another outcome was to help states and local districts increase and

target communication among stakeholder groups regarding policies and practices. As a result,

the CISP has contributed to the policy and practice changes at all levels and the statewide

changes seem to have persisted since the CISP completed its work.

Teacher preparation programs. Effective professional development for in-service

teachers is necessary to keep teachers abreast of changes in legislation since teachers need to

know how changes in legislation affect their classroom practices. Effective professional


development is also a guiding component for co-teaching and collaboration. In addition, pre-

service teachers need to have the opportunity to practice these skills and competencies prior to

entering the classroom. Therefore, teacher preparation programs that address inclusive practices

and give teachers the skills needed to teach all children are necessary (Smith & Tyler, 2011).

Fuchs (2010) asserted that general education teacher preparation programs are lacking in

providing preparation to general education teachers as far as differentiated instruction, classroom

accommodations, and collaboration with special education staff. As a result, the teachers in this

study stated that this lack of pre-service preparation negatively affected their ability to meet the

needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms successfully. Berry et al. (2011) echoed

these concerns. The researchers stated that traditional teacher preparation programs do not

adequately prepare special education teachers to serve students in a variety of settings. They

found that this is especially true in rural settings where teachers may be delivering services to

students beyond their training and expertise since special education teachers in these

communities are in short supply.

Support for Inclusive Practices

General and special education teachers recognize that sufficient support for inclusive

practices such as adequate planning and collaboration time, an appropriate amount of

instructional time associated with providing accommodations and modifications, as well as

administrative and special education support are necessary components for the success of

inclusive practices (Hines & Johnston, 1996; Finegan, 2004; Fuchs, 2010). In a qualitative study

of teachers’ perceptions regarding including students with disabilities in the general education

classroom in public and private schools in Texas, Finegan (2004) found that positive teacher


attitudes about inclusion result from “adequate time for collaboration and planning, sufficient

training and resources, and support from specialists and administration” (p. 48). Additionally, in

Fuchs (2010), the general education teachers stated that most of the responsibilities for planning

and grading assignments fell on the general education teacher. Special education teachers were

viewed as lacking in support of making accommodations associated with general education

instruction, having an unequal distribution of duties, and lacking planning time.

Providing leadership for implementing inclusive practices. The principal, as the

instructional leader of a building, is a crucial component to the successful implementation of

inclusive practices. Moore (2005) conducted a study to identify the sources and organizational

supports for students with disabilities to be included in the general education classroom. The

researcher stated that the building principal provides the resources such as “funding, special

curricula, adaptive technology, organizational resources such as time for training, and hiring of

additional personnel to assist these students” (p. 3) that are critical to the success of students

with disabilities in general education classrooms. The researcher stated that principals need to

validate and promote the importance of the co-teaching model, in particular, through frequent

classroom visits, support, and encouragement. Similarly, Arguelles, Hughes, and Schumm

(2000) stated in order for co-teaching to be successful, administrative support is necessary to

handle conflicts regarding scheduling, class size, and common teacher planning time. Other

researchers have found that administrators are often unresponsive to the need for professional

development regarding students with disabilities placed in the general education classroom

(Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010). Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008) also included the lack of

clear expectations on the part of administrators as one of the problems in co-taught classrooms.


Further evidence of the critical role of administrative support with respect to inclusion

and successful inclusive practices is a function of five factors (Villa et al., 1996). These factors

are in-service training, administrative support, collaboration between general and special

education teachers and time to do so, and restructuring initiatives within the school. The

researchers also found that the degree of administrative support that general education teachers

receive is the most powerful predictor of those teachers’ positive beliefs about inclusion.

Planning/collaboration time. Finegan (2004) found that teachers who had positive

attitudes about inclusion had access to a variety of resources and had adequate planning and

collaboration time. In addition, the study found that teachers, regardless of their level of

teaching experience, perceived that collaboration with other teachers, especially their special

education colleagues, is an important factor in the success for their students with disabilities.

Furthermore, the teachers also suggested that collaboration requires mutual respect between

colleagues, honesty, and open-mindedness. Similarly, in a study to identify the sources and

components of organizational support required to implement the inclusion of students with

disabilities into the general education classroom, Moore (2005) found that teachers often request

additional planning and collaboration time in their workday.

In their literature review, Alquraini and Gut (2012) also discussed how planning and

collaboration time between professionals is necessary for successful inclusion of students with

disabilities. Planning time between professionals includes collaboration time between general

and special education teachers and among teachers and related service providers. Related service

providers include individuals such as paraprofessionals, speech and language pathologists,

occupational therapists, physical therapists, nurses and others. Additionally, Choate (as cited in


Alquraini & Gut, 2012) stated that a successful collaboration team believes that “all students can

learn and that school personnel share responsibility for their success” (p. 52).

In a phenomenological study examining elementary teachers’ perceptions of inclusion for

students with disabilities in the general education classroom, Mullings (2011) interviewed 36

teachers and administrators in two schools in an urban setting in New Jersey. The researcher

used purposeful sampling to identify schools that currently promote and encourage full inclusion.

In addition, the schools in the district selected for the study place their students with disabilities

in more restrictive settings, as compared to schools with similar demographics. Findings include

the fact that respondents believed that in addition to training and expertise, the ability to establish

professional relationships and collaborate with their peers was important. The participants also

stated that the lack of administrative support was a hindrance to the success of inclusion and

stated that principals need to be more involved in ensuring the correct implementation of

inclusion.

Modifying and adapting curriculum. Support for inclusive practices typically includes

assisting teachers in the area of modifying and adapting the general curriculum for students with

disabilities, especially students with severe disabilities (Alquraini & Gut, 2012). IDEA requires

that teachers be proficient in making appropriate modifications and adaptations to the general

curriculum in order for students with disabilities to participate in classroom experiences in the

least restrictive environment. When teachers adapt and modify the general curriculum, students

with disabilities can participate in the general curriculum in an inclusive setting rather than a

segregated setting, away from their non-disabled peers. As a result, students with disabilities

benefit academically from the general curriculum when they have the appropriate modifications

and accommodations to meet their needs (Alquiraini & Gut, 2012).


There is a difference between adapting and modifying the general curriculum, however.

For example, Lee et al. (as cited in Alquraini & Gut, 2012) define curriculum adaptation as “the

method with which course materials are taught or the way the student learns from the curriculum,

possibly using some aspects of Universal Design for Learning” (p. 48). Whereas Comfort (as

cited in Alquraini & Gut, 2012) defines a curriculum modification as “the adapting or

interpreting of a school's formal curriculum by teachers into learning objectives and units of

learning activities judged most reasonable for an individual learner or particular group of

learners” (p. 48). In a study exploring administrators’ knowledge and practices related to

supervising and evaluating co-teachers in inclusive classrooms, Kamens, Susko and Elliott

(2013) found that administrators perceive that it is the special education teachers’ responsibility

to make these adaptations and modifications to the general curriculum in order for students with

disabilities to be successful in the general education classroom.

Hawpe (2013) performed a quantitative study surveying over 500 middle and high school

teachers’ attitudes toward and willingness to provide accommodations and modifications for

students with disabilities. The researcher found that general and special education teachers who

hold less favorable attitudes toward students with disabilities and their willingness to provide

accommodations and modifications for them warrant attention from administrators. While the

findings of the study varied, one major finding is relevant to the discussion of teacher beliefs

about inclusion. The researcher found that while secondary teachers were willing to provide

timing, response, and presentation accommodations to students with disabilities, they were not

necessarily the willing to provide modifications that were not available to other students without

disabilities. Based on this information, Hawpe (2013) recommends additional and more targeted

professional development for teachers relating to providing accommodations and modifications


for students with disabilities in their classrooms. In addition, the findings from the study suggest

the possibility of a reduction in due process hearings due to more favorable teacher attitudes

toward students with disabilities and teachers being more willing to provide accommodations

and modifications in the classroom.

Teacher Use and Implementation of Inclusive Practices

Another factor that affects teacher perceptions of inclusion is the extent to which teachers

use and implement inclusive practices. While there is evidence to support the benefits of the use

of inclusive practices, teachers still struggle with their implementation (Grima-Farrell, Bain, &

McDonagh, 2011; Kurth et al., 2012). In addition, teachers feel unprepared and lack confidence

in their abilities to meet the needs of students in inclusive settings (Baker & Zigmond, 1995;

Hines & Johnston, 1996; Daane et al., 2000). Effective teacher use and implementation of

inclusive practices affects student learning and is, therefore, necessary for successful inclusion

according to Scott et al. (1998). They cited Friend and Bursuck (1996) who found that the use of

instructional adaptations that facilitate student learning is one aspect of successful inclusion.

Levels of use. How easily teachers adapt to change, especially if they lack preparation

and professional development, affects teacher use and implementation of inclusive practices. If

inclusion and the use of inclusive practices are new concepts for teachers, their levels of use of

those practices can depend on how comfortable they are with implementing them. For example,

Hall et al. (1975) discussed the fact that change, or the adoption of an innovation, does not take

place because a mandate deems that it must be so. Rather, the members of a system need to

become proficient in an innovation before they truly adopt it effectively. Administrators often

ask teachers to change or to implement an innovation, and teachers vary widely in the degree of


use or adoption of such an innovation. According to Hall et al. (1975), before innovations can be

put to use with maximum effectiveness, research recognizes that factors such as “organizational

climate, intervention strategies, and characteristics of decision makers” (p. 52) need to be

considered. In addition, based on the study’s framework, known as a Levels of Use (LoU)

dimension, the researchers hypothesized that individuals use an innovation more effectively only

after repeated cycles of use.

Acceptance and alignment of inclusive practices. According to Dukes and Lamar-

Dukes (2009), both use of and sustainability of inclusive practices need to be in place in order for

inclusive practices to be effective. The researchers found that teachers need to not only use

inclusive practices, but the use needs to be sustained over a period of time in order for inclusive

practices to be effective. In addition, the researchers stated that in order for the inclusive

practices to be sustainable, there needs to be teacher acceptance and the inclusive practices need

to be aligned with teacher beliefs and teaching styles. They maintained that teachers need to

understand the philosophy of inclusion and share a vision for implementation in order to set the

stage for the effective use of inclusive practices. As a result, educating students with disabilities

in the general curriculum with their non-disabled peers requires that general and special

education teachers not only receive appropriate teacher preparation, professional development,

and collegial and administrative support, but that they need to demonstrate fidelity and put these

skills, supports, and knowledge to use in their classrooms. This full implementation can be a

challenge. Kamens et al. (2013) reported findings in which school administrators were “able to

describe effective co-teaching practices, but in their descriptions admitted that they were far from

attaining them in their schools” (p. 173).


Expectations regarding the use and implementation of inclusive practices include the

belief that responsibilities for planning, instruction, parent contact, and grading should be shared

between general and special education teachers who co-teach in a general education classroom

setting (Kamens et al., 2013). In this study, the participants stated that the expectations as well

as implementation and use of certain inclusive practices varied by “context, grade level, content

area expertise of the teachers, and the needs of individual students” (Kamens et al., 2013, p.

174). In addition, the use and implementation of various co-teaching models varies depending

on the personalities of the teachers involved and the preparation for co-teaching that they have

received.

School climate. Morgan (2012) examined 137 secondary general and special education

teachers’ co-teaching experiences in a quantitative study with respect to collaboration,

differentiated instruction, and professional development. Using an online survey, the researcher

collected data and a “one-way ANOVA were used to determine the statistical significant [sic]

between the independent variables and dependent variables” (Morgan, 2012, p. 1). Rice (2006)

found that schools without an established school culture that fostered productive communication

jeopardize inclusive practices. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner (as cited in Morgan, 2012) explains

how a school’s organization can influence the implementation of inclusive practices. For

example, a school’s organizational structure is a factor in providing teachers opportunities to

enhance collaborative relationships by providing the time for co-planning to take place. This, in

turn, can result in the implementation of more inclusive teaching strategies if general and special

education teachers can plan lessons and provide differentiated instruction that strengthens

individual student skills.


Regarding teacher use of inclusive practices, Morgan (2012) found:

41% of middle school and high school general-education and special-

education teachers strongly agreed they are knowledgeable of how to

implement differentiated instruction, and 68% strongly disagree that

differentiated instruction only helps special-education students. However,

only 35% indicated using differentiated-instructional strategies every day in

coteaching. (p. 89)

To address how teachers can measure and improve levels of use of inclusive practices in

the classroom, Clark, Cushing, and Kennedy (2004) studied the effects of an intensive onsite

technical assistance (IOTA) model on three special education teachers. The study was limited in

scope and only studied special education teachers, however, administrators and teachers in the

study found the findings to be valuable. The model was effective in improving teacher use and

implementation of inclusive practices and the quality of instruction that students received.

According to Clark et al. (2004), a technical assistance model that “combines assessment of

baseline skills, structured workshops, and intensive on-site feedback can improve the educator’s

quality of teaching” (p. 260). The researchers believe that:

the IOTA model is an effective means of delivering technical assistance

because of its three primary components: (a) classroom-based assessment

of research-recommended teaching practices, (b) focused delivery of

content regarding operationalized teaching skills, and (c) onsite

observations and delivery of performance feedback over time. (p. 260)


The researchers recognized, however, that this type of assistance to teachers can be

expensive due to its intense, onsite implementation. Since improving access to the general

curriculum is the purpose of measuring teacher levels of use of inclusive practice, administrators

would need to do a cost/benefit analysis to see if such a model would be beneficial to teachers.

Teacher Beliefs about Inclusive Practices

Challenges with defining access. Teacher attitudes toward access to the general

curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities in particular, often emerge out of

frustration with how to define access, especially at the secondary (middle and high school) level

(Dymond et al., 2007). Because IDEA does not specifically define the physical location of

access to the general curriculum, much of it is up for interpretation on a case-by-case basis. In

addition, general educators often differ from special educators as to the definition of access to the

general curriculum. As a result, teacher attitudes about access to the general curriculum for

students with significant cognitive disabilities in particular can greatly affect the delivery of

services to such students. For example, general education teachers may define access to the

general curriculum as receiving the same curriculum and materials as students without

disabilities in a general education classroom with support from a special education teacher or a

paraprofessional aide. Special education teachers may define access to the general curriculum as

access to an adapted curriculum and materials that are relevant and provide meaningful learning

geared to a student’s individual needs (Dymond et al., 2007). In a qualitative phenomenological

study, Mullings (2011) examined the perceptions of 36 elementary school teachers and

administrators regarding including students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

In that study, the author’s first interview question examined participants’ definition of inclusion.

The author asserted that understanding participants’ definition of inclusion was important when


examining differences in perceptions and attitudes about inclusion in the general education

setting.

