|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19969999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00068
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 4, no. 19 (December 24, 1996).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c December 24, 1996
Inclusive education in the United States : beliefs and practices among middle school principals and teachers / C. Kenneth Tanner, Deborah Jan Vaughn Linscott, [and] Susan Allan Galis.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
1 of 18 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 4 Number 19December 24, 1996ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Education Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1996, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.Inclusive Education in the United States: Beliefs and Practices Among Middle School Principal s and Teachers C. Kenneth Tanner The University of Georgia Deborah Jan Vaughn Linscott Fulton County (GA) Schools Susan Allan Galis Commerce City (GA) Schools Abstract School reform issues addressing inclusive educatio n were investigated in this nationwide (United States) study. A total of 714 randomly selected middle school principals and teachers responded to concerns about inclusion, "degree of change needed in" and "importance of" collaborative strategies of teaching, perceived barriers to inclusion, and s upportive activities and concepts for inclusive edu cation. There was disagreement among teachers and principals regarding some aspects of inclusive educ ation and collaborative strategies. For example, pr incipals and special education teachers were more positive about inclusive education than regular edu cation teachers. Collaboration as an instructional strategy for "included" students was viewed as a high priority item. Responders who had taken two or m ore courses in school law rated the identified barri ers to inclusive education higher than those with less formal training in the subject.Introduction to the Problem The problem we addressed in this work was defined as a perceived lack of information about the issues su rrounding inclusion (inclusive education) among middle school principals and teach ers. We wanted to know the answer to the following ques tion: What are the perceptions of front-line middle school educators regarding inclus ion as a viable educational delivery system for stu dents with disabilities? Background The presentation of the April, 1983 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nat ion at Risk, and other similar reports awakened Americans. These reports inaugurated the cu rrent waves of educational reform in the United State s. Shapiro et al. (1993) delivered a comparable wake-up call to the field of special educ ation with their treatise "Separate and Unequal: How sp ecial education programs are cheating our children and costing taxpayers billions each year." Several issues were emphasized. For example, labels and categorizations varied from state to state. Schiller, Countinho, and Kaufman (1993) insisted th at educational reform and restructuring initiatives require special education to be united with regular education. A few of the demands placed o n general education were to provide inclusion for st udents with disabilities through the Regular Education Initiative (REI) and to provide a sophist icated work force for the 21st Century. Repositionin g of special education includes policies for the integration of students with disabilities (Wade and Moore, 1992). In contrast, segregated programming e mphasizes differences while promoting dependence and decreasing self-sufficiency (Byrnes, 1990). Poignant debate has materialized over the re autho rization of The Individuals with Disabilities Educati on Act (IDEA), the 1990 re authorization of the original P.L. 94-142. The current re authori zation for IDEA has experienced delays, extensions, and debate in and out of the field of special education. One area of impassioned or "thorny" discu ssion has been the requirements for a free appropri ate public education (FAPE) in IDEA and the preference for mainstreaming "embodied in federal s pecial education law" (Huefner, 1994, p. 27). If the law has been massively successful in assigni ng responsibility for students, it has been less su ccessful in removing barriers between general and special education. It did not anticipate that t he artifice of delivery systems in schools might dr ive the maintenance of separate services and keep students from that mainstream, or that the resource s to fund these services would be constrained by eco nomic forces (Walker, 1987). The National Council on Disability (1995) reported t o the United States President on the re authorizatio n of IDEA. The issue of least restrictive environment (LRE) was one of the ten basic themes ad dressed both historically and as a current theme in the re authorization of IDEA. The Council concluded that the re authorization must be pursued and that it should address the improved implementa tion of IDEA. "The Court has made it clear that IDEA is not one of the so-called "unfunded Federal m andates," but is a Federal grant program that is en tirely justified under Congress' power . More than that, the Court has acknowledged in the most un equivocal terms that IDEA provides Federal aide to t he States to help them carry out their own legal obligations to educate all children, includin g those with disabilities." (p. 4) The decision in Smith v. Robinson (1984) underscor ed this: "Congress made clear that the [IDEA] is not simply a funding statute. The responsibility for providing the required education remains on the States. . And the Act establish ed an enforceable substantive right to a free appropriate public education" (p. 1009-1010). While "inclusion" is not a term used in the law and regulations, it is currently the often used termin ology to indicate consideration of the least
2 of 18restrictive environment for students with disabiliti es. The statute defined the consideration of least restrictive environment as: . procedures to assure that, to the maximum ext ent appropriate, children with disabilities, includi ng children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regul ar educational environment occurs only when the natu re or severity of the supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. ([IDEA] $1412 [B]) Opponents of inclusion have emphasized the need to maintain a full continuum of services and argued th at those expounding "full" inclusion had overlooked this provision of the IDEA. Vergason a nd Anderegg (1992, 1993) argued that an inclusive c lassroom was not in the "least restrictive environment" interests of most students with disabil ities. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) identified The Associ ation for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) as the leader in the reform movement for incl usion, and warned that TASH did not speak for all gro ups in their desire for full inclusion, but that ". . their continued provocative rhetoric wil l polarize a field already agitated." (p. 305) Conceptual Basis for the Study Baker, Wang, and Walberg (1995) traced the beginni ngs of inclusion to a report by Heller, Holtzman, and Messick through the National Academy of Sciences in 1982. The panel of Heller et al. found the classification and placement of child ren in special education ineffective and discriminatory. A comparison of the effects of incl usive versus non inclusive educational practices fo r special education students has been made by Baker (1994), Carlberg and Kavale (1980), and Wang a nd Baker (1985). A meta-analysis demonstrated a "sm all-to-moderate beneficial effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outc omes of special needs children" (Baker et al., 1995 p. 34). Baker et al. asserted that the "concern i s not whether to provide inclusive education, but how t o implement inclusive education in ways that are bot h feasible and effective in ensuring school success for all children, especially those with spec ial needs." (p. 34) According to Yatvin (1995), side effects of the res ource pull-out program have enhanced the idea of in clusion. Many drawbacks of the resource pull-out program model have been underscored: speci al education resource rooms often served 12 to 15 d iverse students, students brought a variety of needs from several different grade levels, the spec ial education teacher gave very little active instr uction, and instruction occurring was skill related and not tied to classroom themes. The outcomes for non disabled students in classes with included disabled peers had been identified as a barrier to inclusion. Available research revealed no statistically significant effects on th e academic outcomes of the non disabled peers (Stau b & Peck, 1995). Instructional time was not lost by non disabled students when disabled students were inc luded in their classrooms. Additionally, non disabl ed peers did not pick up undesirable behaviors from their disabled peers. Parents and teachers of non disabled peers in an i nclusive setting reported no developmental harm to the children (Bailey & Winston, 1989; Giangreco et al.,1993; Green & Stoneman, 1989; and Peck et al., 1992). Helmstetter, Peck and Giangreco (1993) surveyed non disabled students who were in inclusive high school settings. The non disa bled peers reported that they had not missed out on any valuable experiences because of their inclusive experience. Five positive outcomes for non disabled peers were identified by Staub and Peck (1995): reduced fear o f human differences accompanied by increased comfort and awareness, growth in social cog nition, improvements in self-concept, development o f personal principles, and warm and caring friendships (p. 37-38). The literature from the rev iew of research on non-disabled peers pointed to inc lusion as a positive experience for both non disabled and disabled students, helping to build a basis for community and friendships. Yatvin identified a major factor that led to the ph ilosophy of inclusion: "All children learn best in regular classrooms when there are flexible organizational and instructional patterns in place and human and material supports for those with speci al needs." (p. 484) Sapon-Shevin (O'Neil, 1995) used the current "politically correct" rhetoric in explaining the basis of a philosophy for inclusion: "As far as a rationale, we should not have to defen d inclusion -we should make others defend exclusion. There's very little evidence that some children ne ed segregated settings in which to be educated. At another level, we know that the world is an inclusi ve community. . So we should begin with the assum ptions that all children are included and that we must meet their needs within an inclusive set ting." (p. 7) Van Dyke, Stallings and Colley (1995) identified fun damental arguments to support the philosophy of inc lusion. One major argument was that segregating the students classified them, created b ias, and made them different. They were set apart fr om the classroom community. Stainback and Stainback (1984) proposed a merger o f regular and special education into one unified sy stem. This assertion was based on two premises: the instructional needs of students did n ot warrant a dual system, and the operation of a dua l system was viewed as inefficient. Others in the field of special education (Hobbs, 1980; Meyen, 1978 ; Reynolds & Birch, 1982; Ysseldyke & Algozine, 1982 ) had set the stage for Stainback and Stainback to assert the merger of special and gener al education as the next natural step in the evolut ion of education for students with disabilities. Sapon-Shevin (1990), suggests that academic and fun ctional skills can be met in the regular classroom setting. Reynolds and Birch (1982) stated that "the whole history of education for exceptional stud ents can be told in terms of one steady trend that can be described as progressive inclusion" (p. 27). Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) compiled information from f our major efficacy studies and found that "for cert ain students, special education programs appear to promote greater academic achievement than do regular classrooms" (p. 526). Research concerni ng the beliefs and practices of middle school personnel regarding inclusion was scarce (Farley, 19 91; Rath, 1989; White, 1993). The available researc h was regional in nature, confined to a single state or a single school district.Context of the Study This steady trend toward inclusion invited investig ation of middle school educators. The front-line ed ucators were studied concerning their agreement with the assertions that students with disa bilities could benefit from instruction in the regu lar education classroom. The current climate underscored the need for answers to questions about inclusion from the professionals who were the provide rs of service. Their (key players) viewpoints needed to be identified and documented. We made the assumption that it is important to gat her information from people who have the responsibil ity to implement inclusion. We contend that their experience and insight is vital in shapi ng future educational trends for all students. Many advocates of school reform assumed that suppo rt existed for inclusion among those educators who wo uld be the primary change agents -the principals, general education teachers, and spe cial education teachers. Little data existed to sup port this, and the number of critics matched supporters in the literature. Teacher unions and ma ny general education professional organizations voi ced opposition to inclusion. Consequently, we viewed this study as a robust procedure to generate information about the beliefs and practices of midd le school personnel representing various schools and groups across America. McDonnell and Hardman (1989) examined the role of al l school personnel in the desegregation of students with disabilities. They designated regular education principals as key players in the quality of special education services and the degre e of successful integration efforts and concluded that the attitudes of the principals appear to be e ven more important than their actions. The literature on the role of the principal in eff ecting needed modifications to accommodate inclusio n offered some insights into the process of
3 of 18change. Riley (1993) underscored the role of the bu ilding level principal and teachers in any change p rocess and the need for input from them into proposed changes: "I've learned . that the bott om-up approach works when you involve the nuts-and-bo lts people. Who knows better than site school administrators and teachers the kind of changes tha t have the best chance of improving education?" (p. 5) Burrello (1991) stated that effective principals make no distinction between the expectati ons set for special and general education students, staff, and programs. Middle schools have traditionally been organized d ifferently than elementary schools with the delivery of services centered around team approaches. The impact of inclusion on these struct ures might be expected to produce a new and differen t set of challenges than those presented in the elementary schools. Given these circumstances, we co ncluded that investigations of middle school person nel and the resulting beliefs and practices in relation to inclusionary practices would be an addit ion to this sensitive body of knowledge. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the be liefs and practices of a national sample of middle school personnel (principals, general education teachers, and special education teachers) We designed a survey that provided an avenue to q uestion those who directly implement policies and procedures of school reform issues influencing the delivery of services to students with disabiliti es. Demographic and career information were contrasted with responses to ascertain if significan t differences among the variables existed. This inquiry paralleled the work of Galis and Tanne r who investigated elementary school principals, spe cial education administrators, and teachers in the schools of the state of Georgia. It was undertaken to broaden the application of Galis' survey instrument by studying a special database (Galis, 1994; Galis & Tanner, 1995). MacKinnon and B rown (1994) reported that secondary schools "in part because of the historical-structural characteristics of these organizations, embody diff erent and perhaps more complex problems [than eleme ntary schools] in meeting the demands of inclusive educational practices" (p. 126). Anderman and Maehr (1994) argued that student motivation di ffered in middle school from elementary school settings. Students generally receive instruc tion through a team delivery system at the middle s chool level while elementary schools traditionally deliver services through self-contained classrooms. Given the arguments found in the literature and re search, we defined the dependent variables as inclus ive education, collaborative strategies, perceived barriers to inclusion, and supportive act ivities and concepts for inclusive education. Indep endent variables were the current role of the respondent, number of years in current position, nu mber of years as a school administrator, number of years in education, and the number of courses taken in school law.VariablesInclusive EducationInstructional Strategies Several studies (Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, & Wa sik, 1993; Slavin et al.,1991; Slavin, Madden, Karwei t, Livermon, & Dolan, 1990) have pointed to individualized instruction, cooperative and peer mediated instruction, and teacher consulta tion models as programs that would support teachers in their attempts to fully integrate acade mically students with disabilities. Jones and Carlier (1995) reported that middle scho ol students with multiple disabilities were successfu lly included in a collaborative setting using cooperative learning activities. Original goal s for the students with disabilities were to increase the time spent in the general education classroom and to improve the quality of functional instructio n given while in the general education classroom. Pe er and teacher interactions increased for learners with disabilities. Special education teachers report ed having a better perception of appropriate gradelevel behavioral and academic expectations. Non disabled students shared their observations of the likenesses between themselves and the students with d isabilities. The non disabled students were sharing tasks and adapting jobs so the students with disabilities were participants rather than just obs ervers. Jenkins et al. (1994) studied an approach combinin g Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (C IRC), cross-age tutoring, supplementary instruction in synthetic phonics, and in-class instructional support from specialists. R egular, special education, and Chapter I students showed significantly improved scores in the experime ntal group, as measured by the Metropolitan Achieve ment Test, in reading vocabulary, total reading, and language, with marginally significant g ains in reading comprehension. In another study, students with learning disabiliti es served through resource programs one period dail y were compared to those served through consultative services combined with in-class instruc tion and consultative services to the teachers. Ana lysis of student achievement scores showed that students receiving a combination of consultative an d direct services exhibited small, but significantl y greater overall gains in achievement than did students receiving resource intervention one period daily (Schulte, Osborne, & McKinney, 1990). Principals, Regular Educators, and Special Educators A National Association of Elementary School Princip al's poll (Principals favor reconsideration, 1995) indicated that responding principals were not in support of "full inclusion." Twenty-seven per cent agreed with the premise that all children shoul d be assigned to regular classes despite disability, 72% disagreed and 1% had no opinion. Th e executive director of the association summarized: "Children learn an enormous amount from each other that they can't learn from teachers or p arents and the great majority of disabled youngster s benefit socially, psychologically and academically from joining their peers in regular cl assrooms. . But the concept of inclusion has be en pushed to such extremes that it's robbing non-handicapped children of their right to learn, wh ile depriving handicapped children of the specializ ed teaching they need." (p. 2) Burrello and Wright (1992) identified effective pr actices of principals who had participated in progra mming for the inclusion of students with disabilities. Two important practices noted were to p rovide opportunities for the faculty and staff to d iscuss integration in light of consensus values and belief statements; and create a special support gro up of faculty and staff for the purpose of brainsto rming and facilitating integration, mainstreaming, and inclusion efforts. Farley (1991) studied middle school personnel in Vi rginia and found attitudes toward the integration of students with disabilities similar to attitudes of personnel in other grade levels. Princ ipals had more favorable attitudes than teachers to ward the integration of students with disabilities. Factors found significant concerning the attitudes of personnel were prior experience working with person s with disabilities, educational background, and course work in special education. Baines, Baines, and Masterson (1994) documented th e frustration of teachers in a middle school who were meeting the needs of students with disabilities in the regular education classrooms wit hout the support needed for the student, the teache r, and the other classmates. All teachers except th e physical education teacher reported heightened stre ss due to mainstreaming and 20% of the respondents on a school-wide survey reported that they were reconsidering teaching as a career. Raison, Hanson, Hall, and Reynolds (1995) indicated that the problems that Baines et al. (1994) had enc ountered were not due to mainstreaming, but to "inadequate communication, mi sgovernance and poor allocation of resources." (p. 481) Schumm and Vaughn (1992) studied 775 teachers repre senting 39 schools in a metropolitan school distric t in the Southeast. Elementary teachers were more likely to make adaptations in pre planning, interactive planning, and post planning. Planning for mainstreamed students was frequently inhibited by class size, lack of teacher preparation, problems with emotionally handicapped students, and limited instructional time.
