Prospectus
Attitudes and Knowledge of
Professionals and Parents about Inclusion
Rita Molino-Sell
Doctor of Education - Curriculum,
Instruction & Assessment
Walden University
A00292390
Prospectus: Attitudes and Knowledge
of Professionals and Parents about Inclusion
Description
of the Local Problem
The
term inclusion is used to describe services that place students with
disabilities in general education classrooms with support services. These students may receive instruction from a
general education teacher as well as a special education teacher. Historically, children with
disabilities of any kind were regarded to be inferior or invalid and not being
thought to be able to benefit from education (Ayala, 2010). Current practices and belief systems
regarding inclusion for students with disabilities may be influenced by our
country’s historical practices regarding individuals with disabilities.
Williamsville
Central School District (WCSD) has 10,200
K-12 students enrolled in the 2014-2015 school year among its 13
schools. The district boasts a 93%
graduation rate with 60% of those students earning a Regents diploma in
2014. Eighty percent of the students are
white, 3% Black or African American, 3% Hispanic or Latino, 10% Asian, 3 % Multiracial, and 2% are limited English
proficient,. Eleven percent of the
student body receives free or reduced lunches. Williamsville high schools offer 20
different Advanced Placement course opportunities, allowing motivated and
capable students to do college level work while still in high school. WCSD is consistently ranked as one of the top
school districts in Western New York by independent sources that evaluate
student performance data annually. In
fact WCSD has been ranked by Business First as the #1 school
district in WNY for 11 consecutive years (through 2013-14). The Budget for the district this school year
(2014-2015) is $173.9 million.
As the largest suburban school district in Western
New York, Williamsville Central encompasses 40 square miles including portions
of the towns of Amherst, Clarence and Cheektowaga.
The local problem for limited opportunities for
inclusion for students with different abilities is widespread across all of
WNY. There is 1048 square miles in Erie County.
Within these square miles there are ten schools exclusively for students
with different abilities. These schools
are private schools that house students from surrounding districts. The district the child lives in is financially
responsible to cover all academic and therapeutic costs for the student. At
Williamsville Central School District (WCSD), 10% of the students identified as
needing to receive special education have been placed in some of these separate
schools. Another 40% of students with
special needs are in the general education program for 40% or less of the
day. Looking at these statistics and the
fact that WCSD has boasting rights to being ranked number one and possessing a
healthy budget, it raises the question of what are the beliefs of the parents,
administration, and teachers within the district of what is priority. Are the students classified as having disabilities
believed to be welcomed in the general population? Do the parents and educators in WCSD believe
that increased inclusion opportunities offer social, emotional, and
intellectual benefits to all students?
Perhaps the underlying belief system within the district is that
separate is more beneficial. These are great
questions, but what about the other side of the story? Do parents of students
that are not included and are in special education settings feel their child is
receiving the best education for them. Is it one size fits all?
Eredics
(2014) found that there are increased social interactions and relationships
between students. A greater
understanding of diversity develops, in addition to improved communication
skills as students learn and respond to one another’s differences. Students begin to feel more integrated into
the school community and a greater sense of belonging develops. Self-confidence grows naturally from positive
support of peers and teachers. All
students should have equal access to the curriculum despite ability level. Accommodation and modifications can be made
to the students needs. Students become
more actively engaged in learning.
Rationale
of the Local Problem and Purpose of the Study
The
students attending the “special” schools have no opportunity to participate in
general education and be included with their non-special education peers. WCSD historically has one class in one of
their three high schools they call the PRIDE class. This class is housed in the Williamsville
South High School. There are 30 students
enrolled in the PRIDE class. This class
is considered to be the class of inclusion.
However, the students enrolled in this class receive all instruction for
all subject areas in this one classroom. This is considered a self-contained
classroom, the antitheis to inclusion. They do not change classes for each
period of the day as their non special education peers. Their classroom is down a hall with no other
classrooms in it. The room is off the
cafeteria. If it is in the student’s IEP
to participate in “specials” that student will be able to participate in art,
gym, or music with their non disabled peers.
It is reported that none of the students enrolled in this class
participate in the specials with their peers. Although WCSD is listed in the top five
districts in New York State in regards to standardized test scores for the past
ten years, they fail to supply acceptable and appropriate inclusion
opportunities for many of the students of different abilities.