Student benefits from inclusion. In addition to the differences in defining access to the

general curriculum, researchers have found that perceptions of inclusion among teachers were

mostly positive specifically regarding the importance of the sense of community that it provides

for students (Lohrman & Bambara, 2006; Mullings, 2011; Robinson, 2002; Smith & Smith,

2000). However, the studies reveal that while teachers are generally supportive of the concept of

inclusion, they still voice concerns about the day-to-day issues that they face with its

implementation. Mitchell and Hegde (2007) also found that while teachers believe that inclusion

has a positive effect on students, they struggle to include students with more significant

disabilities.

Other researchers reported challenges of including students with significant disabilities

into the general education classroom. For example, researchers have found that classroom peer

and teacher attitudes about students with disabilities, and students with significant cognitive

disabilities in particular, can greatly affect the success of these students in the general education

curriculum (Idol, 2006; Kozik et al., 2009; Litvack, Ritchie, & Shore, 2011). According to

researchers, high- and average-achieving students’ perceptions of their fellow classmates with

disabilities can affect the dynamic of the inclusive classroom altogether, not only the individual

students with disabilities (Litvack et al., 2011). High-achieving students perceive that they learn

less because the class goes at a slower pace, even though this may not be the actual case. In

addition, the perception by teachers to use high-achieving students as peer tutors might not be

appropriate, especially at the elementary level, due to their frustrations because of lack of

differentiation, inappropriately slow pace, or less attention from the teacher.


Teacher preparedness. Research has found that many teachers feel ill prepared to

implement inclusive practices in the general curriculum successfully. This lack of preparedness

may have a strong impact on attitude and belief. Many times, this is the result of the various

types of disabilities that teachers face in their classrooms and lack of proper supports and

strategies to deliver appropriate instruction. As cited in Smith and Smith (2000), Buysse,

Wesley, Keyes, and Bailey (1996) indicated that teacher stress increases as the intensity of

children's disabilities increases, particularly students with emotional and behavioral disabilities.

In studying the beliefs of physical education teachers from various countries, Hodge et al. (2009)

found that most teachers were intrinsically motivated to help all students succeed; however, they

needed proper training before they were willing to support fully including students with

disabilities in their classrooms.

Teacher beliefs surrounding inclusive practices can also result from the fact that

standardized testing does not differentiate among student populations. As a result, teacher

beliefs can reflect the perception that state mandated testing and the assessment outcomes for

students with disabilities should be the same as students without disabilities. For example,

Robinson (2002) found that among secondary science teachers, there was a prevailing belief that

since the desired learning outcomes were identical for all students in the Regents science

classroom, then the instruction should be similar to enable each student to achieve those

outcomes.

Teacher preparation as well as comfort levels with differentiated instruction among

middle school teachers are some of the factors affecting teachers’ beliefs. Brighton (2003)

examined 48 middle school content area teachers’ beliefs about teaching in diverse classrooms.

The study sought to determine how the teachers’ beliefs affected their ability and willingness to


differentiate instruction as well as assessment. The study found that teachers’ beliefs

surrounding differentiation, in particular, conflicted with their actual classroom practices. For

example, the researcher found that there was a significant gap between teachers’ stated beliefs

about diverse classrooms and differentiated instruction as compared to their actual classroom

behaviors. The researcher discovered that there were four prominent teacher beliefs that

conflicted with recommended differentiated instructional best practices. These teacher beliefs

are that the teacher is an entertainer, that teaching is talking and listening is learning, that

academic struggles cause students to shut down, and that equity and fairness mean that students

should all do the same things the same way. For example, in a quantitative study examining the

perceptions of general and special education teachers in one mid-Atlantic state, Buell et al.

(1999) found a positive relationship between a teacher’s understanding of inclusion and that

teacher’s beliefs that he or she can get through to a student. A multivariate analysis of variance

showed significant differences between the responses of general and special education teachers.

The univariate analysis showed two variables that account for this difference - understanding

inclusion and the ability to get through to difficult or unmotivated students. In both cases,

special education teachers rated themselves higher than general education teachers did.

Brighton (2003) states that

The belief that students should work hard on tasks that were just slightly beyond

their current comfort levels is aligned with the philosophy of differentiated

instruction and differentiated performance assessment (Rieber and Carton, 1987;

Tomlinson 1999, 2001). This viewpoint, while appropriately matched with the

study’s philosophy, was seldom expressed by the teachers in this study. (p. 195)


The study reported that the teachers misunderstood the recommended practice of

differentiated instruction citing equity issues in situations where students complete different

tasks. The study also found that teachers’ deeply held beliefs about grading practices and

assessment were difficult to change and that, in some cases, school policies regarding grading

appeared to support teachers’ observed practices. Therefore, the study concluded that these

pervasive beliefs inhibited teachers’ abilities to create learning environments that addressed

diverse learning needs.

Brighton (2003) also addressed the aspect of preexisting beliefs among teachers about

addressing academic diversity in their classrooms. For example, the researcher found that

teachers with preexisting beliefs aligned with the philosophy of differentiating in their

classrooms were more successful with its implementation than those whose preexisting beliefs

were in contrast to that philosophy. The author suggested that these conflicting beliefs among

teachers regarding the philosophy of addressing the needs of diverse learners in their classrooms

could be the reason that changing classroom practices is such a difficult task. The researcher

then goes on to suggest that change agents should then take stock, identify and redirect

misunderstandings, provide support, and be consistent in their efforts to alleviate the anxiety

among teachers charged with meeting the needs of diverse learners.

Levels of teacher training and preparation are also a factor regarding teacher attitudes

toward inclusion in Hsien, Brown, and Bortoli (2009). For example, the researchers found that

teachers with more postgraduate training in special education had greater positive views about

including students with disabilities in the general education classroom than general education

teachers who did not have such training. They found that these teachers with more training

reported greater efficacy in implementing inclusive practices and that they believed that


inclusion is a positive aspect of the education system and that meeting the needs of diverse

learners in the general education classroom was feasible.

General Education and Special Education Teacher Responses

Several studies suggested that there are differences in the perceptions of general and

special education teachers regarding including students with the disabilities in the general

education classroom. These differences can have a strong effect on the successful

implementation of inclusive practices. In a study examining the implementation of co-teaching

models in a suburban middle school in Western Pennsylvania, Isherwood and Barger-Anderson

(2008) interviewed 15 general education and five special education teachers. The authors found

that general education teachers were frustrated with the lack of content expertise of special

education teachers and did not view them equally as professional colleagues. The authors also

found that clearly defined roles and responsibilities, administrative support, and an interpersonal

relationship among co-teachers, were factors that may affect the successful implementation of

co-teaching relationships.

Cochran (1998) suggested that there is a need for examining the differences in the

perceptions of teachers in this area because teacher attitudes towards students with disabilities

have a direct bearing on the success of those students. Kantor (2011) studied 54 general

education teachers working in general education inclusion classrooms and analyzed the strengths

and weaknesses regarding their perceptions of their pre-service teacher training. The author

found that general education teachers perceived that there were differences in their training as

compared to special education teachers. Specifically, the general education teachers in that study

identified differences in their perceived training with respect to the various needs of students


with disabilities. The general education teachers in that study suggested that pre-service general

education teacher certification needs more in-depth training regarding students with disabilities

with respect to various learning disabilities, environmental supports, and additional professional

knowledge.

Research suggested that general and special education teachers differ in their preparation

for implementing inclusive practices in their classrooms, however, there is a gap in the research

examining these particular differences. Hawpe (2013), suggesting that the current research was

limited, studied the differences in the perceptions of general and special education teachers at

the secondary level. Specifically, the author examined the extent to which secondary teachers’

willingness to provide accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities in the

general education classroom was affected by several factors. The author also examined whether

there was a relationship between secondary teachers’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities

and willingness to provide accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities.

The findings of this study were mixed. The author found that secondary teachers were willing to

provide accommodations, but unwilling to provide modifications depending on teacher gender,

whether they taught middle or high school, general or special education teaching assignment, and

whether the teachers had a personal disability.

The use of inclusive practices such as how to differentiate the grading of students with

disabilities as well as how to modify assignments varies significantly between teachers. Kurth,

et al. (2012) collected data using an online survey, and then used both qualitative and

quantitative data analysis to describe how different groups of teachers, such as general and

special education teachers as well as elementary and secondary teachers, responded to the survey

questions. For example, the researchers found significant differences between elementary and


secondary teachers around perceptions of fair and appropriate grading for students with

disabilities. Secondary teachers reported that the most fair and appropriate way to grade students

with disabilities is by grading students’ performance on prioritized tasks. Significant differences

between the grading beliefs of general and special education teachers included the fact that

general education teachers reported having less knowledge of how to grade students than special

education teachers did. Special education teachers reported that they collaborated more than

general education teachers did and had a better understanding of how the grade they assign to

students with disabilities contributed to the students’ grade promotion, graduation, and college

admission.

Another significant difference between general and special education teachers according

to Kurth et al. (2012) pertained to assessment techniques and modifications in the general

education classroom. General education teachers reported rarely using special rubrics to assess

the modified assignments of students with disabilities whereas special education teachers

reported that they frequently used these types of rubrics. In addition, general education teachers

reported that they rarely graded students with disabilities on effort, whereas special education

teachers reported that they usually graded students with disabilities based on effort. The study

also reported that there were significant differences between elementary and secondary education

teachers. For example, secondary teachers reported using specific modifications in their

classrooms, whereas elementary teachers reported using universal modifications more

frequently. Finally, special education teachers were more likely than general education teachers

to report that students with disabilities had modifications in place, suggesting that special

education teachers engaged in more frequent use of inclusive practices.


Summary

Chapter two identified and reviewed literature pertaining to the essential features

necessary for implementing inclusive education, with a focus on general and special education

teacher perceptions of inclusion. The chapter began with background information regarding the

law that mandates access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities, IDEA. It then

connected IDEA with the Brown v. Board of Education decision that addressed racial

segregation in schools and paved the way for special education legislation, and the foundational

principles of inclusive education.

The review of the literature then followed a conceptual framework that focused on the

key components of general and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion: (1)

professional development/teacher preparation, (2) support for inclusive practices, (3) teacher

use/implementation of inclusive practices, and (4) teacher beliefs about inclusion. The chapter

presented literature that addressed each of the four components in detail with respect to teachers’

perceptions of inclusion, and closed with a section delineating the research on the reported

differences from teachers, both general and special educators, across these four areas.


Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

In this chapter, the researcher provides a description of the research design, sample,

sampling procedures, instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis, and limitations.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of

teachers regarding inclusion and to examine if there were significant differences in general

education and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. Despite legislation

mandating inclusive practices in general education classrooms, teachers still struggle with how to

perform this task effectively. This study surveyed middle school teachers in three Southeastern

Pennsylvania suburban school districts with respect to their perceptions of professional

development, supports, levels of use, and beliefs about inclusive practices. General education

and special education teacher perceptions were examined and compared.

Research Design

The researcher used survey research to examine general and special education teacher

perceptions regarding including students with disabilities in the general curriculum. The

researcher chose this descriptive research format to describe the sample’s perceptions about

specific variables (Locke, Silverman, & Spriduso, 2010). The researcher selected this method

because of the three major characteristics that surveys possess. The first characteristic,

according to Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012), is that surveys collect information from a

group of people in order to describe some aspects of the population, such as opinions, attitudes,

or beliefs, of which that group is a part. Second, surveys collect information by asking questions

- the answers to which become the data the researcher will analyze. Finally, surveys collect


information from a sample rather than every member of a population. For this study, the

rationale was to survey general and special education teacher perceptions in order to record

perceived levels of activity in the planning and staff development, support, implementation,

levels of use, beliefs, and effects of inclusion. The focus on surveying teachers about their

attitudes and frequency of use of activities is consistent with a study conducted by Hsein et al.

(2009) that supports the use of research studies of teacher attitudes “using responses to attitudinal

statements rather than by direct observational methods” (p. 27).

The research questions in this study were framed to solicit quantitative data since they

focused on whether there were significant differences between the responses of general

education teachers and special education teachers. The researcher performed independent

between subjects t-tests on the six groups of scaled survey responses to assess group mean

differences.

Sample

The target population for this study was Pennsylvania suburban middle school teachers

who were currently working in schools where students with disabilities have regular access to

general education classrooms and programming. In addition, the sample of this study reflected

those middle school teachers in school districts that did not meet the State Performance Plan

(SPP) targets for schools including students with disabilities in the general education classroom

for 80% or more of the school day.

The sample for this study was general and special education teachers in 11 middle

schools in three suburban school districts in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The middle schools

selected for this study range from sixth through eighth grades. There were a total of 518 general


education and 116 special education middle school teachers in the eleven middle schools across

all three school districts during the 2013-2014 school year.

Sampling Procedures

The researcher identified three school districts based on information from the

Pennsylvania State Data Center 2011-2012 school year State Performance Plan (SPP) targets for

schools. These districts in the study did not meet the (SPP) target as of the December 1, 2011

Child Count for special education students’ inclusion inside the general education classroom for

80% or more of the school day (Aud et al., 2013). In addition, the researcher identified the

middle school level because research indicated that secondary teachers have difficulty defining

access to the general curriculum due to curriculum demands and the structure of general

education classes at the secondary level (Dymond et al., 2007). Ascertaining the responses of

middle school teachers may provide insight to educators, administrators, and other stakeholders

regarding the best strategies to implement inclusion at the secondary level in a way that will

benefit students in that setting.

The researcher used nonrandom purposive sampling (Fraenkel et al., 2012) to identify

middle schools in three neighboring suburban school districts across a geographic region that had

similar socioeconomic status with respect to the reported Title I funding they receive (New

America Foundation, 2011). According to the definition of this sampling by Fraenkel et al.

(2012), the researcher used previous knowledge of the sample and the specific purpose of the

research as the basis for selecting the sample in this study. Therefore, this method precludes

generalizing the results beyond these three suburban school districts or suburban school districts

with similar Title I funding levels. However, because these districts do represent a larger


population of similar suburban districts, some cautious interpretations and applications can be

made.

The researcher used two main criteria to select the middle schools within the school

districts in this study. First, the middle schools needed to be within districts that practice

inclusion within the state of Pennsylvania. The researcher was able to identify these districts by

examining Pennsylvania Department of Education special education data. The researcher

examined reports with respect to school district performance on State Performance Plan (SPP)

targets for least restrictive environment for the 2011-2012 school year. The state of

Pennsylvania currently monitors all schools based on their practice of including students with

disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Federal law, under IDEA, and Pennsylvania

Department of Education policy require that each local education agency and IEP team make

educational placement decisions based on IDEA’s general principles of inclusion (Pennsylvania

Department of Education, 2013).