4 of 18Collaborative Strategies The collaborative team approach has emerged as a m odel of addressing the curricular needs of all chil dren, both disabled and nondisabled in the same classroom (Nevin, Thousand, Paolucci-Whitco mb & Villa, 1990; Villa & Thousand, 1992). In the Sup portive Teaching Model (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989), general education teacher s are responsible for the content of the material, while the special educator accepts responsibility for the adaptations. Material presentation, followup, lecture and other methods are cooperatively pla nned and presented. The Co-teaching or Team-teaching Model incorporates shared planning, i nstruction, and monitoring of performance and evalu ations. Regular and special education teachers are equals in the classroom. The Complemen tary Model uses the special educator to weave techni ques and strategies into the general education curriculum. Lipsky (1994) reported that a survey by The Nationa l Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) indicated there were several models of inclusive education based on differing te acher roles: Co-Teaching Model, Parallel Teaching ( the special education teacher works with a small group of special education students in an are a of the general education classroom), Co-Teaching Consultant Model (the special education teacher operates both a pull-out and a co-teaching arrangem ent), Team Model (the teaming of special and genera l education teachers who accept the responsibility for all students, including those wit h disabilities), and Methods and Resources Teacher Model (the special education teacher works with the general education teachers as a resource person ). The literature is rich with works on collaborative t eaching. For example, Thousand and Villa (1992) revi ewed needed aspects of collaborative teams and the dynamics they add to restructuring; W est and Cannon (1988) examined competencies needed for effective collaborative strategies for special and regular educators; Maroldo (1994) found that special and general education teachers needed to learn a common language, due to the isolation they have experienced; and Detmer, Thursto n, and Dyke (1993) authored a manual for collaborati on in schools serving students with disabilities through collaborative teaching.Perceived Barriers to Inclusive Schooling The National Council on Disability (1995) explored b arriers which could impede the implementation of ide ntified promising practices in special education. One major barrier to the practice of incl usion is the reactive instead of proactive response of schools to students' special needs. Too often students are simply excluded, instead of school per sonnel working to overcome challenging behaviors. An other barrier hinges on the fact that some schools still do not make the environmental modific ations that would increase access. A third and attit udinal barrier concerns general educators' lack of feeling responsible for educating students with disa bilities. Hasazi, Johnston, Liggett, and Schattman (1994) con ducted a multistate, qualitative study of the LRE p rovision of the IDEA, 1989 to 1992. Six facets seemed to influence the implementation of LR E: finance, organization, advocacy, implementors, k nowledge and values, and state/local context. Possible barriers to inclusion were student outcomes policy and bureaucracy concerns, staff developmen t and training, funding issues, and the stand of some professional organizations. Supportive activit ies and concepts for inclusive education Many practices reported as helpful or supportive t o inclusionary factors were the inverse of the facto rs reported in the prior section addressing barriers. The National Council on Disability list of barriers (1995) could be stated in positive terms a s supports to inclusion. The National Center on Educational Restructuring an d Inclusion (NCERI, 1994) at City University of New York reported six classroom practices which had allowed inclusion to succeed: mul ti-level instruction, cooperative learning, activit y-based learning, mastery learning, technology, and peer support and tutoring programs (Lipsky, 199 4, p. 5). Other factors determined to be "necessary for inclusion to succeed" were: visionary leadership, collaboration, refocused use of assessm ent, supports for staff and students, funding, and effective parental involvement (p. 5-7). Schools in Newark, Delaware were reported to have inclu ded children in regular education classrooms for th e past twenty years (Johnston, Proctor, & Corey, 1995). Their Team Approach to Mas tery (TAM) project resulted in a school district of 20,000 students functioning without any resource classrooms. One hundred TAM classrooms serv e special education students in a general education environment. TAM's successes were attributed to seven factors: team teaching, learnin g centers, ego groups, direct instruction, positive approach, point cards, and teacher cadres. TAM's approach offers children "not a way out of general e ducation, but a way in." (p. 47) General and special education elementary teachers (N=158) who had been involved in inclusive education were surveyed concerning their perceptions of supportive practices for inclusion ( Wolery, Werts, Caldwell, Snyder, & Lisowski, 1995). On e major finding was that special and general educators reported similar levels of need for resou rces, but special educators reported greater availa bility of resources than general educators. A high percentage of respondents reported a need for train ing and a low percentage reported having training. R esearch Questions The research questions were based on the gaps in th e research and literature and our interests that wer e sparked by experience. Based on the assumption of "lack of information regarding inclus ive education in middle schools", the context of th e variables, and the conceptual background, four research questions were formed: Is there a statistic ally significant difference among the independent v ariables regarding the beliefs and practices of middle school personnel when considering inclusive education, 1. collaborative strategies, 2. factors perceived as barriers to inclusive educatio n, and 3. supportive activities and concepts for inclusive ed ucation? 4. MethodResearch Design Schools were selected randomly. A sample was drawn fr om all middle grade schools in the United States. Th e list of schools was purchased from the National Association of Secondary School Pr incipals (NASSP) and only public school personnel wer e surveyed. The sample was selected from the population of 12,941 public middle and jun ior high schools. The error range for the sample was 4% (d < .04). Based on the observations of Gallup (1976, p. 69), a "confidence level of 95% an d an error range of four percentage points are used by most survey agencies including the Gallup Poll." The sample size was calculated by using Nunner y's and Kimbrough's (1971) method of sampling. A sam ple of 574 schools was drawn from the population.Instrumentation With the written permission of Galis (1994), select ed questions from her questionnaire along with quest ionnaire items generated according to the conditions presented above were used to collect data for the study. The instrument focused on the b eliefs and practices of middle school personnel (See Table 3 for questionnaire items). Validity. The questionnaire was reviewed by a panel o f experts including selected special education admi nistrators to establish face and content validity. Suggestions for improvement were then inco rporated. The wording was changed on some items as a result of the review. A pilot was
5 of 18 completed and two items were challenged by the panel. These questions were deleted. Reliability (Phase I). The reliability of the inst rument was determined in two phases. Prior to dissemi nation, twenty (20) educators similar to the sample group were asked to volunteer to respond to t he instrument. Two weeks later they responded to the same instrument again. The items were then examined by using the repeated measure design. The t test for correlated sample me ans was used to test the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the two response probes for each question. The test-retest analysis had the decision criteria that Items exceeding the critical t value of 2.093 were to be removed fro m the instrument (Alpha = .05, df = 19). No items ex ceeded this value, so none were deleted from the instrument on that basis. Reliability (Phase II). Data from the larger sample were analyzed according to Cronbach's alpha coeffic ient test to determine the reliability of the subsets. This test determined the correlation c oefficient between the response to a single item and the response to other items in the subset. De Vaus (1986) designated an alpha coefficient of .70 as de sirable. Items were removed if the omission of that item improved the subset alpha to .70 or higher. Consequently, item number 42 (variable 57) was remov ed. Coefficients for the five categories of depende nt variables were: Inclusive education (.78), degree of change needed to include collaborative st rategies (.82), importance of factors supporting in tegration of students (.71), factors perceived as barriers to an inclusive environment (.77), and fac tors perceived as supportive of an inclusive enviro nment (.72). Constraints of the Study This study addressed personnel at the middle schoo l level. Results may not necessarily represent the beliefs and practices of personnel at the elementary and high school level. This instrument was sent by U.S. Mail and some recip ients may not have felt compelled to respond. Non re sponses may imply certain important issues that are not included in the study. Opinions may be used to infer or estimate the attitude of th e respondent. Overt actions may be unrelated to the actual attitude of the individual (Best,1970).Data Collection A packet of three sets of surveys was mailed to the principal of each school. The principal was request ed to fill out one questionnaire and distribute the other questionnaires to the first ge neral education teacher on the school roster and th e first special education teacher on the school ros ter. A cover letter explained the purpose of the study a nd gave instructions for distribution. Each questio nnaire was in a booklet form such that the respondents could staple it closed for mailing. Ques tionnaires were pre-stamped and addressed. Responden ts were offered a copy of the summary of the results of the study. A stamped postal card add ressed to the investigator was enclosed for each of the participants to mail separately. This separate medium helped to preserve the anonymity of the resp ondents and possibly serve as an incentive to respo nd to the survey instrument. A statement to be checked on the postcard stated: "Yes, I have complet ed and mailed the questionnaire and would like to re ceive a summary of the results of this study." The respondents then printed their name with a prefe rred mailing address to receive a summary of the st udy results. The data collection began in November, 1994, and concluded in February, 1995.Data Presentation and Analysis Each variable was analyzed by frequency of response and comparisons were also made among the variables. Both one-way and twoway analysis of variances (ANOVA) were generated (Alpha = 05 ). Descriptive Data Mailings to 574 schools included 1722 questionnair es. The response rate was 41.5% and consisted of 714 returns. Table 1 indicates the results of the responses to the independent variables. Thir ty-six and seven-tenths percent of the responders wa s in the principalship role (n = 262), 31.6 percent reported that they were regular education te achers (n =228), and 31.4 percent of the responders taught special education. The variable for years in current position was divided into 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, and 11-37 years groupings to app roximate 25% in each category. One hundred seven respondents reported they had taken more than two courses in school law. Table 2 presents general demographic information.Table 1 Descriptors for the Six Independent VariablesIndependent VariableDescriptorsPercentage*NCurrent position PrincipalGeneral Ed TeacherSpecial Ed teacher 36.7%31.9%31.4% 262228224 Number of yearsin current position 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-37 years 24.8%25.8%26,2%23.1% 173180182161 Number of years ineducation profession 1-12 years 13-19 years 20-24 years 25-42 years 25.8%24.0%24.8%25.4% 180167173177 Courses inschool law 1 course2 coursesMore than 2 courses 46.8%31.0% 22.2% 225149107 Years as a schooladministrator 1-6 years7-10 years11-16 years17+ years 24.3%26.7%23.5%25.5% 63696166