According
to Wagner (2014) this type of “special” education is sometimes felt to be
inadequate and inferior, as well as separate and not necessarily equal to the
regular education programs in the other regular classrooms. Current federal law
(IDEA) mandates that all children receive a Free and Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) –and it is up to
the each child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to determine what
constitutes FAPE and LRE for that particular child. LRE refers
to the educational placement required by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in
2004. The idea of LRE is grounded in the
precept that a student who has a disability should be educated with peers
without disabilities in the greatest extent possible. LRE will look differently for different
students based on what is appropriate for each respectively. This study will be looking at the beliefs and
attitudes of educators and parents for the students that are identified as
having developmental disabilities. This
may or may not include delays or disabilities involving cognition, physical
needs, medical needs, learning differences, and communication needs. Students identified with severe mental health
issues such as childhood psychosis, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, or schizophrenia are not being considered for the purpose
of this study.
The
purpose of the study is to inquire and review the beliefs and attitudes of
teachers, administrators, and parents regarding inclusion opportunities for
students identified as requiring special education. What are the beliefs and attitudes of
educational professionals and parents regarding inclusion for students with
special needs? What placement decisions
have been made for students by parents?
Answering these questions may give us some insight into why so many
students are placed in separate buildings.
If the underlying belief system is that the students benefit more from
separation from their peers that could lead us to looking further into research
why Least Restrictive Environment does not work for all students. If the underlying belief system is that
students with disabilities take away from the learning of the non disabled
population, then we can look further into educating parents and educators of
how inclusion is beneficial to all students.
Review
of Literature Addressing the Problem
Framework
The theoretical framework of this study will be
based on the belief that people will have a positive attitude toward inclusion
if they have a full understanding of what inclusion looks like and how it will
be carried out in the school and classroom setting. Teachers may have a positive attitude about
inclusion, however, be apprehensive if they are unsure or unaware of supports
in place. General Education teachers may
portray a more negative attitude regarding inclusion if they feel ill prepared
and have little to no support. Parents
may display a more positive attitude towards inclusion if they feel that their
child will be safe in the environment.
Another conceptual framework for this
study will be based on the notion of belief and change. In order to make
positive change regarding inclusion practices, parents and educators need to
look within and assess why there may be resistance to increase inclusion
opportunities. Pajares (1992) explains
that there is resistance to change because there is an emotional component that
makes it challenging for people to change their beliefs behind a given
topic. . “People grow comfortable with
their beliefs, and these beliefs become their ‘self’ so that individuals come
to be identified and understood by the very nature of the beliefs and the
habits that they own” (Pajares, 1992, p. 317).
If there is resistance to change,
Pajares (1992) explains that it is most likely because of the habitual quality
of relying on known beliefs. This habitual quality is mainly due to the fact
that beliefs are highly entwined with other central beliefs. How deeply rooted the central beliefs control
the level of resistance toward change.
The more intense and deeply rooted the central belief the more difficult
it will be to change beliefs and practice toward inclusion.
Woods (1996) portrays a concept of
deconstruction of beliefs that will help understand the movement toward change.
Some beliefs, such as exceptional children should be separate and not included
in general education, need to be disproven so that another set of beliefs can
be formed (inclusion is possible and essential).
Review
of Literature
American
history shows that individuals with disabilities were viewed as feeble,
undesirable, and “less than” their counterparts. Eugenics is a term first used
in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton. According
to dictionary.com (2014) the definition of Eugenics is “the concept of
selective breeding in humans to achieve improved genetic qualities that will
strengthen and improve the gene pool.”
Ayala (2010) further explains that Americans embraced the eugenics
movement by passing laws to prevent people with disabilities from moving to the
U.S., marrying or having children. Eugenics laws led to the
institutionalization and forced sterilization of disabled adults and children.
On the heels of Eugenics a pamphlet was released in 1912: The Threat of the Feeble Minded (Winzer &
O’Connor, 1982). This created a sense of
panic and let to the allowance of substantial abuses of human rights for people
with disabilities (Ayala, 2010). It
wasn’t until the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) was founded to help
improve the education for individuals with disabilities. The CEC is still a force today advocating,
educating, and informing parents, teachers, administrators, and the public
about policies, practices, and professional standards for the education of
people with disabilities.
Students
with disabilities during the 60’s and 70’s were segregated and placed in
separate schools away from general education students. In 1975 The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act (PL 94-142) required free, appropriate public Education (FAPE) in
the least restrictive (LRE) setting. This Act was later renamed The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Although
the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA
2004) states the assurance that students with disabilities receive a free and
appropriate public education and the right to be educated with their
non-disabled peers (LRE), we still find students with disabilities segregated
and placed in separate schools with no opportunities for inclusion. There is a need for better understanding of
the beliefs and knowledge of teachers, administrators, and parents have about
inclusion for students with special needs.