Second, the researcher identified school districts with similar levels of Title I funding as a

way to include districts with similar socio-economic status. Under the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001, Title I, which is a federal program providing funding for elementary and secondary

education, provides funds to local school districts to improve the education of disadvantaged

students from birth through the 12th grade (New America Foundation, 2011). The “Basic Grant”

formula under Title I allocates funding to school districts based on the number of low-income

children they serve. Any school district with at least 10 low-income children and 2 percent of its

students in poverty receives funding through the “Basic Grant” formula. Therefore, even very

affluent school districts may also qualify for Title I funding through this formula (New America

Foundation, 2011). The school districts in this study were not chosen based on whether they


were affluent or not, however, the Title I funding they received was a way to compare the

socioeconomic demographics of the district to identify districts that were similar based on this

criteria. Table 1 represents the 2011 percentages of students with disabilities in the least

restrictive environment versus the State Performance Plan targets and the Title I funding for the

three school districts in this study.

Table 1

2011 School District LRE Percentages/SPP Targets and Title I Funding

2011 School District A School District B School District C

LRE Percent/SPP Target 63.9%/65% 64.1%/65% 52.1%/65%

Title I Funding $427,624 $255,524 $420,260

Note. Adapted from New America Foundation, (2011).

Once the first two criteria were met, the researcher then needed to find schools within these

districts that were willing to participate.

Instrumentation

The researcher used The Inclusion Inventory (Becker et al., 2000) (see Appendix A) in

this research study and had permission to use the instrument from the authors (see Appendix B).

The authors of the instrument developed it for ‘Inclusion Works, A Project of the Texas Planning

Council for Developmental Disabilities’ (Becker et al., 2000). In this study, participants

completed seven of the eight sections of the original survey. Section I of the survey asks 23

demographic questions pertaining to individual teachers, such as years in education and current

assignment, types of disabilities with which the participant is working in the current school year,

and teaching arrangements and supports.


In Section II, there are 16 questions relating to planning and staff development for

inclusive practices. These questions focused on teachers’ perceptions regarding the necessary

planning and staff development in areas such as needs of students with disabilities and topics

related to legal issues and whether they met participants’ needs. Response options ranged from

“poor” (1), “fair” (2), “good” (3), “excellent” (4) on a Likert-type scale, with higher scores

indicating more positive inclusion attitudes. “Don’t know” (5) was also an answer choice.

“Don’t know” answers were not included in the data analysis, however, “don’t know” responses

were reported.

Section III asks five questions regarding support for inclusive practices such as whether

campus administrators are responsive to concerns regarding inclusion and whether participants

have the supports needed to implement inclusion. Response options ranged from “strongly

disagree” (1), “tend to disagree” (2), “tend to agree” (3), to “strongly agree” (4) on a Likert-

type scale with higher scores indicating strong agreement.

Section IV asks ten questions regarding the participant’s level of use of inclusive

strategies and utilizes Hall’s Level of Use framework (Hall et al., 1975). The survey coded these

responses using a scale indicating whether participants had “no” (1), “planned” (2), or

“completed/ongoing” (3) levels of use in specific inclusive strategies.

Section V asks fourteen questions regarding the frequency of implementation of inclusive

practices in the general education classroom. Response options ranged from “never” (1),

“sometimes” (2), “most of the time” (3), to “all of the time” (4) on a Likert-type scale with

higher scores indicating greater occurrences. “Don’t know” (5) was also an answer choice.


“Don’t know” answers were not included in the data analysis, however, “don’t know” responses

were reported.

Section VI asks eleven questions regarding participant beliefs about inclusive practices.

Response options ranged from “strongly disagree” (1), “tend to disagree” (2), “tend to agree”

(3), to “strongly agree” (4) on a Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating strong

agreement.

Section VII of the survey includes four questions regarding participant beliefs about the

effects of inclusive practices. The survey coded these responses using a scale indicating whether

participants believed students receiving special education services perform “worse” (1), the

“same” (2), “better” (3), or “don’t know” (4) in an inclusive setting than in a more traditional

special education setting. “Don’t know” answers were not included in the data analysis,

however, “don’t know” responses were reported.

Table 2 highlights the connection between the study’s research questions and the survey

items as well as the null hypothesis to be tested. Each section of the Inclusion Inventory (Becker

et al., 2000) addresses the research questions accordingly.


Table 2

Linkages of Research Questions to Survey Items

Research Questions Null Hypothesis to be

Tested

Survey Items

Demographics Section I, Background

Information

Questions 1-22

Research Question 1:

Are there significant differences

in the perceptions of general and

special education teachers

toward planning and

professional development and

what teachers need in order to

be prepared for implementing

inclusive practices?

General education and


will not differ

significantly in their

perceptions toward

planning and professional

development and what

teachers need in order to

be prepared for

implementing inclusive

practices.

Section II, Professional

Development and Planning for

Inclusive Practices

Questions 23-38



in the perceptions of general and


toward receiving necessary

supports for inclusive practices?



will not differ


perceptions toward

receiving necessary

supports for inclusive

practices.

Section III, Support for Inclusive

Practices

Questions 39-43



in the levels of inclusive

practices used daily among

general and special education

teachers?



will not differ


levels of inclusive

practices used daily.

Section IV, Use of Inclusive

Practices

Section V, Implementation of

Inclusive Practices

Questions 44-67



in general and special education

teachers’ beliefs about inclusive

practices and their effects on

students?



will not differ


beliefs about inclusive

practices and their effects

on students.

Section VI, Beliefs About

Inclusive Practices

Section VII, Effects of Inclusive

Practices

Questions 68-82


Reliability. Becker et al. (2000) reported that the internal consistency reliability

coefficients were .72 or above for all scales in this survey. Table 3 illustrates the Cronbach alpha

coefficients for the scales in the current version of The Inclusion Inventory. Cronbach alpha

values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater reliability (Pallant, 2010). The

Cronbach alpha values across the subscales ranged from .72 for beliefs about inclusive practices

to .96 for planning and staff development for inclusive practices. Nunnally (as cited in Pallant,

2010) recommends a minimum reliability level of .7. Therefore, this survey has acceptable

levels of reliability across all sections or subscales.

Table 3

Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients for The Inclusion Inventory (Becker et al., 2000)

Subscale Number

of items

M SD n Alpha value

Planning/Staff development for

inclusive practices

16 2.43 .71 2,435 .96

Support for inclusive practices

5 2.82 .64 2,672 .85

Use of inclusive practices

10 1.94 .64 2,715 .89

Implementation of practices

14 2.90 .45 2,597 .86

Beliefs about inclusive practices

11 2.33 .39 2,714 .72

Effects of inclusive practices

4 2.78 .68 2,689 .82

Classroom teaching practices 7 2.52 .55 2,657 .81

Note. Adapted from “The inclusion inventory: A tool to assess perceptions of the implementation

of inclusive educational practices,” by H. Becker, G. Roberts, and S. Dumas, 2000, Special

Services in the Schools, 16(1-2), p. 65.

Table 4 illustrates the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scales in the current study. The

sub-scale “Classroom teaching practices” was not used in the inventory for this study. The


Cronbach alpha values across the subscales ranged from .72 for beliefs about inclusive practices

and for implementation of practices to .98 for planning and staff development for inclusive

practices. Therefore, this current dissertation study utilizing this particular survey had acceptable

levels of reliability across all subscales.

Table 4

Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients and Scale Statistics for The Inclusion Inventory

Subscale Number

of items

M SD n Alpha value

Planning/Staff development for

inclusive practices

16 35.51 12.8 39 .98

Support for inclusive practices

5 13.35 3.4 60 .82

Use of inclusive practices

10 24.40 4.4 55 .77

Implementation of practices

14 45.24 4.7 25 .72

Beliefs about inclusive practices

11 25.11 4.4 55 .72

Effects of inclusive practices

4 9.09 2.1 34 .76

Validity. Becker et al. (2000) took steps in the development of The Inclusion Inventory

to address its content validity. First, experienced inclusive education professionals developed the

original pool of items. The authors stated that previous research found the seven sub-scales in

the survey were central to measuring inclusive practices. The authors developed one of the sub-

scales, the Use of Inclusive Practices sub-scale, based on the Level of Use framework by Hall et

al. (1975). The authors piloted the initial set of items in The Inclusion Inventory in Texas

schools and used the results of that pilot to reformat and simplify the survey. Next, five

additional experts, four in the field of special education, and one a measurement specialist,

reviewed the content and structure of the inventory. These experts then suggested specific


changes in wording, rating scales, and format. The authors incorporated many of the suggested

changes into the subsequent version of the survey. The authors then conducted two field tests of

the inventory with teachers statewide. In addition, the authors addressed the content validity of

the instrument’s subscale domain scores in the pilots by citing how the pilot results were

consistent with previous studies that were central to measuring inclusive education.

For this study, the researcher measured perceptions based on the same sub-scales as

Becker et al. (2000) and Stidham-Smith (2013), who both reported high content validity for the

inventory. In the current study, the researcher reduced the number of questions from the original

inventory by eliminating the seven questions from section VIII regarding classroom teaching

practices and strategies because they did not have a connection to the research questions. This

made the inventory shorter, taking less time to complete, with the added intention of increasing

participant response rate due to a more succinct, abbreviated inventory. In addition, the

researcher eliminated choices in the background section of the inventory addressing

administrators, professional support staff, and para-professional support staff since they are not

relevant in this study. This is consistent with research conducted by Stidham-Smith (2013).

Data Collection Procedures

Upon IRB approval and approval from the researcher’s doctoral committee, the

researcher identified the eleven middle school principals across the three school districts. The

researcher then sent an e-mail request with a separately attached permission letter to each of the

eleven middle school principals in the three school districts asking them for permission to survey

the teachers in their buildings as participants in this study (see Appendix D). Language in the e-

mail requests for School Districts A and B included additional information about the researcher

being a former teacher in the district. The researcher inserted the language with the hope that


these school leaders might be more inclined to encourage their teachers to participate in this

study.

After the researcher sent out the e-mail requests to the eleven identified principals, six

principals out of the eleven gave the researcher permission to survey the teachers in their

buildings. Four of the eleven principals did not respond to the e-mail request, and one of the

eleven principals declined permission to survey the teachers. In School District A, all three of its

middle school principals gave the researcher permission to ask teachers to participate in the

study. In School District B, one of the three middle school principals gave the researcher

permission to ask teachers to participate in the study. In School District C, two of the five

middle school principals gave the researcher permission to ask teachers to participate in the

study. The researcher collected teacher names and e-mail addresses from each of the middle

schools’ websites’ faculty pages and e-mailed the survey to 304 general education and 70 special

education teachers.

Using Qualtrics online survey and software program (Qualtrics, 2014), the researcher

sent an e-mail to each teacher’s school e-mail address asking him or her to participate in the

study. The body of the e-mail highlighted the purpose of the study and introduced the teachers to

the survey. The body of the e-mail also referred the teachers to a recruitment letter that the

researcher included as a separate attachment to the e-mail (see Appendix E). The researcher

asked the teachers to read the attached recruitment letter and the accompanying informed consent

form (see Appendix F) before they clicked on the survey link embedded within the body of the e-

mail. The researcher sent four cycles of follow-up e-mails beginning approximately eight days

after the first round of e-mails sent to the teachers to elicit a higher response rate. With each

follow-up e-mail, the researcher received additional responses. However, the researcher noted a


low response rate for School District C, and determined that the school district e-mail system

blocked invitations via Qualtrics to participate in the study. To counter this, the researcher then

e-mailed the teachers in School District C individually and invited them to participate in the

study. The teachers in School District C then received two rounds of follow-up e-mails to elicit a

higher response rate. With each follow-up e-mail, the researcher received additional responses.

The researcher collected data from April 29, 2014 through June 30, 2014 and analyzed the data

using IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software Version 21.0.

Data Analysis

The researcher reported the responses to questions 1-22 of the survey instrument to

provide background and demographic information about the participants. For each question, the

researcher reported frequency and percentage. Next, the researcher analyzed the responses to

questions 23 through 82 of the survey using descriptive statistics, reporting means and standard

deviations. To address the four research questions, the researcher analyzed the responses to

questions 23 through 82 of the survey instrument using inferential statistics to determine if

significant differences existed between the perceptions of the general and special education

teachers who participated in the study. Each of the six scales of the survey instrument contained

individual questions seeking teachers’ perceptions regarding the planning/staff development,

support, use, implementation, beliefs, and effects of inclusion. The researcher reported the

results of six independent between subjects t-tests performed on each of the six scales.

The researcher analyzed the data in the six scales using between subjects t-test

computations. With the exception of Section I, which asked demographic questions pertaining to

individual teachers, the researcher analyzed the means of remaining six sections of the survey

using a separate between subjects t-test, totaling six t-tests. The between subjects t-test is used to


compare the mean scores of two different groups to determine if the means of the difference

between the two groups is statistically significant (Fraenkel et al., 2012). For example, Hawpe

(2013) used a two-sample t-test to determine if there were significant differences between two

means for secondary teachers’ attitudes towards students with disabilities with respect to grade

level taught (middle level or high school), teaching assignment (general education or special

education), and teacher gender (male or female). Moore (2005) also used a t-test to determine if

significant differences existed between teacher and administrator perceptions of the

organizational supports needed for inclusion.

Limitations

Limitations in this study include a relatively small sample size and an assumption by the

researcher that the sample provided the data needed. Authors (Fraenkel et al., 2012) recommend

that for causal-comparative studies, such as those using t-tests to analyze data, there should be a

minimum of 30 individuals per group. An additional limitation is the fact that the participation

sample was mostly composed of general education teachers. However, the participation sample

reflects the larger population of teachers in the middle schools selected for the survey, where

there are a higher proportion of general education teachers to special education teachers. As a

result, the relatively small sample size and the assumption by the researcher cannot guarantee the

generalizability of the results. In addition, there are inherent limitations in measuring

perceptions as well as the sample selection process of nonrandom purposive sampling.

Therefore, the researcher recommends interpreting the findings with caution.

Potential Risks to Participants

No more than minimal risk to participants existed due to the low probability and

magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research. The risk was less than participants


would ordinarily encounter in daily life. The survey involved anonymous data. The researcher

kept completed survey data locked in a cabinet in the researcher’s office for safekeeping and

only the researcher had access to the data.


Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of

teachers regarding inclusion and to examine if there are significant differences in general

education and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. The problem statement in

Chapter 1 indicated that school districts still struggle with including students with disabilities in

the general education classroom. A review of the literature indicated that teacher perceptions of

inclusion could affect the success of inclusive practices. Therefore, based on the problem

statement, and a review of the literature, the researcher examined teacher perceptions of

inclusion using a quantitative research method via an online survey. The researcher collected

data using a survey, The Inclusion Inventory (Becker et al., 2000), and made it available in an

online format. The researcher e-mailed the survey to general education and special education

middle school teachers in three suburban school districts in Southeastern Pennsylvania during the

2013-2014 school year. The researcher used Qualtrics online survey and software program

(Qualtrics, 2014) to administer the survey and collect data. The researcher then exported data

from Qualtrics into SPSS Version 21 for Windows to perform independent between subjects t-

tests on the six groups of scaled responses to the survey.

This chapter provides the results of the data analysis in the following manner. First, the

researcher used descriptive statistics by reporting frequencies and percentages to provide

background and demographic information about the participants based on information from

questions 1 through 22. Second, the researcher analyzed the responses to questions 23 through

82 of the survey using descriptive statistics by reporting means and standard deviations. In

addition, the researcher analyzed the responses to six sub-scales formed out of questions 23


through 82 of the survey using independent between subjects t-tests on each of the six sub-scales

of the survey instrument to determine if significant differences (p < .05) existed between the

perceptions of the general and special education teachers who participated in the study. The

researcher then reported these results as they correspond to each of the four research questions

presented in Chapter 1.

Background

Sixty-one respondents (36 general education and 25 special education teachers)

participated in the study by completing the survey. This is consistent with other quantitative

studies with similar response rates (Hsien et al., 2009; Kamens et al., 2013; Stidham-Smith,

2013). Section I, questions 1-22, asked participants to provide background information such as

number of years working in education, number of years working at their current school, and

number of years using inclusive educational practices in which they received formal training.

The survey asked relevant background questions such as whether the participants were general

education or special education teachers, what types of disabilities the students had with whom

the participants worked, as well as their teaching arrangements.

Years working in K-12 education. General education teachers who participated in this

study worked in K-12 education longer than special education teachers did. Seventy-seven

percent of general education teachers worked in education more than 10 years as compared to

56% of special education teachers (see Table 5).

Years working at current school. General education teachers also worked longer at

their current school with 61% working there more than 10 years as compared to 42% of special

education teachers who worked at their current school more than 10 years (see Table 5).


Table 5

Work Experience

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

Years working in education

1-5

8 13 5 14 3 12

6-10

11 18 3 8 8 32

> 10

42 69 28 77 14 56

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100

Years at current school

1-5 13 22 6 17 7 29

6-10

15 25 8 22 7 29

> 10

32 53 22 61 10 42

Total 60 100 36 100 24 100

Note. Totals of percentages are not 100 for every characteristic because of rounding.

Years using inclusive practices. When asked how many years they have been using

inclusive practices with formal training, 42% of general education and 40% of special education

teachers reported between two and five years. Slightly more special education teachers (52%)

reported using inclusive practices more than six years as compared to general educators (44%)

(see Table 6).


Table 6

Years Using Inclusive Practices

Years using inclusive

educational practices with

formal training

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

None

5 8 4 11 1 4

First year

2 3 1 2 1 4

2-5

25 41 15 42 10 40

6-10

29 48 16 44 13 52

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100


Time working with students. When asked what part of most days teachers spent

working with students receiving special education services, the majority of special education

teachers (92%) worked with those students more than half the time in a given day.

Comparatively, 53% of general education teachers spent half the time or less in a given day

working with students receiving special education services (see Table 7).

Table 7

Time Working with Students

Part of most days working

with students receiving

special education services

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

Half time or less including

none

21 34 19 53 2 8

More than half time

40 66 17 47 23 92

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100



Teacher experience by category served. The following are teacher responses regarding

the students’ disabilities with whom they worked this school year. The highest reported category

of students served for general education teachers was learning disabilities, with all (100%)

general education teachers having some experience (see Table 8). The highest reported category

of students served for special education teachers was autism, with nearly all (97%) special

education teachers having some experience. Nearly all (97%) of general education teachers

reported working with students with autism. A majority (86%) of general education teachers

reported working with students with emotional disturbance and multiple conditions. Most

special education teachers reported working with students with emotional disturbance and speech

disabilities (92%).


Table 8

Teacher Experience by Categories Served

Student disabilities with whom teachers worked

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

Deaf/Hearing Impairment 11 44 2 8

Learning disabilities 36 100 23 92

Emotional Disturbance 31 86 23 92

Physical Disability 19 53 8 22

Speech 26 72 23 92

Blind/Visual Impairment 8 22 4 16

Developmental Delay/

Early Childhood

7 19 5 20

Intellectual Disabilities 11 31 10 40

Traumatic Brain Injury 12 33 5 20

Autism 35 97 24 96

Multiple Conditions 31 86 18 72

N = 36 N = 25


Professional teaching staff in the classroom. When asked about the professional

teaching staff generally present in the classroom, more than half (58%) of general education

teachers reported that they were the teaching staff generally in the classroom, and approximately

three-fourths (72%) of special education teachers reported that both teachers were generally

present in the classroom (see Table 9).


Table 9

Professional Teaching Staff in the Classroom

Professional teaching staff

generally in the classroom

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

General Education Teacher 23 37 21 58 2 8

Special Education Teacher 4 6 0 0 4 14

Both Teachers 28 46 10 28 18 72

Related Services and

Teachers

6 9 5 14 1 4

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100


Individuals who plan daily instruction. The majority (81%) of general education

teachers reported that they planned the daily instruction for students in an inclusive setting (see

Table 10). Slightly more than one-half (52%) of the special education teachers also reported that

general education teacher usually planned the daily instruction for students in an inclusive

setting.


Table 10

Individuals Who Plan Daily Instruction

Who usually plans the daily

instruction for students in an

inclusive setting

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %



Both Teachers 14 23 6 17 8 32


Teachers

1 1 1 2 0 0

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100


Teachers responsible for implementing daily instruction. Three-fourths of general

education teachers (75%) reported that they usually implemented the daily instruction of students

in an inclusive setting and slightly more than one-half (52%) of special education teachers also

reported that the general education teacher usually implemented the daily instruction of students

in an inclusive setting (see Table 11).


Table 11

Teachers Responsible for Implementing Daily Instruction

Who usually implements the

daily instruction of students

in an inclusive setting

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %



Both Teachers 16 26 8 22 8 32


Teachers

1 1 1 3 0 0

Total 61 100 36 100 25 100


Participants on inclusion team. Slightly more than one-third (37%) of general

education teachers reported having general and special education teachers and other

professionals on an inclusion team for planning and implementing instruction. Nearly two-thirds

(64%) of special education teachers reported that both general and special education teachers and

other professionals were on their inclusion team (see Table 12).


Table 12

Participants on Inclusion Team

Who is on inclusion team

for planning and

implementing instruction

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

No Team 20 33 12 34 8 32

Special Education Teacher

Only

11 18 10 29 1 4

General and Special

Education Teachers and

Other Professionals

29 48 13 37 16 64

Total 60 100 35 100 25 100


Frequency of meetings for the inclusion team. When asked if their inclusion team met,

slightly more than one-third (35%) of general education teachers said that their team met as

needed. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of special education teachers reported that their inclusion team

met weekly (see Table 13).


Table 13

Frequency of Meetings for the Inclusion Team


Paraprofessional time in the classroom. When asked about the amount of time that

paraprofessionals were in the classroom, general education teachers’ responses varied and less

than one-half (42%) of special education teachers reported that paraprofessionals were in the

classroom on a full-time basis (see Table 14).

How often inclusion team

meets

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

Never 15 26 10 29 5 21

Weekly 26 45 11 32 15 63

Monthly 1 1 1 3 0 0

As Needed 16 28 12 35 4 16

Total 58 100 34 100 24 100


Table 14

Paraprofessional Time in the Classroom

Amount of time

paraprofessionals are in the

classroom

All teachers

n %

General education

teachers

n %

Special education

teachers

n %

Never 8 13 8 22 0 0

Occasionally 17 28 12 33 5 21

Frequently 16 27 7 19 9 37

Full Time 19 32 9 25 10 42

Total 60 100 36 100 24 100


Responses to Individual Survey Questions

The six survey sub-scales in The Inclusion Inventory contained individual questions

relating to teacher perceptions across the following areas: 1) planning/staff development, 2)

support, 3) levels of use, 4) implementation, 5) beliefs, and 6) the effects of inclusive practices.

The researcher analyzed the responses of all teachers to these questions using descriptive

statistics and reported means and standard deviations. Reporting this information provided an

indication of how all teachers in general responded to the individual questions. Further in the

study, the researcher reported these same responses showing comparisons in the responses of

general education and special education teachers to see if significant differences exist.

Section II: Professional development and planning for inclusive practices. This

section of The Inclusion Inventory, questions 23-38, asked about teacher perceptions of

professional development they received and planning time for inclusive practices. Questions


asked teachers if the planning and staff development in specific areas met their needs. Response

options ranged from “poor” (1), “fair” (2), “good” (3), to “excellent” (4) on a Likert-type scale,

with higher scores indicating more positive inclusion attitudes. “Don’t know” (5) was also an

answer choice. “Don’t know” answers were not included in the calculations of the means and

standard deviations, however, “don’t know” responses are reported separately (see Table 15).

For the planning and staff development sub-scale, the lowest mean for all teachers

addressed was item #34 “strategies for making time for planning and collaboration” (M = 1.93,

SD = .88). The question that reported the highest mean for all teachers was item #23 “basic

concept of inclusion” (M = 2.69, SD = .91). For the majority of questions in this sub-scale, there

were very few respondents indicating that they did not know the answer. However, for one item,

(#31), 13 individuals reported they did not know about the promotion practices within their

school districts.


Table 15

Planning and Staff Development

Did planning and staff development meet needs

for

All teachers

n M SD Don’t know

The basic concept of inclusion 59 2.69 .91 2

Needs of students with disabilities

60 2.68 .89 0

Behavior/discipline management in inclusive

setting

59 2.39 1.00 2

Grading procedures for students with and

without disabilities

61 2.21 .99 0

Instructional modifications 61 2.57 .90 0

Roles and responsibilities of personnel involved

in inclusive practices

60 2.25 1.05 1

Collaborating with all parents 59 2.32 .99 2

Planning and working as an inclusion team

59 2.17 .97 2

Promotion practices 45 2.11 1.01 13

Assessment practices 58 2.36 .99 3

IEP procedures for inclusion 57 2.51 1.02 4

Strategies for making time for planning and

collaboration

57 1.93 .88 4

Topics related to legal issues 53 2.02 1.07 7

Staff development received prior to

implementing inclusive practices

59 2.19 1.01 1

Staff development received while implementing

inclusion

61 2.08 .92 0

Staff opportunities for providing input about

staff development

59 2.10 1.01 2


Section III: Support for inclusive practices. This section of The Inclusion Inventory,

questions 39-43, asked whether campus administrators were responsive to concerns regarding

inclusion and whether participants had the supports needed to implement inclusion. Response

options ranged from “strongly disagree” (1), “tend to disagree” (2), “tend to agree” (3), to

“strongly agree” (4) on a Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating strong agreement (see

Table 16).

For this sub-scale, the question that reported the lowest mean for all teachers addressed

whether participants had sufficient opportunities for those implementing inclusive practices to

periodically meet and discuss issues, problems, and successes (M = 2.37, SD = .92). The

question that reported the highest mean for all teachers addressed whether administrators at their

school are committed to inclusion (M = 3.15, SD = .88).

Table 16

Support for Inclusive Practices

All teachers

n M SD

Campus administrators are responsive to immediate,

everyday concerns regarding inclusion.

60 2.60 .96

There are sufficient opportunities for those

implementing inclusive practices to periodically meet

and discuss issues, problems, and successes.

60 2.37 .92

Administrators at my school are committed to inclusion.

60 3.15 .88

Other teachers in this school support inclusive

education.

60 2.82 .70

We have the supports we need to implement inclusive

education.

60 2.42 .94


Section IV: Use of inclusive practices. This section of The Inclusion Inventory, items

44-53, asked questions regarding the participants’ level of use of inclusive strategies. The survey

coded these responses using a scale indicating whether participants had “no” (1), “planned” (2),

or “completed/ongoing” (3) levels of use in specific inclusive strategies (see Table 17).


whether participants had considered how to collaborate with others outside their school in

implementing inclusive strategies (M = 1.86, SD = .93). The question that reported the highest

mean for all teachers addressed whether participants had informally discussed inclusion with

others at their school (M = 2.81, SD = .51).


Table 17

Levels of Use of Inclusive Practices

All teachers

n M SD

I have informally discussed inclusion with others at my

school.

58 2.81 .51

I have participated on a team at my school working on

implementing inclusive strategies.

58 2.19 .95

I have sought additional information on inclusion.

57 2.63 .67

I have shared information about inclusion with others at

my school.

58 2.48 .82

I have tried to figure out ways to address barriers in

implementation of inclusive strategies.

58 2.67 .69

I have considered how to collaborate with others outside

my school in implementing inclusive strategies.

57 1.86 .93

I am looking for new and innovative ways to make my

school more inclusive.

58 2.05 .93

I have considered who in my school I could approach to

create an inclusive setting for a given student.

57 2.37 .82

I am working as a member of a collaborative team in

implementing an inclusive setting for a given student.

58 2.31 .88

I have worked to adapt instructional strategies or

curricula in a regular classroom to meet the needs of an

included student.

58 2.79 .49

Section V: Implementation of inclusive practices. This section of The Inclusion

Inventory, items 54-67, asked questions regarding the frequency of implementation of inclusive

practices in the general education classroom (see Table 18). Response options ranged from


“never” (1), “sometimes” (2), “most of the time” (3), to “all of the time” (4) on a Likert-type

scale with higher scores indicating greater occurrences. “Don’t know” (5) was also an answer

choice. “Don’t know” answers were not included in the calculations of the means and standard

deviations, however, “don’t know” responses are reported separately.


how often students receiving special education in the general education classroom sat apart from

other classmates (M = 1.46, SD = .54). This is actually a positive response since the mean for

this question indicates that these students sat apart from other classmates slightly less than

halfway between “never” and “sometimes.” The question that reported the highest mean for all

teachers addressed how often students receiving special education in the general education

classroom were the same age as the general education students (M = 3.55, SD = .57). For the

majority of questions in this sub-scale, there were very few respondents indicating that they did

not know the answer. However, for one item (#67), 27 individuals reported that they did not

know if their students interacted outside of school.


Table 18

Frequency of Implementation of Inclusive Practices

How often are (do) students receiving special

education in the general education

classroom…

All teachers

n M SD

Don’t know

the same age as the general education

students?

53 3.55 .57 4

provided special education instructional

support in the classroom?

53 3.04 .76 4

given the same responsibilities and duties as

general education students?

56 3.02 .67 1

attending their home school?

49 3.39 .70 8

receiving the same feedback as other

students?

55 3.35 .75 2

sitting apart from other classmates?

56 1.46 .54 1

expected to meet the same expectations as

other students?

57 2.79 .70 0

receiving the curricular and instructional

modifications that meet their needs?

56 3.30 .76 1

attend special events with other students?

55 3.78 .50 2

involved in extra-curricular activities?

49 3.49 .71 8

interacting socially with other students?

56 3.41 .65 1

placed in an inclusive setting for academic

classes?

55 3.15 .68 2

placed in an inclusive setting during elective

classes?

52 3.48 .87 5

interacting socially outside of school? 30 3.33 .66 27


Section VI: Beliefs about inclusive practices. This section of The Inclusion Inventory,

items 68-78, asked questions regarding participant beliefs about inclusive practices (see Table

19). Response options ranged from “strongly disagree” (1), “tend to disagree” (2), “tend to

agree” (3), to “strongly agree” (4) on a Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating strong

agreement. In “Beliefs about Inclusive Practices,” scale items 68-78, the researcher coded

questions 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, and 78 inversely to reflect positive responses.


whether participants believed that with inclusion, campuses still need a range of traditional

services that will meet the unique needs of some students (i.e., life skills, resource room) (M =

1.28, SD = .46). The question that reported the highest mean for all teachers addressed the fact

that teaching in an inclusive setting helps teachers develop new skills that are valuable in any

instructional setting (M = 3.29, SD = .73).


Table 19

Beliefs About Inclusive Practices

All teachers

n M SD

Doing inclusion requires substantial extra effort on the

part of participating teachers.

56 1.57 .66

Students from general education benefit socially from

inclusive practices.

56 3.05 .80

Students from general education benefit academically

from inclusive practices.

56 2.54 .93

Curriculum and instruction in inclusive settings are

generally "watered down" for all students.

56 2.64 .88

Students with disabilities in inclusive settings have

behavior problems that take up a disproportionate

amount of staff time.

56 2.67 .94

Most students receiving special education services

should be in inclusive settings.

55 2.82 .84

With inclusion, campuses still need a range of

traditional services that will meet the unique needs of

some students (i.e. life skills, resource room).

56 1.28 .46

Students who are not successful in the inclusive

setting should be evaluated and placed in an

environment that will better meet their needs.

55 1.44 .63

Teaching in an inclusive setting helps teachers develop

new skills that are valuable in any instructional

setting.

56 3.29 .73

Working with another teacher in an inclusive setting

requires all school personnel to give up some

individuality.

56 2.39 .97

Working with another teacher in an inclusive setting

requires a period of adjustment.

55 1.45 .54


Section VII: Beliefs about the effects of inclusive practices. This section of The

Inclusion Inventory, items 79-82, asked questions regarding participants’ beliefs about the

effects of inclusive practices (see Table 20). The survey coded these responses using a scale

indicating whether participants believed students receiving special education services performed

“worse” (1), the “same” (2), or “better” (3) in an inclusive setting than in a more traditional

special education setting. “Don’t know” (5) was also an answer choice. “Don’t know” answers

were not included in the calculations of the means and standard deviations, however, “don’t

know” responses are reported separately.


participants’ perceptions regarding the attendance of students receiving special education

services in the inclusive setting (M = 2.16, SD = .50). The question that reported the highest

mean for all teachers addressed participants’ perceptions regarding social skills and interpersonal

relations in the inclusive setting (M = 2.59, SD = .57). For the majority of questions in this sub-

scale, there were very few respondents indicating that they did not know the answer. However,

respondents reported they did not know about the effects of inclusive practices on attendance.


Table 20

Effects of Inclusive Practices

Items believed to be “worse,” “same,”

or “better” in an inclusive setting

All teachers

n M SD

Don’t know

Academic achievement

47 2.21 .75 8

Self-esteem

50 2.44 .79 6

Attendance

37 2.16 .50 19

Social skills and interpersonal relations

49 2.59 .57 7

Relationship Between Research Questions and Survey Sub-Scales

The researcher conducted independent between subjects t-tests on each of the six survey

sub-scales to determine if significant differences existed between general education and special

education teachers’ perceptions regarding inclusion. The researcher listed each research question

and discussed the results of the independent between subjects t-tests of each sub-scale in detail.

Findings for Research Question 1. Are there significant differences in the perceptions

of general and special education teachers toward planning and professional development and

what teachers need in order to be prepared for implementing inclusive practices?

Section II of The Inclusion Inventory, items 23-38, asked questions regarding teacher

perceptions of professional development they received and planning time for inclusive practices.

The researcher conducted an independent-samples t-test to compare the scale scores for

general education and special education teachers. There was no significant difference in

planning and staff development for inclusive practices for general education teachers (M = 2.47,


SD = .79) and special education teachers (M = 2.33, SD = .89); t(59) = .64, p = .523, two-tailed

and the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. The magnitude of differences in the means

(mean difference = .139, 95% CI: -.295 to .573) was small (Cohen’s d = .167) (see Table 21).

Table 21

Planning/Staff Development Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Planning/Staff

Development 2.47 .79 2.33 .89 59 .64 .523 .167

Findings for Research Question 2. Are there significant differences in the perceptions

of general and special education teachers toward receiving necessary supports for inclusive

practices?

Section III of The Inclusion Inventory, items 39-43, asked questions regarding teacher

perceptions of the support they received regarding the implementation of inclusive practices.

The significance value for Levene’s test for equality of variances for the scale scores for

levels of support for inclusive practices is p = .05 or less (.019), therefore, the data for this scale

violates the assumption of equal variance. The following data is based on the fact that equal

variances are not assumed. There was no significant difference in support for inclusive practices

for general education teachers (M = 2.77, SD = .55) and special education teachers (M = 2.53, SD

= .81); t(39) = 1.30, p = .202, two-tailed and the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. The


magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = .243, 95% CI: -.136 to .622) was small

(Cohen’s d = .416) (see Table 22).

Table 22

Support Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Support* 2.77 .55 2.53 .81 39* 1.30* .202* .416*

Note. *Equal variances not assumed.

Findings for Research Question 3. Are there significant differences in the levels of

inclusive practices used daily among general and special education teachers?

Section IV of The Inclusion Inventory, items 44-53, asked questions regarding teacher

perceptions of their levels of use of inclusive practices.

There was a significant difference in levels of use of inclusive practices for general

education teachers (M = 2.28, SD = .45) and special education teachers (M = 2.60, SD = .40);

t(56) = -2.82, p = .007, two-tailed and the null hypothesis was rejected. The magnitude of

differences in the means (mean difference = -.322, 95% CI: -.550 to -.093) was large (Cohen’s d

= .753) (see Table 23). Special education teachers significantly more often reported using

inclusive practices than did the general education teachers.


Table 23

Levels of Use Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Use 2.28 .45 2.60 .40 56 -2.82

.007** .753

Note. ** p < .05.

Section V, items 54-67, asks questions regarding teacher perceptions of the

implementation of inclusive practices in the general education classroom.

There was no significant difference in implementation for inclusive practices for general

education teachers (M = 3.36, SD = .33) and special education teachers (M = 3.25, SD = .35);

t(55) = 1.22, p = .228, two-tailed and the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. The

magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = .111, 95% CI: -.072 to .296) was small

(Cohen’s d = .329) (see Table 24).

Table 24

Implementation Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Implementation 3.36 .33 3.25 .35 55 1.22 .228 .329


Findings for Research Question 4. Are there significant differences in general and

special education teachers’ beliefs about inclusive practices and their effects on students?

Section VI of The Inclusion Inventory (Becker et al., 2000), items 68-78, asked questions

regarding teacher perceptions surrounding their beliefs about inclusive practices. In “Beliefs

about Inclusive Practices,” scale items 68-78, the researcher coded questions 68, 71, 72, 74, 75,

77, and 78 inversely to reflect positive responses. There was a significant difference in beliefs

about inclusive practices for general education teachers (M = 2.20, SD = .33) and special

education teachers (M = 2.42, SD = .45); t(54) = -2.10, p = .041, two-tailed and the null

hypothesis was rejected. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = .220,

95% CI: -.431 to .009) was large (Cohen’s d = .554) (see Table 25). Special education teachers

reported significantly higher ratings about their beliefs about inclusive practices than did the

general education teachers.

Table 25

Beliefs Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Beliefs 2.20 .33 2.42 .45 54 -2.10 .041 .554

Section VII, items 79-82, asked questions regarding teacher perceptions about the effects

of inclusive practices on students with special needs in an inclusive setting.


There was no significant difference in effects of inclusive practices for general education

teachers (M = 2.75, SD = .73) and special education teachers (M = 2.52, SD = .66); t(54) = 1.20,

p = .243, two-tailed and the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. The magnitude of

differences in the means (mean difference = .227, 95% CI: -.159 to .613) was small (Cohen’s d =

.326) (see Table 26).

Table 26

Effects Scale Differences

Scale

General

education

teachers

M SD

Special

education

teachers

M SD

df t

p

Cohen’s

d

Effects 2.75 .73 2.52 .66 54 1.20 .243 .326

Summary

Chapter 4 presented the results of the data analysis that examined if there were significant

differences in general education and special education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. The

researcher presented the results of the demographic questions in The Inclusion Inventory (Becker

et al., 2000), answered by the 61 participants who were general and special education teachers at

six middle schools in three school districts in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The researcher also

reported the means and standard deviations of the six groups of scaled responses to the survey as

well as the results of the independent between subjects t-tests. The researcher presented the data

in light of the purpose of the study, theoretical framework, and research questions. Chapter 5


presents a summary of the study, discussion of the findings related to the literature, conclusions,

implications for action, and recommendations for further study.


Chapter 5:

Conclusions and Recommendations

In this chapter, the researcher provides an overview of the problem, the purpose of the

study and research questions, limitations, a review of the methodology, a summary of the

findings, and conclusions. The researcher discusses the findings as related to the literature and

concludes this chapter with implications for action and recommendations for further research.

Summary of the Study

Overview of the problem. Despite United States federal law that mandates access to the

general curriculum, also known as inclusion, for all students with disabilities, school districts still

struggle with meeting targets for educating students with disabilities inside the general education

classroom (Becker et al., 2000; Hines & Johnston, 1997; Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2014;

Waldron et al., 2011). As it specifically relates to this study, the state of Pennsylvania has target

goals that it expects of school districts with respect to the percentage of students with disabilities

who are educated in the general education classroom. Many school districts in the state of

Pennsylvania do not meet these target goals (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2014). The

researcher examined previous research in the literature that indicated that positive perceptions of

teachers regarding inclusion and inclusive practices contribute to the success of including

students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al.,

2000; Fuchs, 2010; Horrocks et al., 2008; Ross-Hill, 2009; Villa et al., 1996). Specific areas that

contribute to the success of inclusion, according to the literature, are professional development,

administrative support, and planning time (Cook et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000; Fuchs, 2010;

Horrocks et al., 2008; Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008; Rice, 2006; Ross-Hill, 2009; Villa

et al., 1996; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). Therefore, this study examined the


perceptions of general and special education teachers regarding whether the planning/staff

development for inclusion, support for inclusion, their implementation of inclusion, their levels

of use of inclusion, their beliefs about inclusion, and the effects of inclusion on students met

teachers’ needs in their current school.

Purpose statement and research questions. The purpose of this study was to determine

the perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of teachers regarding inclusion and to examine if there are

significant differences in general education and special education teachers’ perceptions of

inclusion.

The following questions guided this research study:


teachers toward planning and professional development and what teachers need in order to be

prepared for implementing inclusive practices?


teachers toward receiving necessary supports for inclusive practices?

3. Are there significant differences in the levels of inclusive practices used daily among

general and special education teachers?

4. Are there significant differences in general and special education teachers’ beliefs about

inclusive practices and their effects on students?

Limitations. This study had several limitations. For example, there was a relatively

small sample size consisting of general and special education teachers in six middle schools in

three Southeastern Pennsylvania suburban school districts. Some of the middle school


principals in the school districts that were invited to participate in the study did not give the

researcher permission to survey the teachers in their buildings. Therefore, more teachers could

have potentially participated in the study if their principals gave the researcher permission to

survey them. The length of the 82 item survey and the 30 minutes necessary to complete it could

have contributed to the number of incomplete surveys submitted. In addition, the online survey

was set up so that participants were not required to answer each question before moving on to the

next question, possibly contributing to questions having missing data responses. An additional

limitation is that the participation sample was mostly composed of general education teachers.

However, the participation sample reflects the larger population of teachers in the middle schools

selected for the survey, where there are a higher proportion of general education teachers in

relation to special education teachers. As a result, these limitations affect the generalizability of

the results.

Review of the methodology. This quantitative study surveyed middle school teachers in

three Southeastern Pennsylvania suburban school districts with respect to their perceptions of

planning and staff development, support, levels of use, implementation, beliefs about and the

effects of inclusive practices. The rationale of this study was to survey general and special

education teacher opinions, attitudes, and beliefs in order to examine their perceptions of

inclusive practices. The rationale was also to determine if there were significant differences in

the perceptions of general and special education teachers. The researcher used nonrandom

purposive sampling to identify middle schools in three neighboring school districts across a

geographic region that had similar socioeconomic status. The researcher used The Inclusion

Inventory (Becker et al., 2000) in an online survey format using Qualtrics, an online survey

software program, to collect data by sending participation requests to teachers via their e-mail


addresses published on their school websites. Sixty-one participants responded to the e-mail

requests to participate in the study and completed the survey. The researcher analyzed the

demographic data using descriptive statistics, reporting frequencies and percentages. To

examine the significant differences in the perceptions of the general and special education

teachers, the researcher reported the data collected from the sub-scales of The Inclusion

Inventory using descriptive statistics, reporting means and standard deviations, as well as

inferential statistics, reporting the results of independent between subjects t-tests for the six sub-

scales of the survey instrument. The six sub-scales of the instrument were planning and staff

development, support, levels of use, implementation, beliefs about, and the effects of inclusive

practices.

Findings Related to the Literature

This section discusses the major findings of this study in relation to the previous literature

outlined in chapter two. In addition, this section discusses specific results from this dissertation

study and identifies the consistency or inconsistency of these findings with other studies.

The current dissertation study found significant differences between general and special

education teachers in the areas of levels of use of inclusive practices and beliefs about inclusive

practices, with special education teachers having more positive perceptions than general

education teachers did in those two areas. These results are different from Stidham-Smith

(2013), who also used The Inclusion Inventory. The author reported that a majority of her

participants (who were all general education teachers at all grade levels) in one school district,

had positive experiences with inclusion. It is possible that there were higher levels of consensus

among the teachers in the Stidham-Smith study due to surveying teachers who experience the


same school culture. By contrast this dissertation study focused on three different school

districts with teachers experiencing different cultures.