6 of 18 *Missing cases were excluded.Table 2 Demographic Data for Respondents MeanNSt. Dev.RangeYears in Current Position7.36966.301-37Total Years in Education18.396978.561-42Courses in School Law2.064811.901-20 Items and Subsets The individual item means and standard deviations for all respondents by cluster of questions per dep endent variable are shown in Table 3 in the Appendix. Item to variable position is indicated. The first question in Section II was variable 16, since the fi rst 15 variables were demographic. Item means ranged from 5.515 (highest) to 1.999 (lowest). Item 39 (importance of collaboration) had the high est mean for all items. Findings Both one-way and two-way ANOVAs were used to study the me an differences among the groups. The Scheffe' test was applied to determine where statistically significant differences existed among the subgroups (Alpha = .05). Research Question One Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding inclusive e ducation? Items 1 through 12 in Table 3 deal with the subset on inclusive education. There was a significant difference regarding inclus ive education by position (F = 19.63, p = .001). Th e Scheffe' analysis revealed that principals (mean = 4.54) and special education teachers (mean = 4.59) more strongly agreed with the statements abo ut inclusive education than did regular education teachers (mean = 4.16). Principals' and s pecial education teachers' mean responses were signi ficantly higher than those of regular education teachers (Table 4). Special education teachers' mea n responses were significantly different from regula r education teachers. No other significant differences were found among the variables when compa red to the "inclusive education category."Table 4 Inclusive Education by PositionSourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F RatioF Prob. BetweenGroups 224.1012.0519.63.001 WithinGroups 694426.10.61 Total696450.19 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Principals2584.54 .712 .043 Reg Ed Tchers 2214.16 .921.062 Spec Ed Tchers2184.59.710.048Total6974.44.804.031 Research Question Two Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding collaborati ve strategies? Questionnaire items 13-15 addressed the degree of change needed regarding col laborative strategies; and items 39, 40, 41, and 43 measured the perceived importance of integrating students with disabilities into general education settings (See Table 3). A statistically significant relationship existed a mong collaborative strategies by position for both components. For example, Table 5 shows that a statistically significant difference existed between regular education teachers and special education t eachers on "the need for change" (F = 4.11, p = .017). According to the post hoc test, regular educ ation teachers' mean response (4.79) were significan tly lower than special education teachers' mean response (5.05). There was no statistically signific ant difference between principals (4.97) and teacher s' perceptions. Table 6 displays a statistically significant diffe rence in the perceived importance of collaborative strategies when compared by position (F = 4.67, p = .010). Both principals and special educat ion teachers had significantly different perception s than regular education teachers as determined by the Scheffe' test. Regular education teachers perce ived integration of students to be less important t han the other two groups.Table 5 Degree of Change Needed in Education (Collaboration )SourcedfSum ofMeanF RatioF Prob.
7 of 18 SquaresSquares BetweenGroups 27.533.764.11.017 WithinGroups 700641.89.92 Total702649.42 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Principals2614.97 .887 .055 Reg Ed Tchers 2214.79 1.049.071 Spec Ed Tchers2215.05.943.063Total7034.94.962.036Table 6 Importance of CollaborationSourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F RatioF Prob. BetweenGroups 25.232.624.67.010 WithinGroups 697390.26.56 Total699395.49 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Principals2605.30 .669 .042 Reg Ed Tchers 2235.13 .905.061 Spec Ed Tchers2175.33.655.045Total7005.25.752.028 No significant differences were found when the number of years in the respondent's current role was compa red to the items concerning collaborative strategies. A statistical significanc e (F = 3.74, p = .011) was found for items pertainin g to perceived importance of collaborative strategi es when compared to total years of educational experien ce. The post hoc analysis revealed that those perso ns in group two (13 through 19 years in education) scored significantly higher than respond ents in group one (1 through 12 years). This parall els the Galis and Tanner (1995) findings that show younger teachers to be less open to new ideas. R esults are presented in Table 7. Years in administra tive positions for principals were analyzed and no significant results were identified. No signif icant relationship was identified when collaborative strategies were compared to the number of courses taken in school law.Table 7 Importance of CollaborationSourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F RatioF Prob. BetweenGroups 26.272.093.74.011 WithinGroups 679379.54.56 Total682385.81 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Group 1 (1-12 yrs) 1785.15 .776 .058 Group 2 (13-19 yrs 1635.38 .767.060 Group 3 (20-24 yrs) 1685.16.760.059 Group 4 (25-42 yrs) 1745.30.686.052 Total6835.25.752.029 Research Question Three
8 of 18 Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding factors per ceived as barriers to inclusive education? Items 16-28 pertained to barriers (See Table 3). According to the analysis of variance test, the re sponder's position was not a statistically significa nt factor to be considered as barriers to inclusion. Years of experience in current position, total years in education, the number of years of ad ministrative experience for principals, and total years of education experience for principals did no t yield significant results regarding barriers. Responses to the items about barriers and the numb er of courses taken in school law were analyzed and a statistically significant relationship was established (F = 3.45, p = .032). Data are presen ted in Table 8. The Scheffe' analysis revealed a si gnificant difference between Group 2 (those who took 2 law courses) and the other two groups. Group 2 showed the strongest agreement with the statements a bout barriers. A two-way ANOVA was completed for barriers by position b y the number of school law courses taken. A statisti cally significance interaction (F = 2.629, p = .034) was identified (Table 9). Ther e was a significant difference between the perception s of principals and teachers. Principals reported lower mean responses to perceived barriers. Two or more school law courses appeared to explain t he respondents' significant differences found regarding barriers in this two-way analysis. Fi gure 1 reveals the interaction between the number of school law courses and responder's position on perceived barriers.Table 8 Barriers to Inclusive Education by Courses taken in School LawSourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F RatioF Prob. BetweenGroups 23.971.993.45.032 WithinGroups 438251.74.57 Total440255.71 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Group 1 (one course) 2093.13 .725 .050 Group 2 1313.35 .793.069 Group 3 (> 2 courses) 1013.23.780.078 Total4413.13.762.036Table 9 Barriers by Position by School Law (2-Way)Sourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F Prob. of F Main Effects46.721.682.982.019 Position 22.741.372.437.089School law 25.042.524.478.0122-Way Interactions Position Schl Law 45.201.482.629.034 Explained 812.631.582.806.005 Residual432243.08.56 Total440255.71.58 Cell Means / (n) Courses in School LawPositionOneTwoTwo or MorePrincipal 3.18(82) 3.17(76) 3.14(71) Reg. Ed. Teacher 3.04(63) 3.62(28) 3.46(8) Se. Ed. Teacher 3.15(64) 3.58(27) 3.43(22) N= 441; Mean =3.22
9 of 18 Figure 1. Interaction between number of school law courses and position on perceived barriers. Table 10 presents the data about barriers ranked f rom the highest to lowest means. The top three perce ived barriers were identified as lack of adequate staff size, lack of shared special/educati on planning time, and lack of amount of planning ti me allocated. School climate, negotiations with teachers organizations, and school board policy rec eived the lowest rankings.Table 10 Perceived Barriers to InclusionRank/Item# VariableMean StandardDeviation Descriptor 1/19344.5031.512 Lack of adequate size staff2/24394.4191.617 Lack of shared planning3/23384.2911.568 Not enough plan time4/17323.7941.432 Confusion about roles5/21363.6051.546Lack of staff willingness6/18333.4201.647Federal rules/regulations7/16313.2801.464Concern: student outcomes8/28432.9861.640Weighted funding9/20352.8461.623Lack central office support10/27422.7611.607State rules and regs11/26412.4731.447School climate12/22372.0951.390Teacher unions13/25401.9991.325School board policy Research Question Four Is there a statistically significant difference am ong the independent variables regarding factors per ceived as helpful or supportive of inclusive education? The items addressed in the questionnaire as possible supports to inclusion were 30-37 (See T able 3). One statistically significant difference was found f or this question. The data analysis for principals revealed a significance in the years of administrative experience related to perceived supp orts for inclusion (F = 3.37, p = .019). Group One ( with one through six years of administrative experience) showed the strongest agreement with the p erceived supports to inclusion. Group one (principa ls with at least six years experience) had a significantly higher mean than group four (17 -32 y ears). These data are presented in Table 11. Table 12 presents variables perceived to be helpfu l and supportive of inclusion as ranked by the mean The top three selections were clustered closely together: funds for staff training, funds a nd/or release time for staff collaborative planning and a lead teacher trained in special education a nd instructional strategies. The choice with the lowest mean score was for an extra assistant principal who i s a generalist.Table 11 Perceived Supports to Inclusion for Principals by Years of Administrative ExperienceSourcedf Sum ofSquares MeanSquares F RatioF Prob. BetweenGroups 27.362.453.37.019 WithinGroups 246179.08.73