If we have an increased understanding of the thought process behind
inclusion, perhaps we can better understand the gap of inclusion opportunities
throughout the country. Teachers are
perceived to be integral to the implementation of inclusive education (Haskell,
2000). Cant (1994) states that teachers
are the key to successful inclusion practices.
Other studies acknowledge that inclusive education can only be
successful if teachers and parents believe in the benefits of inclusion and are
the driving force in the process (Home, 1983; Malone, Gallagher, & Long,
2001).
McCray
and McHatten (2011) examined the perception of elementary and secondary
education majors and toward the inclusion of students with disabilities and if
their perceptions changed after taking a course on integrating exceptional
students. The authors found that although the teachers may have made positive
statements regarding inclusion of students with different abilities, many of
them expressed hesitance. The authors
coined the term “othering” as to describe the underlying belief that students
with disabilities (SWDs) are set apart, different, and most importantly having
deficits. Using terms such as “them”,
“students like them”, “can those kind of students be taught in a normal
classroom, and “how can I teach them”. McCray and McHatten (2011) poignantly
explain; “If teachers say they are willing to include SWDs, but they still view
them from a deficit perspective, how much better off will students be in their
classrooms?” The responses suggest a
belief system that they as teachers will comply with inclusion but really do
not accept the strengths or perhaps even the rights of students of different
abilities.
McHatten
and Parker (2013) did a longitudinal study that explored elementary and special
education pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. The authors felt
encouraged that the teachers expressed altruistic attitudes toward inclusion as
a whole. Teachers expressed general
belief that inclusion is a favorable educational practice. However, the participants also expressed
beliefs that inclusion denies students with different abilities the needed
individualized instruction and may even be detrimental to their self-concept. This
suggests that the same policies designed to address issues of equity and access
may result in negative unintended consequences for students with different
abilities.
Amado et al. (2013) summarized the
status of research about community participation and social inclusion. This
study looked at how we can move past community activities and having a true
sense of belonging for the individual with disabilities. Keeping vulnerable individuals safe seems to
be a theme across many of the research studies addressing beliefs and practices
of inclusion.
Hamaidi
et al. (2012) explored early childhood educators’ perceptions of inclusion
internationally. They found that the
general attitudes regarding social and emotional aspects of inclusion were
positive. There was a disparity between
their belief regarding inclusion and the actual practices of inclusion
influenced by economic and budgeting factors.
Socuoglu
et al. (2013) investigated the knowledge and attitudes of preschool teachers
regarding inclusive practices and to determine the relationship between
knowledge and attitudes of the teachers about inclusion. The results showed
that attitudes towards inclusion were not positive or negative and there was no
evidence of a significant relationship between level of knowledge and attitudes
of the teachers. The authors further discussed the need for improved pre
service and in service training for teachers for inclusion practices to be
successful.
Ball
and Green (2014) examined the attitudes and perceptions of school leaders
relative to inclusion of students with disabilities. This study revealed that
school leaders were limited in their training and experience regarding special education
and practices related to inclusion. Not
only did the school leaders have limited training and experience, their
attitudes toward inclusion were negative.
The school leaders felt that the degree of the disability should
determine the level of inclusion or to the degree how a student is to be
included with general education peers, if at all. The authors emphasized the need for pre
service as well as ongoing training for school leaders in order to see a
positive change in inclusion practices.
Melelhoglu
(2013) examined the impact of a project developed to promote interaction
between teacher candidates and students with special needs. The project aimed to have teacher candidates
develop an increased awareness and positive attitude toward inclusion. . This study looked at the impact of a
project specifically designed to promote interaction of teacher candidates with
students with special needs and on the scope of special education. Results showed that prior to the project, the
candidates had negative thoughts towards students with different
abilities. According to the study, the
teacher candidates said their perspective towards students with special needs
changed in a positive way. According to
Melelhoglu (2012) “this change positively reflected to their behaviors, and
they realized the importance of special education and inclusion.”
Swain
et al. (2012) examined the change in pre-service teachers’ beliefs and
attitudes about inclusive practices following an introductory special education
course combined with a practicum.