Research Question 1

Planning/staff development for inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #1

“Are there significant differences in the perceptions of general and special education teachers

toward planning and professional development and what teachers need in order to be prepared

for implementing inclusive practices?” there was no significant difference between general and

special education teachers’ perceptions regarding whether the planning and staff development in

certain areas met their needs. Therefore, there the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis.

This may suggest that teachers have similar views about the planning and staff development that

they received surrounding inclusion; however, the responses may suggest that some teachers

perceive that the planning and staff development they received could be better. Mean scores for

all but one of the questions (item #34) in this sub-scale reported answers between “fair” and

“good” on the Likert-type scale regarding teachers’ perceptions of planning and staff

development surrounding inclusive practices. The one question in the sub-scale with a mean

score response for all teachers that was between “poor” and “fair” was item #34 “Did the

planning and staff development in the area of strategies for making time for planning and

collaboration meet your needs?”

Researchers have found that targeted and effective professional development increases

teacher efficacy, a large component of successful inclusion and effective inclusive practices

(Berry et al., 2011; Dodge-Quick, 2011; Fuchs, 2010; Kosko & Wilkins, 2009; Scott et al., 1998;

Simon & Black, 2011). Therefore, the reported scores in this sub-scale suggest that teachers

may perceive a continued need for on-going staff development regarding inclusive practices.


Research Question 2

Support for inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #2; “Are there

significant differences in the perceptions of general and special education teachers toward

receiving necessary supports for inclusive practices?” there was no significant difference

between general and special education teachers’ perceptions regarding the support they receive

for inclusive practices. Therefore, the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. Both general

and special education teachers had similar perceptions regarding the statements in this sub-scale.

For example, samples of statements that highlight this sub-scale of the survey (see Appendix A),

include item #41 “Administrators at my school are committed to inclusion.” Both general and

special educators reported mean scores between “tend to agree” and “strongly agree” on the

Likert-type scale when asked to respond to this statement. However, the mean scores for the

other items in the scale are between “tend to disagree” and “tend to agree.” These mean scores

are reported for samples of statements such as item #42 “Other teachers in this school support

inclusive education” and item #43 “We have the supports we need to implement inclusive

education.” This may suggest that both general and special education teachers perceived that

while the administrators at their schools were committed to inclusion overall, there are still areas

of need based on mean scores for other items in the sub-scale.

This result is similar to Idol (2006) who found that the teachers in the eight schools in her

study had positive perceptions of their administrators and believed they were doing a good job of

working with and supporting the teachers. Researchers Hines and Johnston (1996), Finegan

(2004), and Fuchs (2010) have found that administrative support is necessary for the success of

inclusive practices. Mullings (2011) suggested that full inclusion of students with disabilities in


the general education classroom requires an inclusionary mind-set of all stakeholders, including

teachers and administrators.

Research Question 3

Use of inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #3: “Are there significant

differences in the levels of inclusive practices used daily among general and special education

teachers?” there was a statistically significant difference between general and special education

teachers’ perceptions regarding their levels of use of inclusive practices. Therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected. Special education teachers reported using inclusive practices

significantly more often than general education teachers did. Individual question items in this

section reflected the utilization of a variety of inclusive strategies.

There were 10 items in this sub-scale that represented a range of inclusive strategies

teachers might consider using. Some of these items pertained to teachers sharing and

collaborating with each other about inclusive practices. Some of these items pertained to an

individual teacher seeking information about inclusion. Other items in this section focused on

teachers collaborating with others on inclusion efforts. The significant difference may suggest

that special education teachers take initiative to communicate more regularly with their

colleagues and share information about inclusive practices with others. Special education

teachers may have greater preparation and training on inclusive practices from their coursework

and teaching experiences than the general education teachers. These special education teachers

may feel more comfortable discussing and sharing with their colleagues. They may also be more

apt to initiate conversations surrounding a more appropriate change of placement to a less

restrictive environment for a given student by advocating for that student.


Other samples of statements that highlight this sub-scale of the survey are item # 50

which asked participants to respond to “I am looking for new and innovative ways to make my

school more inclusive” and item #51 which asked participants to respond to “I have considered

who in my school I could approach to create an inclusive setting for a given student.” Given the

significant differences in sub-scale scores between general and special educators, this may

suggest there is a difference between their perceptions regarding a willingness to try new

strategies that would make their school more inclusive. Special education teachers may perceive

a more inclusive setting to be viable and they may perceive the creation of an inclusive setting

for a given student to be valuable.

Special education teachers appear to reflect a perception that they are more actively

engaged in both speaking about and sharing information about inclusion than their general

education colleagues did within this dissertation study. While this may not be surprising, given

their background preparation, it does suggest an area of attention such as more training and

professional development for general education teachers. Therefore, in order for general

education teachers to increase their levels of using inclusive practices, school leaders could

address these areas.

Pertaining to the differences in the levels of use between general and special education

teachers in the current study, Scott et al. (1998) found that general education teachers were

positive about the desirability/effectiveness and reasonability/feasibility of making instructional

adaptations for students with disabilities. However, the study also found that when these

students were included in general education classrooms, their teachers were unlikely to alter their

traditional whole-group instructional strategies in favor of specific individualized adaptations.

This is similar to the findings of this dissertation study which found that while all teachers had


positive beliefs about the effects of inclusive practices on students, special education teachers

used inclusive practices significantly more than general education teachers.

Similarly, Kurth et al. (2012) found that general and special education teachers differed

in various areas, as well as at the elementary and secondary levels. For example, the study found

that general and special education teachers have different grading practices and procedures for

students with disabilities. In addition, the study found that general and special education

teachers differ in their comfort level and training for grading students with disabilities, with

special education teachers feeling more prepared in this area. Also, elementary teachers were

more willing than secondary teachers to have students with disabilities modify their work, and

secondary teachers reported that their levels of use of modifications to instruction was less than

that of elementary teachers. While this dissertation studied middle school teachers and not

elementary school teachers, special education teachers differed significantly from general

education teachers in their levels of use of various inclusive practices.

Hsein et al. (2009), studied 36 early intervention general and special education teachers

and found that teachers with higher special education qualifications were more positive about

inclusion. Despite the difference in this dissertation study, which examined the perceptions of

middle school teachers and not early intervention teachers, similar to this dissertation study, this

may suggest that special education teachers have increased levels of use of inclusive practices

due to more training and teacher preparation in these areas.

Implementation of inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #3, “Are there

significant differences in the levels of inclusive practices used daily among general and special

education teachers?” there was no significant difference between general and special education

teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of inclusive practices. Therefore, the


findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. Both general and special education teachers had

similar perceptions regarding the statements in this sub-scale. This may suggest that there is a

perception among teachers that students are receiving special education in the general education

classroom with greater frequency. For example, samples of statements that highlight this sub-

scale of the survey (see Appendix A), include item #54 “How often are students receiving special

education in the general education classroom the same age as general education students?” Both

general and special educators had mean scores between “most of the time” and “all of the time”

on the Likert-type scale in response to this statement. This may suggest that both general and

special education teachers perceive that the students receiving special education services in the

general education classroom are on grade level with their peers, are not retained, and are in

appropriate grade level placements with respect to age.

When asked to respond to item #62 “How often are students receiving special education

in the general education classroom attending special events with other students?” both general

education and special education teachers had mean scores between “most of the time” and “all of

the time” on the Likert-type scale. This may suggest that both general and special education

teachers perceive that students receiving special education services in the general education

classroom are almost fully included in events outside the classroom. When asked to respond to

item #59 “How often are students receiving special education in the general education classroom

sitting apart from other classmates?” both general and special education teachers had mean

scores between “never” and “sometimes” on the Likert-type scale used. This may suggest that

both general education and special education teachers perceive that students receiving special

education services in the general education classroom are included in small group and large

group activities with their classmates, and are fully integrated in the classroom activities. Both


groups of teachers may perceive singling out students by seating them apart from their

classmates is inappropriate. Scott et al. (1998) suggested that effective teacher use and

implementation of inclusive practices affects student learning and is necessary for successful

inclusion.

Most of the individual answers to the questions in this sub-scale indicated that the

frequency of implementation of inclusive practices was between “most of the time” and “all of

the time” on the Likert-type scale. This may suggest that teachers perceived inclusive practices

such as giving students with disabilities the same responsibilities and duties, feedback, and

expectations as general education students was occurring frequently. This finding is similar to

Morgan (2012) who also found no differences between the perceptions of middle and high

school general and special education teachers with respect to implementing inclusive practices

such as differentiated instruction. This may suggest that while there are no significant

differences in the perceptions between general and special education teachers with respect to the

implementation of inclusive practices, the frequency of implementation of inclusive practices

could be greater.

Individual states measure the implementation of inclusive practices against state

performance targets. Therefore, while the teachers in this study may perceive that the

implementation of inclusive practices is occurring “most of the time”, the frequency still may fall

short of what the state requires. Therefore, this area could benefit from further study with respect

to teacher perceptions of the implementation of inclusive practices versus state requirements.

Research Question 4

Beliefs about inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #4: “Are there

significant differences in general and special education teachers’ beliefs about inclusive practices


and their effects on students?” there was a statistically significant difference between general and

special education teachers’ perceptions regarding their beliefs about inclusive practices. Special

education teachers reported significantly more positive beliefs about inclusive practices than did

general education teachers. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This result suggested

that special education teachers may have higher expectations for positive student outcomes.

There were 11 items in this sub-scale representing beliefs about inclusive practices that teachers

may espouse. Some of these items pertained to the amount of effort required to implement

inclusive practices, benefits to students, behavioral issues, and teacher skills. Samples of

statements that highlight this sub-scale of the survey (see Appendix A), include item #69 which

asked participants to respond to “Students from general education benefit socially from inclusive

practices” and item #70 which asked participants to respond to “Students from general education

benefit academically from inclusive practices.” Since the sub-scale scores reflected statistically

significant differences, this may suggest that general and special education teachers have

different perceptions regarding implementing inclusive practices without negatively affecting

general education students. Item #71 asked participants to respond to “Curriculum and

instruction in inclusive settings are generally ‘watered down’ for all students.” This may suggest

that there is a difference in special education teachers’ perceptions regarding differentiating

instruction in the general education setting to accommodate all students as compared to general

education teachers. It also may suggest that special education teachers perceive that it is not

necessary to “water down” the curriculum for all students. There may be a need for teachers in

inclusive settings to have strategies on how to keep the rigor of the general curriculum while

maintaining access to the general curriculum for all students.


Overall, this current dissertation study found special education teachers had significantly

higher ratings regarding their beliefs about inclusive practices than did general education

teachers. This major result from the dissertation study is similar to Brighton (2003) who

examined 48 middle school content-area teachers’ beliefs about teaching in inclusive classrooms.

The author found that the teachers with preexisting beliefs already aligned to the study’s

philosophy about inclusion were more successful with differentiated instruction in their inclusive

classrooms. Other teachers in that study who had preexisting beliefs that contrasted with the

study’s philosophy resisted implementing inclusive practices. This may suggest that teachers

who already espouse positive beliefs about inclusion will be more successful with inclusive

practices in their classrooms. In addition, Hsein et al. (2009) examined potential associations

between teacher beliefs about inclusion and their education levels, and found that teachers with

higher qualifications in special education had more positive beliefs about inclusion. This result

is also consistent with the results from the current dissertation study.

Effects of inclusive practices. Related to Research Question #4: “Are there significant

differences in general and special education teachers’ beliefs about inclusive practices and their

effects on students?” there was no significant difference between general and special education

teachers’ perceptions regarding the effects of inclusive practices on students receiving special

education services. Therefore, the findings failed to reject the null hypothesis. Both general and

special education teachers had similar perceptions regarding the statements in this sub-scale.

Mean scores for all teachers in the sub-scale “Effects of inclusive practices” indicated that they

perceived that academic achievement, self-esteem, and attendance were between “same” and

“better” in an inclusive setting. This may suggest that both general and special education

teachers perceive that, in general, students receiving special education services in the general


education classroom do the same or better than if they were placed in a more traditional special

education setting. Information provided by Becker et al. (2000) documented educational success

for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms without negatively affecting other students.

This may suggest that, in the current study, all teachers perceive that the general education

classroom does not affect students with disabilities negatively.

The questions in this sub-scale, while related to beliefs about inclusive practices,

specifically ask teachers about the effects of inclusive practices on students with disabilities as

opposed to their beliefs about the process of inclusion, as in the previous sub-scale. This may

suggest that while teachers believe in the positive effects of inclusion, they differ on their

perceptions regarding the process through which inclusion occurs, as reported in the sub-scale on

the beliefs about inclusive practices. Similarly, Mitchell and Hegde (2007) found that while

teachers perceived inclusion to have a positive effect on students with disabilities, they struggle

with the process. Considering Hines and Johnston (1997) indicated that quantitative studies

measuring the effects of inclusive practices on middle school students were scarce, this may be

an area of need for further study.

Conclusions

School districts still struggle with including students with disabilities in the general

education classroom for 80% or more of the school day, and the task is potentially more

challenging at the secondary level vs the elementary level. Potential reasons, as presented in the

literature, include the fact that general education content area teachers at the secondary level

perceive themselves as having less pre-service teacher training than their special education

colleagues with respect to inclusive practices. Despite secondary education teachers’ positive

beliefs regarding the effects of inclusive practices for students with disabilities in the general


education classroom, secondary general education teachers appear to struggle with the

implementation of those inclusive practices. This could possibly translate into differences in

levels of use of inclusive practices between general and special education teachers. As a result,

for school districts to meet targets for including students with disabilities in the general education

classroom, this researcher addresses specific implications for action and recommendations for

further research.

General and special education teachers in this study differed significantly in the areas

regarding perceptions of levels of use and beliefs about inclusive practices. Special education

teachers had higher levels of use and more positive beliefs about inclusive practices. Perhaps

increased planning and staff development as well as increased support could prove helpful to

increase levels of use of inclusive practices and positive beliefs about inclusive practices for

general education teachers.

Implications for Action

Based on the results of the current study, there are two recommendations for school

administrators that could address the needs of school districts, school leaders, and teachers.