10 of 18 Total249186.44 GroupCountMean Standard Deviation Standard Error Group 1 (1-6 yrs) 594.47 .786 .102 Group 2 (7-10 yrs) 674.16 .801.098 Group 3 (11-16 yrs) 584.38.925.121 Group 4(17-32 yrs) 664.03.897.110 Total2504.25.865.055Table 12 Factors Perceived to be Helpful and Supportive of I nclusionRank/ItemVariableMean StandardDeviation Descriptor 1/35505.280.976Funds for staff training2/34495.2501.070 Funds/ release time forcollaborative training 3/36514.9941.174Lead teacher4/37524.2241.679School board support5/32474.1871.502De-emphasis test scores6/31463.9031.725Central office support7/33483.6211.792Flat funding formula8/30453.1541.802Extra assistant principal Discussion of the Findings There was a significant difference found for curren t position of the respondents for the inclusive edu cation and both collaborative strategies questions. A statistically significant difference wa s found for total years in education when compared t o the importance of collaborative strategies variable. The number of school law courses was statis tically significant for barriers to inclusion. Arrington's study (1992) supported the current fin ding that years of educational experience were not s ignificant in respondents' support for inclusive education. Principals and special educati on teachers were each significantly different from r egular education teachers concerning their perceptions of inclusive education. Regular educati on teachers were significantly less supportive of in clusive education than the other two groups. Arrington (1993) and Farley (1991) identified princ ipals as having the most supportive role, while McFe rrin (1987) found special education teachers more supportive than regular education teachers in all areas of mainstreaming. When both variables representing collaborative str ategies were analyzed in this study, significant dif ferences were found between perceptions of the regular education and the special education tea chers. Special education teachers more strongly agr eed with the "need for" and "importance of" collaborative strategies than the regular education teachers. Respondents with 13 through 19 years experience mos t strongly agreed on importance of collaboration, c onsultation, and mutual planning time (the collaborative strategy subset). These responde nts were at mid career. We expected more recent coll ege graduates to most strongly agree since many have taken collaborative course work and many states now require a special education course for certific ation. The analysis of position by school law courses yiel ded a statistically significant finding in the subs et of perceived inclusion barriers. Principals perceived the conditions for inclusion as less proh ibitive than the other two groups. Those responders with two or more courses in school law may have had more knowledge pertaining to barriers to inclusi on. We expected this finding. Number of years principals held administrative posi tions was statistically significant in the subset of factors supporting the integration of students with disabilities. Principals with the least years of experience (1-6 years) more strongly agre ed with the supports for inclusion than did the other groups. This could have been a result of thei r more recent training and knowledge of school refor m issues. McCaneny's (1992) findings were parallel, showing that more experienced principals we re less inclined to mainstream students with disabil ities. Educators who had worked in the education field for 13-19 years more strongly agreed with the importance of collaborative strategies subset. Perhaps educators gain the confidence and insight t o work with one another as they gain experience. Coll aborative strategies means were higher than the means of the other subsets. Regular education t eachers were the least in agreement with the collabor ative strategies statements. Responses of regular education teachers may reflect the burden of trying to meet the needs of all students, particularly in light of the changing American classrooms. Principals may have a better over-all picture of sc hools; and special education teachers may have a cl earer view of the abilities of students with disabilities. The importance of collaboration as a strategy for integration of students with disabiliti es was the highest ranked item in the survey. Data from special education teachers yielded the hi ghest means for inclusive education. Special educat ion teachers may have had more exposure to the debate about inclusive education through the ir professional literature than the other two groups Regular education teacher responses were the lowest in this category and were not as supportive of inclusive education as the other two groups. Princi pals and special education teachers were close in their response means. Rankings by position for t his section were identical to Galis' findings for el ementary school personnel in Georgia (1994). The lowest means were found in the area of perceived barriers to inclusion. Data pertaining to principal s reflected the lowest mean in this category. Regular education teachers had the highes t mean response indicating that they perceived the choices provided as being greater obstacles to inclusive education. The top three perceived barrie rs were identified as lack of adequate amount of sta ff, lack of shared special/education planning time, and lack of amount of planning time allocated These findings were similar to the barriers identi fied by Burello and Wright (1992) and needed competencies rated in a study by West and Cannon (1 988). School climate, negotiations with teachers org anizations, and school board policy had the lowest means, indicating that these factors presente d the least inhibitions to inclusion. Funding issue s were identified as major barriers by several researchers (Dempsey & Fuchs, 1993; McLaughlin & Owing s, 1992; National Council on Disability, 1995), but r espondents in this study did not
11 of 18perceive the weighted funding as a barrier nor flat funding as a support to inclusion. The mean responses for perceived supports to inclu sive education were clustered closely together. Spec ial education teachers had a slightly higher mean response than the other two groups. The three supports with the highest mean scores were: fun ds for staff training, funds and/or release time for staff collaborative planning, and a lead t eacher trained in special education and instruction al strategies. These items were perceived to be the supports most helpful to an inclusive environment. The NCERI (1994) identified similar needs: staff tra ining, collaborative support systems and time for such planning, along with visionary leadership. Wolery et al. (1995) identified the same priorities labeling them training, meetings and support personnel. All three items in the need for change (Section II I) indicated strong agreement. "Training in modific ations for students with disabilities who need adaptations in an instructional environment" wa s the highest ranked. The need for staff developmen t for collaborative teaching and more opportunities for collaboration were also strongly s upported. The response to these items appeared to i ndicate a willingness to develop skills to work with included students. Collaboration, and supports for staff and students were also determined to be ne cessary by the NCERI (Lipsky, 1994). Recommendations for Practice Respondents highly endorsed the importance of coll aborative strategies. Total years in education was s ignificant for respondents with 13-19 years experience. Perhaps those individuals could s erve as mentors for their peers with less experience and encourage confidence in their abilities. Training in collaborative strategies and student mo difications are strongly recommended. Responders suggested that "Integration into genera l education classes is one of several strategies whi ch should be considered for students with disabilities." This response, the highest ranked st atement in Section II, indicates that they might ha ve been weighing general education as one of the options for students with disabilities. Considering a continuum of services is also supported by case l aw and regulations. The statement receiving the second highest agreeme nt was: "It is important that behavioral expectation s be maintained consistently for all students in a class, regardless of disability." Heum ann (1994), Assistant Secretary for the Office of Sp ecial Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), stated that one of the relevant factors to be used to determine if a placement was appropriate under IDEA was "the degree of disruption of the education of other students resulting in the in ability to meet the unique needs of the student with a disability." (p. 3).Oberti v. Board of Education (1993) revealed that placement considerations could include an analysis of the possible negative effec ts of inclusion on other students in the class. Students with disabilities should be provided the t raining and tools to manage their behavior. Models such as the one presented by Donaldson and Christiansen (1990) could provide suggestions f or the development of a local school plan for assis tance, behavior management, and instructional options for students with disabilities. Special educ ation teachers should prepare students for reintegr ation in behavioral areas as well as academic areas. Programming for generalization to other environment s must be included in that training. Monitoring for appropriate behaviors would be part of the ongoing assessment of students once re integrated. Special education teachers could be used as a loca l school resource to provide training to the staff for appropriate behavioral strategies to be used. Students need concrete models of behavioral e xpectations for their successful behavioral integra tion into the regular classroom. Rock, Rosenberg, & Carran (1994) found that students with severe beha vioral problems achieved higher reintegration rates when their former placement was in a program in a regular education school and zero to o ne mile(s) from the reintegration site. The statement receiving the third strongest agreem ent was: "Students should be included in the