Results imply that “a special education course coupled with field
experience can significantly influence pre service teachers’ beliefs and
attitudes about inclusion and inclusion practices” (Swain, et al., 2012)
Ross-Hill
(2009) looked at the need for a better understanding of teacher attitude
towards inclusion and how inclusive environment can be improved. Results of this study indicated that most
teachers support the practice of inclusion.
Teachers expressed that they feel more confident in their ability to
have students with special needs in their class as long as they have adequate
training and support to meet their needs.
Brandes
and Crowson (2009) looked at relationships between pre service teachers’
discomfort with disability and perceived negative attitudes toward student with
disabilities and opposition to inclusion.
They found that pre-service teachers with a higher level of discomfort
toward disabilities are more likely to oppose inclusion and to hold negative
attitudes toward students with disabilities.
Hsien,
Brown, and Bortoli (2009) investigated potential associations between teacher
attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion, their education levels, and teacher
training. They found that teachers with
higher educational qualifications in special education were more positive about
inclusion.
Baker-Ericzen
and Garnand-Mueggenborg (2009) examined a comprehensive inclusion training
program and its affect on child care providers’ attitudes and perceived
competence toward inclusion. They found
that all of the providers significantly changed their attitudes and perceived
competence toward inclusion after completion of the training program.
Rodriguez
et.al (2012) specifically looked at teachers’ attitudes toward teaching
students with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).
The study showed a positive view of teachers’ expectations regarding
student’s education in an inclusive setting.
They also found that the highest needs expressed by teachers were the
need for information and social support in order for them to remain positive.
Hwang
and Evans (2011) looked at 33 general education primary school teachers and
their attitudes towards inclusion and their willingness to accommodate the
needs of a student with a disability.
More than half of the teachers were unwilling to accommodate the
student’s needs and had negative attitudes toward inclusion. They also found if if the teachers had
positive attitudes toward inclusion, they were reluctant to teach them in their
general education classroom.
Significance
This
project is unique because it addresses inclusion practices and the beliefs and
attitudes of the decision makers of school placement for students with
different abilities. . The results of
this study will hopefully provide insights into the thoughts and beliefs of
teachers and parents regarding inclusion and to how we can better understand
inclusion practices within a district.
Education is a source of social change and by addressing the inequities
of opportunities of inclusion for students with disabilities can help us bring
about societal changes in how we view, think about, and treat individuals with
disabilities in society. Inclusion of
students with disabilities in the academic setting can assist with the
transition to inclusion within society.
Research
Questions
RQ1-Qualitative: What do educators (teachers and
administrators) and parents believe and know about inclusion of exceptional
students?
RQ2
–Qualitative: What placement decision
have parents made for their exceptional child? And why? This would be where you
answer my previous questions
Nature
of the Study
The
nature of this study will be qualitative. This study will be phenomenological
in nature. Creswell (1998) states, “a
phenomenological study describes the meaning of the lived experience for
several individuals about a concept or phenomenon” (p. 51). Keeping the focus on attitudes, beliefs, and
knowledge of inclusion for exceptional students will help get a better
understanding of the central beliefs of educators and parents.
Possible
Types and Sources of Information or Data
Semi-structured
interviews with teachers, administrators, and parents will be implemented
throughout the study. The interviews will allow participants to
express their beliefs and perceptions in their own words (Best & Kahn,
1993; Coll & Chapman, 2000). Semi-structured interviews will provide
flexibility to me as the researcher, and to the interviewee (Freebody, 2003;
Rose & Cole, 2002).
In
order to initiate the interview and get the conversation underway and progress
to a natural and more in depth discussion on their belief system regarding
inclusion, gateway questions will asked.
Example questions for professionals may be: How is inclusion implemented in your
school? Is inclusion the best academic
setting for children with different abilities?
Interviewing parents the questions will be designed to open up the
discussion with them on their child’s current academic setting. The gateway questions used will be: Tell me
about your child’s classroom setting.
Does your child participate with his/her peers at any time in the
general education setting? What prompted
this classroom setting for your child?
Asking these questions will assist in getting the conversation started
to attain insight into the parent’s attitudes toward inclusion for their child.
Questionnaires
may also be used to gather data for this study. One advantage of using questionnaires is
that I can reach more participants and gather data in less time.
References
Amado, A. N.,
Stancliffe, R. J., Mccarron, M., & Mccallion, P. (2013). Social Inclusion
and Community Participation of Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(5),
360-375.
Ayala, M.