Mean response scores for all teachers in this study considered that the professional development

regarding inclusive practices was “fair” to “good,” indicating that there was room for

improvement. Therefore, the first recommendation is that school administrators could survey

their staff to examine what specific needs regarding planning and staff development are needed

with respect to inclusive practices. This would enable school leaders to target specific areas of

need with respect to strategies for implementing inclusive practices as well as gain insight into

the specific planning needs teachers have such as common time for them to collaborate with each

other. For example, Frey (2009) performed a case study analysis of four in-service special


education teachers and found that student performance improved with more targeted, project-

based teacher professional development. The study also suggested that this approach to

professional development positively affects K-12 teachers’ instructional practices and students

with disabilities’ performance.

The second recommendation is that school administrators should collaborate with

teachers to develop web-based resources such as online training modules that teachers could

complete at their own pace during the school year. With the increased focus on technology in

the classroom and meeting the needs of all learners in different capacities, potential avenues to

pursue more targeted professional development for all teachers could be in the area of web-based

training. For example, Smith and Tyler (2011) suggested that web-based resources offer many

potential advantages such as convenience, instructor support, interactivity, universal access, and

multimedia experiences. In addition, the authors consider a web-based approached to be

deliverable at a relatively low cost.

Recommendations for Further Research

There are four major recommendations for further research. The first recommendation is

that future research studies could seek to replicate the current study in larger contexts. One way

would be to study teacher perceptions in urban and rural school district settings in Pennsylvania

that also struggle with meeting state targets for least restrictive environment. This could provide

additional information as to potential areas to improve inclusive practices across the state.

Another context would involve expanding the study to include high schools, which could also

provide additional secondary level insight. Since the school districts in this study were in

suburban settings, teacher perceptions could be unique to that context and examining teacher

perceptions in other settings could provide information that is more generalizable statewide.


Second, examining administrator perceptions both at the middle school level and at the

high school level could provide a different perspective with respect to perceptions of what

teachers need in order to be prepared to implement inclusive practices. Then, examining whether

differences exist between teacher perceptions and administrator perceptions could provide

further insight for school districts to use in meeting state targets for least restrictive environment.

Third, examining differences among districts with various socioeconomic demographics

is another recommendation. As this study examined three districts with a similar socioeconomic

status based on Title I funding, examining school districts clustered in larger groups with similar

Title I funding could provide an even greater amount of information for comparison across the

state. In this way, research could target larger groups of districts that do not meet the state

performance targets for least restrictive environment to see if differences exist among school

districts with similar socioeconomic status.

Fourth, examining how teachers can increase their levels of use of inclusive practices is

also recommended. Based on the findings in the current study in which general education

teachers differed in their levels of use of inclusive practices as compared to special education

teachers, these areas of need should be addressed. For example, examining practices

surrounding differentiating instruction, and providing access to the general curriculum while

maintaining its rigor may address the levels of use and beliefs of teachers whose perceptions

differ in these areas. This could perhaps begin to address the question as to why all teachers,

specifically general educators, do not use inclusive practices with greater frequency.

Given that research indicates that school districts across the country still struggle with

including students with disabilities in the general education classroom, the goal should remain to

strive for the least restrictive environment for those students. The tools, supports, and training


that both general education and special education teachers need in order to plan for, implement,

and use inclusive practices should be a priority for all school districts. Removing barriers to

inclusion should be a priority for all school districts so that all students have the same

opportunities to learn and to have exposure to the general education curriculum and beyond. The

goal of teachers, administrators, school boards, and policy-makers should be to advocate for and

maintain the highest expectations for all students.

Educators as leaders – from teachers who are leaders in the classrooms to administrators

who are leaders in the school buildings – lead by example in many ways to demonstrate to

school boards and policy-makers that they are committed to advocating for all students. General

education and special education teachers demonstrate that every student can benefit and learn

from the general curriculum by making use of inclusive practices in their classrooms. As IDEA

(2004) affirms, the removal of students with disabilities from the general education classroom

should only occur when the nature of the disability is such that, even with supplementary aids

and services, inclusion cannot be achieved satisfactorily. School districts need to ensure that

teachers have the proper supports in place in order for this to be possible.


References

Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with

severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1),

42-59.

Argüelles, M., Hughes, M., & Schumm, J. (2000). Co-teaching: A different approach to

inclusion. Principal, 79(4), 48-51.

Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J., (2013).

The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2013-037). Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542714.pdf

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes

toward the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in

one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211.

Baker, J.M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students

with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The

Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.

Becker, H., Roberts, G., & Dumas, S. (2000). The inclusion inventory: A tool to assess

perceptions of the implementation of inclusive educational practices. Special Services in

the Schools, 16(1-2), 57-72.

Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers' attitudes toward increased

mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94, 120.



Bennett, T., DeLuca, D. A., & Bruns, D. A. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives

of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64,115-131.

Berry, A. B., Petrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, T. W. (2011). Issues in special education

teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in

supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3-11.

Brighton, C. M. (2003). The effects of middle school teachers' beliefs on classroom practices.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 177-206.

Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). Facilitating participation in assessments

and the general curriculum: Level of symbolic communication classification for students

with significant cognitive disabilities. Assessment in Education, 15, 137-151.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M.

(2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for

students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The

Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2-16.

Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and

special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion.

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156.

Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards

disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28(4),

369–79.


Clark, N. M., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (2004). An intensive onsite technical assistance

model to promote inclusive educational practices for students with disabilities in middle

school and high school. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 4,

253-262.

Clayton, J., Burdge, M., Denham, A., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2006). A four-step process for

accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 20-27.

Cochran, H.K. (1998, October 14-16). Differences in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive

education as measured by the Scale of Teachers Attitudes toward Inclusive Classrooms

(STATIC). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Education

Association, Chicago, IL.

Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special

education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities: Critical

differences of opinion. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-207.

doi:10.1177/074193259902000403

Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators’ and teachers' perceptions

of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331-

338.

Dodge-Quick, G. (2011). Use of professional development to improve attitudes of general

educators towards inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open

http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#abstract?dispub=3440446 (AAT 3440446)

http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#abstract?dispub=3440446


Dukes, C., & Lamar-Dukes, P. (2009). Inclusion by design: Engineering inclusive practices in

secondary schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(3), 16-23.

Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the

general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 1-15.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142 (1975).

Finegan, J.E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of their experiences with including students with

special needs in the general education classroom setting throughout public and private

schools in Texas (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/1489

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in

education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Frey, T. J. (2009). An analysis of online professional development and outcomes for students

with disabilities. Teacher Education & Special Education, 32(1), 83-96.

Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining teachers' perceived barriers associated with inclusion.

SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30-35.

Grima-Farrell, C. R., Bain, A., & McDonagh, S. H. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice

gap: A review of the literature focusing on inclusive education. Australasian Journal of

Special Education, 35(2), 117-136.

http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/1489


Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the

innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher

Education, 26(1), 52-56.

Hawpe, J. (2013). Secondary teachers’ attitudes toward and willingness to provide

accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from PQDT Open. (AAT 3538967)

Hines, R. A., & Johnston, J.H. (1996). Inclusive classrooms: The principal's role in promoting

achievement. Schools in the Middle, 5(3), 6-11.

Hines, R. A., & Johnston, J.H. (1997). Inclusion. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says

to the middle level practitioner (pp. 109-119). Columbus, OH: National Middle School

Association.

Hodge, S., Ammah, J.O.A., Casebolt, K.M., LaMaster, K., Hersman, B., Samalot-Rivera, A., &

Sato, T. (2009). A diversity of voices: Physical education teachers’ beliefs about

inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education, 56(4), 401-419.

Horne, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer, and

parent reactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.


Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals' attitudes regarding inclusion of

children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 38(8), 1462-1473. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x

Hsien, M., Brown, P., & Bortoli, A. (2009). Teacher qualifications and attitudes toward

inclusion. Australasian Journal Of Special Education, 33(1), 26-41.

doi:10.1375/ajse.33.1.26

IDEA (2004); Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool

Grants for Children With Disabilities; Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 46764 (Aug. 14, 2006).

Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial

and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118

Stat. 2647 (2004). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-

118/pdf/STATUTE-118-Pg2647.pdf

Isherwood, R. S., & Barger-Anderson, R. (2008). Factors affecting the adoption of co-teaching

models in inclusive classrooms: One school’s journey from mainstreaming to inclusion.

Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 2(2), 121-128.

Jenkins, A. A., & Yoshimura, J. (2010). Not another inservice!. Teaching Exceptional Children,

42(5), 36-43.

Kamens, M., Loprete, S., & Slostad, F. (2000). Classroom teachers’ perceptions about inclusion

and preservice teacher education. Teaching Education, 11(2), 147-158.

http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-118/pdf/STATUTE-118-Pg2647.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-118/pdf/STATUTE-118-Pg2647.pdf


Kamens, M., Susko, J. P., & Elliott, J. S. (2013). Evaluation and supervision of co-teaching: A

study of administrator practices in New Jersey. NASSP Bulletin, 97(2), 166-190.

doi:10.1177/0192636513476337

Kantor, K. (2011). General educators perceptions of preparedness to teach in mixed-ability

classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open. (AAT 3434585)

Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. M. (2009). General educators' in-service training and their self-

perceived ability to adapt instruction for students with IEPs. Professional Educator,

33(2), 1-10.

Kozik, P. L., Cooney, B., Vinciguerra, S., Gradel, K., & Black, J. (2009). Promoting inclusion in

secondary schools through appreciative inquiry. American Secondary Education, 38(1),

77-91.

Kurth, J., Gross, M., Lovinger, S., & Catalano, T. (2012). Grading students with significant

disabilities in inclusive settings: Teacher perspectives. Journal of the International

Association of Special Education, 13(1), 41-57.

Litvack, M. S., Ritchie, K.C., & Shore, B.M. (2011). High- and average-achieving students'

perceptions of disabilities and of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

Exceptional Children, 77(4), 474-487.

Locke, J. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Lohrmann, S., & Bambara, L.M. (2006). Elementary education teachers’ beliefs about essential

supports needed to successfully include students with developmental disabilities who

engage in challenging behaviors. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 31(2), 157-173.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools:

Reflections on effective practice. Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172.

Mitchell, L., & Hegde, A. V. (2007). Beliefs and practices of in-service preschool teachers in

inclusive settings: Implications for personnel preparation. Journal of Early Childhood

Teacher Education, 28(4), 353-366. doi:10.1080/10901020701686617

Moore, B. (2005). Perceptions of teachers and administrators of the organizational supports for

inclusion programs in Southwest Florida elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from

http://digitalcollections.lib.ucf.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ETD&CISOPT

R=4165

Morgan, K. (2012). Middle school and high school general-education and special-education

teachers’ coteaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open.

(AAT 3502264)

Mullings, S. (2011). Full inclusion: The least restrictive environment (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from PQDT Open. (AAT 3510927)

New America Foundation. (2011). Federal education budget project. Retrieved from

http://febp.newamerica.net/



http://febp.newamerica.net/


Orr, A. C. (2009). New special educators reflect about inclusion: Preparation and K-12 current

practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3(4), 228-239.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parrish, T. (2006). National and state overview national and state overview of special education

funding of special education funding: Kansas Association of Special Education

Administrators [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved from

http://csef.air.org/presentations/KS%20SE%20presentation%203-1-06.pdf

Pennsylvania State Data Center. (2014). State performance plan public reporting (special

education data reports). Retrieved from

http://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/bsereports/pr_alphalist.aspx

Pennsylvania Department of Education, PA Codes. (2013). Least restrictive environment (LRE)

and educational placement for students with individualized education programs (IEPs).

Retrieved from

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_codes/7501/least_restrictive

_environment_(lre)_and_educational_placement_for_students_with_individualized_educ

ation_programs_(ieps)/507373

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2014). Special education 2014-2015 fiscal year.

Retrieved from

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/education_budget/8699/special_

education/539261

Qualtrics [Research software]. (2014). Provo, UT. Retrieved from http://www.qualtrics.com/

http://csef.air.org/presentations/KS%20SE%20presentation%203-1-06.pdf

http://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/bsereports/pr_alphalist.aspx

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_codes/7501/least_restrictive_environment_(lre)_and_educational_placement_for_students_with_individualized_education_programs_(ieps)/507373



http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/education_budget/8699/special_education/539261

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/education_budget/8699/special_education/539261

http://www.qualtrics.com/


Rice, N. (2006). Opportunities lost, possibilities found: Shared leadership and inclusion in an

urban high school. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(2), 88-100.

Roach, V., & Salisbury, C. (2006). Promoting systemic, statewide inclusion from the bottom up.

Theory into Practice, 45(3), 279-286.

Robinson, S. (2002). Teaching high school students with learning and emotional disabilities in

inclusion science classrooms: A case study of four teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal

of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 13-26.

Rogers, J. (1993, May). The inclusion revolution. Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 11, 1-

6.Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367087.pdf

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198. doi:10.1111/j.1471-

3802.2009.01135.x

Ryndak, D. L., Ward, T., Alper, S., Montgomery, J. W., & Storch, J. F. (2010). Long-term

outcomes of services for two persons with significant disabilities with differing

educational experiences: A qualitative consideration of the impact of educational

experiences. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3),

323-338.

Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for

students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A literature review. Remedial &

Special Education, 19(2), 106-119.



Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K.A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-

416.

Semmel, M.I. (1986). Special education in the year 2000 and beyond: A proposed action agenda

for addressing selected ideas. In H. Prehm (Ed.), The future of special education.

Proceedings of the May 1986 CEC Symposium (pp. 285-354). Reston, VA: The Council

for Exceptional Children.

Simon, M., & Black, W. R. (2011). Differentiated accountability policy and school improvement

plans: A look at professional development and inclusive practices for exceptional

students. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 160-184.

Smith, A. (2006). Access, participation, and progress in the general education curriculum in the

least restrictive environment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research

& Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 331-337.

Smith, D., & Tyler, N. (2011). Effective inclusive education: Equipping education professionals

with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects, 41(3), 323-339. doi:10.1007/s11125-

011-9207-5

Smith, M. K., & Smith, K. (2000). "I believe in inclusion, but...": Regular education early

childhood teachers' perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 14(2), 161-80.


Smith, R. M. (1997). Varied meanings and practice: teachers' perspectives regarding high school

inclusion. Journal Of The Association For Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22(4), 235-

244.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2014). Levels of Use. Retrieved from

http://www.sedl.org/cbam/levels_of_use.html

Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). What we know and need to

know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive

disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 277-283.

Stidham-Smith, S. R. (2013). General education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion of students

with disabilities in the regular classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The

University of Texas at Austin.

Stoler, R. (1992). Perceptions of regular education teachers toward inclusion of all handicapped

students in their classrooms. Clearing House, 66(1), 6660-62.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd

ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education, Archived: IDEA ’97 Regulations. (2003). IDEA ’97: Summary of

major issues. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/regs.html

U.S. Department of Education, Archived: Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the

Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1995). Educational

http://www.sedl.org/cbam/levels_of_use.html

http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/regs.html


placements of students with disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP95AnlRpt/ch1c.html

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics. (2013). Percentage distribution of students 6 to

21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by

educational environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989 through fall

2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.60.asp

Villa, R., Thousand, J., Meyers, H. W., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator

perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices in middle and

secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 33-50.

Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal

in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership,

24(2), 51-60.

Werts, M., Wolery, M., & Snyder, E. D. (1996). Supports and resources associated with

inclusive schooling: Perceptions of elementary school teachers about need and

availability. Journal of Special Education, 30, 187-203.

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP95AnlRpt/ch1c.html

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.60.asp


Appendix A

Inclusion Inventory (Becker et al., 2000):

I. Background Information

1 or less (1) 2-3 (2) 4-5 (3) 6-10 (4) >10 (5)

1. How many

years have

you been

working in

education?

Background Information

First year (1) 2-3 (2) 4-5 (3) 6-10 (4) >10 (5)

2. How many

years have

you been at

your current

campus?


None (1) First year (2) 2-3 (3) 4-5 (4) 6-10 (5)

3. How many

years have

you been

using

inclusive

educational

practices in

which you

have been

formally

trained?



General education teacher (1) Special education teacher (2)

4. Please indicate your present

assignment.


None (1) Half time or less (2) More than half time

(3)

5. Approximately

what part of most

days do you work

with students

receiving special

education services?

This year, will you or are you working with students who have the following disabilities:

Yes (1) No (2) Don't Know (3) Doesn't Apply

(4)

6. Deaf/Hearing

Impairment

7. Learning

Disabilities

8. Emotional

Disturbance

9. Physical

Disability

10. Speech

11. Blind/Visual

Impairment

12. Developmental


Delay/Early

Childhood

13. Intellectual

Disabilities(Mental

Retardation)

14. Traumatic

Brain Injury

15. Autism

16. Multiple

Conditions

The following questions relate to your teaching arrangements and supports.

General

Education

Teacher (1)

Special

Education

Teacher (2)

Both Teachers

(3)

Related Services

and Teachers (4)

17. What

professional

teaching staff is

generally in the

classroom?

18. Who usually

plans the daily

instruction for

students in an

inclusive setting?

19. Who usually

implements the

daily instruction

of students in an

inclusive setting?


Teaching arrangements and supports

No Team (1) Special Education

Teacher Only (2)

General and Special

Education Teachers

and Other

Professionals (3)

20. Who is on your

inclusion team for

planning and

implementing

instruction?


Never (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) As Needed (4)

21. How often

does your team

meet?


Never (1) Occasionally (2) Frequently (3) Full Time (4)

22. What amount

of time are

paraprofessionals

in the classroom?

II. Planning/Staff Development for Inclusive Practices

Did the planning and staff development in the following areas meet your needs?

Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Excellent (4) Don't Know

(5)

23. Basic concept

of inclusion


24. Needs of

students with

disabilities

25.

Behavior/discipline

management in

inclusive setting

26. Grading

procedures for

students with and

without disabilities

27. Instructional

modifications

28. Roles and

responsibilities of

personnel involved

in inclusive

practices

29. Collaborating

with all parents

30. Planning and

working as an

inclusion team

31. Promotion

practices

32. Assessment

practices

33. IEP procedures

for inclusion

34. Strategies for

making time for

planning and

collaboration


35. Topics related

to legal issues

36. Staff

development

received prior to

implementing

inclusive practices

37. Staff

development

received while

implementing

inclusion

38. Staff

opportunities for

providing input

about staff

development

III. Support for Inclusive Practice

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Tend to Disagree

(2)

Tend to Agree

(3)

Strongly Agree

(4)

39. Campus

administrators

are responsive to

immediate,

everyday

concerns

regarding

inclusion.

40. There are

sufficient

opportunities for

those

implementing

inclusive


practices to

periodically meet

and discuss

issues, problems,

and successes.

41.

Administrators at

my campus are

committed to

inclusion.

42. Other

teachers in this

school support

inclusive

education.

43. We have the

supports we need

to implement

inclusive

education.

IV. Use of Inclusive Practices

Please indicate your level of use of inclusive strategies by responding to the following items with

“No”; “Planned”, or “Completed / Ongoing”.

No (1) Planned (2) Completed / Ongoing

(3)

44. I have informally

discussed inclusion

with others at my

school.

45. I have participated

on a team at my

school working on

implementing


inclusive strategies.

46. I have sought

additional information

on inclusion.

47. I have shared

information about

inclusion with others

at my school.

48. I have tried to

figure out ways to

address barriers in

implementation of


49. I have considered

how to collaborate

with others outside

my school in

implementing


50. I am looking for

new and innovative

ways to make my

school more inclusive.

51. I have considered

who in my school I

could approach to

create an inclusive

setting for a given

student.

52. I am working as a

member of a

collaborative team in

implementing an

inclusive setting for a

given student.


53. I have worked to

adapt instructional

strategies or curricula

in a regular classroom

to meet the needs of

an included student.

V. Implementation of Inclusive Practices

How often are (do) students receiving special education in the general education classroom...

Never (1) Sometimes

(2)

Most of the

Time (3)

All of the

Time (4)

Don't Know

(5)

54. the same

age as the

general

education

students?

55. provided

special

education

instructional

support in the

classroom?

56. given the

same

responsibilities

and duties as

general

education

students?

57. attending

their home

school?

58. receiving

the same

feedback as


other students?

59. sitting

apart from

other

classmates?

60. expected

to meet the

same

expectations

as other

students?

61. receiving

the curricular

and

instructional

modifications

that meet their

needs?

62. attend

special events

with other

students?

63. involved in

extra-

curricular

activities?

64. interacting

socially with

other students?

65. placed in

an inclusive

setting for

academic

classes?

66. placed in


an inclusive

setting during

elective

classes?

67. interacting

socially

outside of

school?

VI. Beliefs about Inclusive Practices

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Tend to Disagree

(2)

Tend to Agree

(3)

Strongly Agree

(4)

68. Doing

inclusion

requires

substantial extra

effort on the part

of participating

teachers.

69. Students

from general

education benefit

socially from

inclusive

practices.

70. Students

from general

education benefit

academically

from inclusive

practices.

71. Curriculum

and instruction in

inclusive settings

are generally


"watered down"

for all students.

72. Students with

disabilities in

inclusive settings

have behavior

problems that

take up a

disproportionate

amount of staff

time.

73. Most

students

receiving special

education

services should

be in inclusive

settings.

74. With

inclusion,

campuses still

need a range of

traditional

services that will

meet the unique

needs of some

students (i.e. life

skills, resource

room).

75. Students who

are not

successful in the

inclusive setting

should be

evaluated and

placed in an

environment that

will better meet


their needs.

76. Teaching in

an inclusive

setting helps

teachers develop

new skills that

are valuable in

any instructional

setting.

77. Working

with another

teacher in an

inclusive setting

requires all

school personnel

to give up some

individuality.

78. Working

with another

teacher in an

inclusive setting

requires a period

of adjustment.


VII. Effects of Inclusive Practices

In general, do you believe that students receiving special education services do “Worse”;

“Same”, or “Better” than if they were placed in a more traditional special education setting?

Answer the following four questions based on your direct experience with inclusion or beliefs

you have developed based on your readings and interactions with others.

In an inclusive setting:

Worse (1) Same (2) Better (3) Don't Know (4)

79. Academic

achievement is...

80. Self-esteem

is...

81. Attendance

is...

82. Social skills

and interpersonal

relations are...


Appendix B

Donna Tortu-Rueter< [email protected]>

Inclusion Inventory

5 messages

Donna Tortu-Rueter< [email protected]> Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM To: [email protected]

Dear Dr. Becker, I am a doctoral student at Holy Family University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I am also a special education teacher in a suburban Philadelphia school district. The degree I expect to earn at Holy Family University will be in educational leadership with principal certification. I am writing to you to request a copy of your Inclusion Inventory. I am thinking of possibly using this instrument as part of my dissertation research and have some additional questions if you have the time at some point. At this early stage, my dissertation topic is geared toward a quantitative or possibly mixed-methods study of teacher and administrator perceptions of inclusion of students with severe cognitive disabilities in the regular curriculum. My reason for researching this topic further is to explore the reason why teachers and administrators still struggle after all of these years with including this population of students in the regular curriculum. As a special educator, this observation still perplexes me. I have looked at your topics for further research in your 2000 journal article titled "The Inclusion Inventory: A Tool to Assess Perceptions of the Implementation of Inclusive Educational Practices". In your conclusion you discuss future research could examine responses from schools that vary in size and geographic location. You also mention exploring how the Inclusion Inventory is helpful to those charged with promoting inclusive practices. I am fortunate to be studying in an urban area like Philadelphia, which also has access to numerous suburban districts, so I am hopeful that my research can extend to a large sample of participants. I truly appreciate your letting me intrude on your time in this way and look forward to your reply. I can be reached via e-mail and if you need my mailing address, I will furnish it for you. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Donna Tortu-Rueter

Heather Becker< [email protected]> Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM To: Donna Tortu-Rueter <[email protected]> Cc: Sharon Ruth Stidham-Smith <[email protected]>

I am attaching a copy of the Inclusion Inventory for your review; you certainly have my permission to use it in your research. I have received numerous requests for the Inclusion Inventory, but haven't heard much about how it has been used. However, there is a doctoral student here at U.T. who is just completing a dissertation in which she used it. I am copying her on your message, because you two might want to be in touch with each other. Good luck with your research.

Inclusion Inventory.pdf-1.pdf 191K

mailto:[email protected]

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0708af9062&view=att&th=1382fe3f0f7e00a6&attid=0.0&disp=attd&safe=1&zw


Appendix C

Principal Permission Letter

Dear Central Bucks/Council Rock/Pennsbury School District Middle School Principal:

My name is Donna Tortu-Rueter and I am a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership and

Professional Studies program with a concentration in the Principalship at Holy Family University

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I am writing to ask permission to survey the teachers in your

school via an online survey sent to their school e-mail addresses. The survey is designed to

assess the status of inclusive educational practices at your school.

The survey should take no more than twenty-five minutes to complete. Administration of this

survey will enable me to examine the perceptions of teachers regarding educating students with

disabilities in the general education classroom.

Dr. Brian Berry, faculty member in the doctoral program in the School of Education at Holy

Family University, is supervising this study. You can reach him at at 215-504-2000 ext. 4042 or

[email protected]. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me, the

researcher, Donna Tortu-Rueter, at 215-431-3605 or [email protected]. If you have

any questions about the rights of research participants, you may call Dr. Stacy McDonald, IRB

Chair, at 267-242-6362 or [email protected].

There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this survey. Participant identity and

information will be protected, as all respondents will be anonymous. Collected data will be

stored in a locked cabinet at the researcher’s home office. Findings will be published in an

upcoming dissertation. If you have any questions regarding the researcher, the findings of the

research, or wish to have a copy of the findings, you may contact the researcher.

Participation in this study is voluntary; participants may withdraw at any time.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I will be contacting you within the next

week to obtain permission via e-mail.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Donna Tortu-Rueter, Doctoral Student


Appendix D

Recruitment Letter

Dear Central Bucks/Council Rock/Pennsbury School District Middle School Teacher:

My name is Donna Tortu-Rueter and I am a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership and

Professional Studies program with a concentration in the Principalship at Holy Family University

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to complete a survey

designed to assess the status of inclusive educational practices at your school.

The survey should take no more than twenty-five minutes to complete. Administration of this

survey will enable me to examine the perceptions of teachers regarding educating students with

disabilities in the general education classroom.

Dr. Brian Berry, faculty member and director of the doctoral program in the School of Education

at Holy Family University, is supervising this study. You can reach him at 215-504-2000 ext.

4042 or [email protected]. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me,

the researcher, Donna Tortu-Rueter, at 215-431-3605 or [email protected]. If you

have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may call Dr. Stacy

McDonald, IRB Chair, at 267-242-6362 or [email protected].

There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this survey. Your identity and information will

be protected, as all respondents will be anonymous. Collected data will be stored in a locked

cabinet at the researcher’s home office. Findings will be published in an upcoming dissertation.

If you have any questions regarding the researcher, the findings of the research, or wish to have a

copy of the findings, you may contact the researcher.

Participation in this study is voluntary; you may withdraw at any time.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in completing this survey by May 5, 2014.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Donna Tortu-Rueter, Doctoral Student

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix E

HOLY FAMILY UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

CONSENT FORM

General and Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion Study Participant Informed Consent

Introduction and Background Information You are invited to participate in a research study. The study is being conducted by Donna Tortu-Rueter, Doctoral Student, Holy Family University. The study is sponsored by Holy Family University, School of Education. The study will take place via an online survey. Approximately 634 subjects will be invited to participate. Your participation in this study will last for approximately 25 minutes.

Purpose The purpose of this research study is to examine general education and special education teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. The study will involve the participants taking a survey which takes about 25 minutes to complete.

Procedures In this study, you will be asked to complete The Inclusion Inventory (Becker, Roberts, & Dumas, 2000) which consists of seven sections. The first section asks 23 background questions, such as years in education and current assignment, types of disabilities with which the participant will be working in the upcoming school year, and teaching arrangements and supports. The remaining sections of the survey ask questions relating to planning and support for inclusive practices, use and implementation of inclusive practices, beliefs about inclusive practices, and effects of inclusive practices. The questionnaire has 83 questions and takes approximately 25 minutes to complete.

Potential Risks and Benefits There are no foreseeable risks associated with this study. The possible benefits of this study include identifying how teacher perceptions of inclusive practices can contribute to increased placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. The information collected may not benefit you directly. The information learned in this study may be helpful to others.

Confidentiality Although absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, confidentiality will be protected to the extent permitted by law. The study sponsor, the Institutional Review Board (IRB), or other appropriate agencies may inspect your research records. If the data collected in this research study are published, your identity will not be revealed.

Voluntary Participation Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent at any time without penalty or loss of benefit to which you are otherwise entitled.

Research Subject’s Rights and Contact Persons You acknowledge that all your present questions have been answered in language you can understand and all future questions will be treated in the same manner. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Donna Tortu-Rueter at 215-431-3605. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may call Dr. Stacy McDonald, IRB Chair, at 267-341-3549 or [email protected]. At that time you will have the opportunity to discuss in confidence any questions about your rights as a research participant. The IRB, composed of members of the University community as well as lay members of the community who are not connected with the University, has reviewed this study.

Consent You have discussed the above information and hereby consent to voluntarily participate in this study. You have been given a copy of the consent. By clicking on the link to this survey, you are consenting to participate in this study.

general and special education teachers' perceptions of inclusion

Documents