general education environment to the greatest extent possible." This response appears to support inclusion even though practice does not currently r eflect this at a high level for students in middle school settings. Perhaps models of inclusion should again be reviewed as in the case of the statement wi th which there was the strongest agreement. The top three supports to inclusion were identified as funds for staff training, funds and/or release time for staff collaborative planning, and a lead teacher trained in special education and instr uctional strategies. The implementation of these st rategies may serve to increase the inclusion of students and the success of individual students whos e placement committee has identified the regular ed ucation classroom as the least restrictive environment. There are many proposals for staff dev elopment (Gallagher, 1994; Hamre-Nieptupski et al., 1 990; Lipsky, 1994; National Council on Disability, 1995; Rath, 1989; Servatius, Fellows, & Ke lly, 1989; Thousand & Villa, 1992; Villa, 1989). Trai ning at the pre-service level in collaborative strategies might serve to provide new teachers with the skills for collaboration and the c onfidence that it can be implemented. Conversely, the top three perceived barriers to in clusion were identified as lack of adequate amount o f staff, lack of shared special/education planning time, and lack of amount of planning time allocated. Collaborative planning time was addressed in perceived supports. Middle schools historically have more planning time than other lev els of education, so perhaps the issue may be more effective use of available planning time and time set aside specifically for collaborative teams. Par allel planning time can be established to address t hat concern. The issue of lack of staff was reported to be resolved when costs of transportation and more restrictive placements freed up funds for more per sonnel (National Council on Disability, 1995). Stainback and Stainback (1990) estimated that $20-$ 25 billion dollars were being spent annually on spec ial education programs and that one in eight teachers in the U.S. was employed in special educatio n. They asserted that these resources were adequate in terms of manpower and financial resources to provide support for facilitators to make inclusi on work. Implications for Further Research 1. Findings from the review of literature for this study underscored the need for further efficacy stu dies of instruction for students with disabilities in a variety of settings, including bo th regular and special education classrooms. This wa s supported by the report of the National Council on Disability (1995) to the President. Christenson, Ysseldyke, & Thurlow (1989) reviewed the literature on critical instructional factors for students with mild disabilities and identified 10 instruction al factors. Studies from sites incorporating those factors and promising practices identified by the National Council on Disability (1995) could possibly offer some answers to the efficacy questions. 2. The cost of educating a student with disabilitie s was approximated at 2.3 times that of a student wit hout disabilities (Chaikind, Danielson,& Brauen,1993). Large amounts of federal, state, and local resources were spent on special education prog rams annually. Further study on the cost of inclusionary programs are needed since cost is ofte n viewed as a barrier to such programs. Funding impa cted the top three barriers identified in this study. Additionally, funding for students was often generated to the local school district based on the service delivery model, with no funding being provided for students with disabilities in the regul ar classroom (National Council on Disability, 1995). Financial incentives should be explored regarding inclusive settings. 3. Respondents with 13 through 19 years experience in education had significantly higher means than re spondents in all other groups in the area of collaborative strategies. They more strongly sup ported collaborative strategies than individuals ne w to the profession. Galis (1994) identified educators with 17 to 21 years of experience as more positively supporting inclusive education. It would be beneficial for further study to explore the possible increased support for change by seasoned e ducators over persons in their first dozen years of the profession. 4. An analysis of possible middle school organizat ional patterns or structures that differentiate inc lusion percentages from elementary school and high school settings would be beneficial. The U.S Department of Education (1994) reported a dramatic decline in regular classroom settings for students with disabilities as they increased in age. The differentiation between elementary and middle s chools remains a concern and analysis might reveal promising practices in the elementary school which could be successfully imported into the middl e school setting. 5. Middle schools have historically integrated stu dents with disabilities into non-academic classes of ten known as exploratories. Most students
12 of 18are successful in these non-academic classes, with t he possible exception of students with emotional dis orders (Rath, 1989). Further study of teaching strategies and management systems in these explorat ory classes might be helpful to determine the suppo rts given to students with disabilities in those settings that may not be provided in traditional ac ademic classes. Some of the non-academic classes or exploratories did have academic components to them (such as foreign languages, computer, health, music theory, and art history). Concluding Statements Respondents demonstrated support for the integrati on of students with disabilities into the regular ed ucation environment through their agreement with statements supporting inclusion as an effective strategy and a part of the continuum of services to be considered for LRE. There was support for collaborative strategies, provisions fo r staff training, and shared planning time. Behavio ral expectations were identified as a concern when students with disabilities were included. The degree of disruption of the learning process for non disab led students has been viewed as an appropriate consideration in placement decisions in both the ca se law and by the Assistant Secretary for OSERS (Heuma nn, 1994). Cost considerations were not identified by the respondents as a priority among t he possible perceived barriers, even though they wer e often cited as a concern in the literature. One school district reported that excess costs of inclu sion were offset by savings in several areas, includ ing transportation and fewer placements in out-of-district and more restrictive placements (Nat ional Council on Disability, 1995). The literature review emphasized the principal as t he pivotal change agent in school reform. Principal s and special education teachers revealed statistically significant support for inclusion. Pr incipal respondents reported a high level of input when planning took place for students with disabilities served in the regular classroom. Possi ble factors as barriers to inclusion were rated lower by principals in comparison to both regular and special education teachers when two or more courses i n school law were taken. Rath (1989) identified three stages of integration of students with disabilities: inclusion, differentiation, and integ ration. The principal was viewed as the integrator si nce integration was a component of the larger organizational task of creating appropriate and eff ective integrative structures within the school. We conducted this study to help answer the following question: What are the perceptions of front-line m iddle school educators regarding inclusion as a viable educational delivery system f or students with disabilities? While we did not find a simple "yes" or "no" answer, indications are strong that there is a significant need to work with principals, teachers and special education teachers in middle schools if inclusion is to become fully accepted.ReferencesAnderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research 64(2), 287-309. Arrington, L. R. (1993). Integrating special educat ion students into the regular classroom: An investi gation and analysis of principal and teacher attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Uni versity of Arizona, Tucson. BaiLey, D. & Winton, P. (11989). Friendship and acqu aintance among families in a mainstreamed day care center. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded 24, 117-113. Baines, L., Baines, C., & Masterson, C. (1994). Mai nstreaming: One school's reality. Phi Delta Kappan 76(1), 39-64. Baker, E. T. (1994). Meta-analytic evidence for non -inclusive educational practices: Does educational r esearch support current practice for special-needs students? Unpublished doctoral dissert ation. Philadelphia: Temple University. Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership ,42(4), 33-35. Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Co operative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education 10(2), 17-22. Best, J. W. (1970). Research in education Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burrello, L. C. (Ed.). (1991). New role relationships between principals and special education administra tors. Principal letters: Practices for inclusive schools. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, National Academy/CASE. Burrello, L. C., & Wright, P. T. (Eds.). (1992). Pr incipal leadership. Principal letters: Practices fo r inclusive schools. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, National Academy/CASE.Byrnes, M. (1990). The regular education debate: A view from the field. Exceptional Children 56(4), 345-349. Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of spe cial versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education 14, 295-309. Chaikind, S., Danielson, L. C., & Brauen, M. L. (199 3). What do we know about the costs of special educat ion? A selected review. The Journal of Special Education 26(4), 344-370. Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L (1989). Critical instructional factors for studen ts with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education 10(5), 2131. Dempsey, S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). "Flat" versus "weight ed" reimbursement formulas: A longitudinal analysis of statewide special education funding practices. Exceptional Children 59(5), 433-443. de Vaus, D. A. (1986). Surveys in social research (Contemporary Social Research Series, Vol. II). Lon don: George Allen and Unwin Publishers Limited.Donaldson, R., & Christiansen, J. (1990). Consultati on and collaboration: A decision-making model. Teaching Exceptional Children 22(2), 2225. Farley, J. L. (1991). The current attitudes of prin cipals and teachers regarding mainstreaming in Virgi nia middle-level schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Will iamsburg, VA. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive school move ment and the radicalization of special education re form. Exceptional Children 60(4), 294-309.
13 of 18Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). What's "special" abou t special education? Phi Delta Kappan 76(7), 522-530. Galis, S. A. (1994). Inclusive education: Attitudes and beliefs of special and regular educators in th e state of Georgia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Galis, S. A., & Tanner, C. K. (1995). Inclusion in e lementary schools: A survey and policy analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, [http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n15.html] 3(15), 1-24. Gallagher, J. J. (1994). The pull of societal force s on special education. The Journal of Special Education 27(4), 521-530. Gallup, G. (1976). The sophisticated poll watcher's guide (Rev. Ed.). Princeton: Princeton Opinion Press. Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman S., & Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon": T ransformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children 59(4), 359-373. Green, A. & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothe rs and fathers of nonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention 13(4), 292304. Hasazi, S. B., Johnston, A. P., Liggett, A. M., & Sc hattman, R. A. (1994). A qualitative policy study o f the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Exceptional Children 60(6), 491-507. Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (1982). Placin g children in special education: A strategy for equ ity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press.Helmstetter, E., Peck, C., & Giangreco, M. F. (1993) Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. Unpublished manuscript, Washin gton State University. Heumann, J. E. (1994, September 16). Answers to frequ ently asked questions about the requirement of The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Available from U. S. Dept. of Education, OS ERS, 400 Maryland Ave., S. W., Washington, D.C. 2020 2. Hobbs, N. (1980). An ecologically oriented service-ba sed system for the classification of handicapped ch ildren. In E. Salzinger, J. Antrobus, & Glick (Eds.), The Ecosystem of the "risk" child (pp. 271-290). New York: Academic Press. Huefner, D. S. (1994). The mainstreaming cases: Tensi ons and trends for school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(1), 27-55. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C. $ 1400, et seq. Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., OUConnor, R. O., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner (1994). Accommodatio ns for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school r estructuring. Exceptional Children 60(4), 344-358. Johnston, D., Proctor, W., & Corey, S. (1995). Not a way out: A way in. Educational Leadership 42(4), 46-49. Jones, M. M., & Carlier, L. L. (1995). Creating inc lusionary opportunities for learners with multiple d isabilities: A team-teaching approach. Teaching Exceptional Children 27 (3), 23-27. Lipsky, D. K. (1994). National survey gives insight in to inclusive movement. Inclusive Education Programs 1 (3), 4-7. MacKinnon, J. D., & Brown, M. E. (1994). Inclusion in secondary schools: An analysis of school structure based on teacher' images of change. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(2), 126-152. Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All: Longitu dinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal 30(1), 123-148. Maroldo, R. A. (Ed.). (1994). Heterogeneity: Strateg ies for accepting differences on the general classr oom. Inclusive Education Programs 1(4), 8-10. McCaneny, F. X. (1992). The impact of school princip als' attitudes toward mainstreaming on student refer ral. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Indiana.McDonnell, A. P., & Hardman, M. L. (1989). The desegr egation of America's special schools: Strategies fo r change. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 14(1), 68-74. McFerrin, A. J. (1987). A comparison of the attitud es of regular and special education teacher educati on faculty toward mainstreaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens Meyen, E. (1978). An introductory perspective. In E. Meyen (Ed.), Exceptional children and youth (pp. 2-64). Denver: Love Publishing. Miller, L. (1990). The regular education initiative and school reform: Lessons from the mainstream. Remedial and Special Education 11(3), 17-22. Morse, W. C. (1994). Comments from a biased viewpoin t. The Journal of Special Education 27(4), 531-542. National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inc lusion (1994). National survey on inclusive educatio n. Bulletin: NCERI, 1, 1-4. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983 ). A nation at risk. Arlington, VA.: ERIC Document Re production Service. National Council on Disability (1995). Improving the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities E ducation Act: Making schools work for all of America's children. Washington, D.C.: Author.Nevin, A., Thousand, J., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Vil la, R. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Empowerin g public school personnel to provide heterogeneous schooling for all -or, who rang that bell? Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultati on 1(1), 41-67. Nunnery, M. Y., & Kimbrough, R. B. (1971). Powers, polls, and school elections Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
14 of 18Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Cleme nton School District, 789 F. Supp. 1322, 75 Ed.Law Re p. 258, (D.N.J. 1992); 801 F. Supp. 1393 (D.N.J. 1992); affirmed 995 F.2d 1204, 83 Ed.Law Rep. 1009 (3d Cir. 1993). O'Neil, J. (1995). Can inclusion work? A conversation with Jim Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership 42(4), 7-11. Osborne, A. G., & Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's leas t restrictive environment mandate: Legal implicatio ns. Exceptional Children 61(1), 6-14. Peck, C. A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of outcomes for typi cally developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey. Journal of Early Intervention 16, 53-63. Peck, C. A., Mabry, L., Curley, J., & Conn-Powers, M (May 1993). Implementing inclusion at the early c hildhood level: A follow-along study of 54 programs. Paper presented at the annual Washington State Infant and Early Childhood Conference, Seattl e. Principals favor reconsideration of inclusion polic y for disabled (1995). Report on Education of the Di sadvantaged, Sample Issue, p. 2. Raison, J., Hanson, L. A., Hall, C., & Reynolds, M. C (1995). Another school's reality. Phi Delta Kappan 76(6), 480-482. Rath, C. C. (1989). The integration of handicapped students in the middle school: The principal's view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.Reynolds, M., & Birch, J. (1982). Teaching exceptio nal children in all America's schools (2nd ed.). Re ston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Riley, R. W. (1993, September). A new direction for education. Principal 73, 5-8. Rock, E. E., Rosenberg, M. S., & Carran, D. T. (1994 ). Variables affecting the reintegration rate of stu dents with serious emotional disturbance. Exceptional Children 61(3), 254-268. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1990). Student support through co operative learning. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education. Bal timore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Schiller, E. P., Coutinho, M., & Kaufman, M. J. (199 3). Establishing a unity between regular and special education. In Integrating Students with Special Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Education As sociation. Schulte, A. L., Osborne, S. S., & McKinney, J. D. (199 0). Academic outcomes for students with learning dis abilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children 57(2), 162-172. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mai nstreamed special education students: Perceptions o f general education teachers. Exceptionality 3(2), 81-98.Servatius, J. D., Fellows, M., & Kelly, D. (1989). Scho ols are for all kids: The leadership challenge. Unpu blished training manual, San Francisco State University, CRI, San Francisco, CA.Shapiro, J. P., Loeb, P., Bowermaster, D., Wright, A. Hadden, S., & Toach, T. (1993, December 13). Separa te and unequal. U. S. News and World Report p. 46-60. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Shaw, A., Mainzer, K. L., & Haxby, B. ( 1991). Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as an alternative to special edu cation. Journal of Learning Disabilities 24(6), 373-378. Slavin, R.E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for All: First-ye ar outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal 27(2), 255-278. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1009 (1984).Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Inclusive sc hooling. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Independent integrated education Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children 51(2), 102111. Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcom es for non disabled students? Educational Leadership 52(4), 36-41. Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1992). Collaborativ e teams: A powerful tool in school restructuring. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: A n administrative guide to creating heterogeneous sch ools Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.U. S. Department of Education (1994). To assure the f ree appropriate education of all children with disab ilities: 16th Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departme nt of Education. Van Dyke, R., Stallings, M. A., & Colley, K. (1995). Ho w to build an inclusive school community: A success story. Phi Delta Kappan 76(6), 475-479.Vergason, G. A., & Anderegg, M. L. (1992). Preservin g the least restrictive environment. In W. Stainbac k & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Villa, R. A. (1989). Model public school inservice p rograms: do they exist? Teacher Education and Special Education 12, 173-176. Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (1992). Student coll aboration: an essential for curriculum delivery in the 21st Century. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: F acilitating learning for all students Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wade, B., & Moore, M. (1992). Patterns of educational integration: International perspectives on mainstreaming children with special educational
15 of 18needs. Wallingford, Oxfordshire UK: Triangle Books. Walker, L. J. (1987). Procedural rights in the wrong system: Special education is not enough. In A. Gar tner and T. Joe (Eds.). Images of the Disabled / Disabling Images New York: Praeger. Wang, M. C., & Baker, E. T. (1985-86). Mainstreamin g programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education 19, 503521. West, J. F. & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essential colla borative consultation competencies for regular and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21(1), 57-63. White, L. L. (1993). Cobb County Schools principals perception of inclusion. Unpublished education spe cialist degree project, West Georgia College, Carrollton, GA.Yatvin, J. (1995). Flawed assumptions. Phi Delta Kappan 76(6), 482-484. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Critical issues in special and remedial education Boston: Houghton Mifflin.AppendixTable 3 Individual Items by Mean for All Respondents by Cluster (Section II) ___________________________________________________ ______ Statement Item/ *N Mean St andard Variable De viation ___________________________________________________ _______ Inclusive Education: (6 point Likert scale: 1=Strongly Disagree to 6=Str ongly Agree) Integration isgenerally an effective strategyfor mild disabilities 1/16 704 4.869 1.105 I have input intoprogramming forstudents withdisabilities 2/17 703 4.599 1.455 Maximum class sizeshould be reducedwhen includingstudents with disabilities 3/18 703 5.131 1.151 Integration can bebeneficial to other students 4/19 704 4.700 1.164 Students should beserved in reg. ed.regardless ofdisability 5/20 703 2.996 1.570 Opportunities to plan on a regularbasis with colleagues 6/21 704 3.712 1.650 Behavioral expecta-tions should be thesame for all students 7/22 705 4.955 1.329 Reg. ed. teachers must devote most of their time withincluded students 8/23 703 3.073 1.445 Students should beincluded to the maxi-mum extent possible 9/24 704 4.984 1.207 Integration will limitprogress of studentswith disabilities 10/25 701 2.688 1.408 Students with disa-bilities are disruptiveto reg. ed. classes 11/26 702 2.984 1.400 Integration is one ofseveral strategiesto consider 12/27 702 5.057 1.119 Collaborative Strategies:
16 of 18Support for change: (6 point Likert scale: 1=Littl e to 6=Extensive) more time forcollaboration 13/28 702 4.802 1.143 Support for change:staff developmentabout collaboration 14/29 702 4.960 1.146 Support for change:training in modifi-cations for includedstudents 15/30 702 5.081 1.048 (6 point Likert scale: 1=not important to 6 =very important) Importance to inte-gration: collaboration 39/54 701 5.515 .827 Importance to inte-gration: co-teaching 40/55 702 4.950 1.236 Importance to inte-gration: consultation 41/56 700 5.114 1.106 +Importance to inte-gration: reduced class size 42/57 703 5.134 1.167 Importance to integration: mutualplanning time 43/58 703 5.448 .891 Factors perceived as barriers: (6 point Likert scale: 1=Least In hibiting to 6=Most Inhibiting) Concern for studentoutcomes 16/31 694 3.280 1.464 Role responsibilitygen./reg. ed. teacher 17/32 699 3.794 1.432 Federal rules/regs 18/33 693 3.420 1.647 Lack of staff 19/34 696 4.503 1.512 Lack of centraloffice support 20/35 693 2.846 1.623 Lack of staffwillingness 21/36 694 3.605 1.546 Teacher unions 22/37 673 2.095 1.390 Planning timeconstraints (time) 23/38 690 4.291 1.568 Planning time not shared 24/39 694 4.419 1.617 School board policies 25/40 682 1.999 1.325 School climate 26/41 693 2.473 1.447 State rules & regs 27/42 685 2.761 1.607 weighted funding 28/43 660 2.986 1.640 Factors indicatingperceived support: (6 point Likert scale: 1=Least Helpful to 6=Most Helpful) Asst. principalas a generalist 30/45 687 3.154 1.802 Central office 31/46 694 3.903 1.725 support De-emphasis on testscores (standardized) 32/47 695 4.187 1.502 Flat funding 33/48 676 3.621 1.792 Funding/release time for collaborative training 34/49 689 5.250 1.070 Funds for staff training 35/50 699 5.280 .976 Lead teacher trainedin spec. ed. & instruction 36/51 695 4.994 1.174 School board support 37/52 689 4.224 1.679
17 of 18 The number of respondents varies because of miss ing cases. + Item was dropped from the subset based on the re liability analysis.About the AuthorsC. Kenneth TannerProfessorDepartment of Educational LeadershipThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30603 Kenneth Tanner is a professor in the Department of Ed ucational Leadership at the University of Georgia, A thens, GA. He earned an Ed. D. from the Florida State University in educational administ ration and business management and holds membership in AERA, ISEP, and CEFPI. He has been recognized as a Danforth-Johnson Scholar by Stanford University and has published 4 books and 60 article s. His areas of research and teaching are educational policy analysis, school environmental d esin and planning. He may be reached at any of the f ollowing: firstname.lastname@example.org; or Department of Educational Leadership, UGA, Athens, GA 30602; or FAX (706) 542-5873, Phone (706) 542-4067. Deborah Jan Vaughn LinscottInstructional Support TeacherFulton County Schools2816 Briarwood BoulevardEast Point, GA 30344 Deborah Jan Vaughn Linscott is a special education te acher in Fulton County, Georgia Public Schools. She received the Ed. D. In Educational Leadership from the University of Georgia and the B. A. From the University of Arizona. Her areas of inte rest include the effects of inclusive education on students and methods of teaching speci al education. She may be reached at (770) 445-5031. Susan Allan GalisSpecial Education DirectorCommerce City SchoolsCommerce, GA 30529 Susan Allan Galis received her Ed. D. From the Univer sity of Georgia in Special Education. Currently she serves as Special Education Director for Commerce City Jefferson City, GA Public Schools In addition she is a part-time Assistant Professo r in the Department of Special Education at the University of Georgia. Dr. Galis received her BM degr ee in music therapy from Florida State University an d is a registered music therapist. She is particularly interested in special education policy issues. She may reached at (706) 335-5500 or (706) 367-2883Copyright 1996 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the LISTSER V known as EPAA at LISTSERV@asu.edu. (To subscribe, send an email letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu whose sole contents are SUB EPAA your-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in thr ee forms. Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LI STSERV@asu.edu and making the single line in the letter read GET KEMMI S V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entir e ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@asu.edu: INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, that is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDE X EPAA F=MAIL. The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa Education Policy Analysis Archives are "gophered" at olam.ed.asu.edu. To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to LI STSERV@asu.edu and include the single line GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about appropriate ness of topics or particular articles may be addres sed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Te mpe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)Editorial Board Greg Camillicamilli@rci.rutgers.edu John Covaleskiejcovales@nmu.edu Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis firstname.lastname@example.org Sherman Dorn email@example.com Mark E. Fetlermfetler@ctc.ca.gov Thomas F. Greentfgreen@mailbox.syr.edu Alison I. Griffithagriffith@edu.yorku.ca Arlen Gullickson firstname.lastname@example.org Ernest R. Houseernie.email@example.com
18 of 18Aimee Howleyess016@marshall.wvnet.edu Craig B. Howley firstname.lastname@example.org William Hunterhunter@acs.ucalgary.ca Richard M. Jaeger email@example.com Benjamin Levinlevin@ccu.umanitoba.ca Thomas Mauhs-Pughmauhsput@rocky.edu Dewayne Matthewsdm@wiche.edu Mary P. McKeowniadmpm@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Les McLeanlmclean@oise.on.ca Susan Bobbitt Nolensunolen@u.washington.edu Anne L. Pembertonapembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petriehgpetrie@acsu.buffalo.edu Richard C. Richardsonrichard.firstname.lastname@example.org Anthony G. Rud Jr.email@example.com Dennis Sayersdmsayers@ucdavis.edu Jay Scribnerjayscrib@tenet.edu Robert Stonehillrstonehi@inet.ed.gov Robert T. Stoutaorxs@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 4issue 19series Year mods:caption 19961996Month December12Day 2424mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1996-12-24