(n.d.). Timeline Of Relevant Events In Special Education Myrnas Version. Timeline
Of Relevant Events In Special Education Myrnas Version. Retrieved February
13, 2014, from
http://www.slideshare.net/MyrnaAyala/timeline-of-relevant-events-in-special-education-myrnas-version
Azjen, I.
(1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes , 50, 179-211.
Azjen, I., &
Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-Behaviour relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Ball, K., &
Green, R. (2014). An Investigation of the Attitudes of School Leaders toward
the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in the General Education Setting. National
Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 27(1/2), 57-76.
Baker-Ericzen,
M.J., Mueggenborg, M. G. & Shea, M. M. (2009). Impact of Trainings on Child Care Providers’
Attitudes and Perceived Competence Toward Inclusion: What Factrs are Associated with Change?. Topics
in early childhood special education, 28(4), 196-208.
Best, J. W.,
& Kahn, J. V. (1993). Research in Education. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Brandes, J. A.,
& Crowson, H. M. (2009). Predicting
dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities: The Role of Conservative Ideology and
Discomfort with Disability. Social psychology of education, 12, 271-289.
Cant, H.
(1994). Inclusive Education. The Alberta Experience. Practising
administrator, 16(3), 38-41.
Coll, R. K.,
& Chapman, R. (2000). Qualitative or Quantitative? Choices of methodology for cooperative
education researchers. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(1),
25-35.
Creswell, J. W.
(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Freebody, P.
(2003). Qualitative research in education: interaction and practice.
London: SAGE Publications.
Hamaidi, D.,
Homidi, M., & Reyes, L. (2012). International Views of Inclusive Education: A Comparative Study of Early Childhood
Educators' Perceptions in Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and the United States
of America. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2),
94-101.
Haskell, D.
(2000). Building Bridges Between Science and Special Education. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 1-12.
Home, M. D.
(1983). Attitudes of Elementary
Classroom Teachers Toward Mainstreaming.
The Exceptional Child, 30, 93-97.
Hsien, M.,
Brown, P. M., & Bortoli, A. (2009). Teacher Qualifications and Attitudes
toward Inclusion. Australian Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 26-41
Hwang, Y., &
Evans, D. (2011). Attitudes towards
Inclusion: Gaps between Belief and
Practice. International Journal of
Special Education, 26(1)m 136-146.
Malone, D. M.,
Gallagher, P.A., & Long, S. R. (2001).
General Education Teachers’ Attitudes and Perceptions of Teamwork Supporting
children with Developmental Concerns. Early
Education and Development, 12(4), 577-592.
McCray, E. D.,
& McHatton, P. A. (2011). "Less Afraid to Have" Them" in My
Classroom": Under
standing
Pre-Service General Educators' Perceptions about Inclusion. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155.
McHatton, P.,
& Parker, A. (2013). Purposeful Preparation Longitudinally Exploring
INclusion Attitudes of General and Special Education Pre-Service Teachers. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children, 36(3), 186-203.
Melekoglu, M.
(2013). Examining the Impact of Interaction Project with Students with Special
Needs on Development of Positive Attitude and Awareness of General Education
Teachers towards Inclusion. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), -.
Pajares, M. F.
(1992). Teachers' Beliefs And Educational Research: Cleaning Up A Messy
Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307.
Rodriguez, I.R.,
Saladan, D., & Moren, F. J. (2012).
Support, Inclusion, and Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes toward the
Education of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Autism Research and Treatment, 2012(259468), 1-8.
Rose, R., &
Coles, C. (2002). Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion
of inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(2),
1-17.
Ross-Hill, R.
(2009). Teacher Attitude Towards
Inclusion Practices and Special Needs Students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198.
Socuoglu, B.,
Bakkaloglu, H., Karasu, F., Demir, T., & Akalin, S. (2013). Inclusive
Preschool Teachers: Their Attitudes and
Knowledge about Inclusion. International Journal of Early Childhood Special
Education, 5(2), 107-128.
Swain, K.,
Nordness, P., & Leader-Janssen, E. (2012). Changes in Preservice Teacher
Attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 56(2),
75-81.
Wagner, S.
(2014, January 1). Inclusion vs. Self-Contained Education for Children with ASD
Diagnoses. Retrieved February 9, 2015, from
http://www.carautismroadmap.org/inclusion-vs-self-contained-education-for-children-with-asd-diagnoses/
Woods, P.
(1996). Researching the art of teaching: ethnography for educational use.
London: Routledge.
eugenics.
(n.d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics
