A Comparison of the Acceptance Levels for Full Inclusion ... Journal Volumes...original and revised regulations, originally enacted by Congress in 1975, have been dedicated to ensuring

NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1, 2017

1

A Comparison of the Acceptance Levels for Full Inclusion by

Various PK - 12 Education Practitioner Groups of

Northeast Arkansas

Annette R. Hux, EdD

Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

Arkansas State University-Jonesboro

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of acceptance for full inclusion held by

various practitioner groups within the (PK – 12) education community of Northeast Arkansas.

The emphasis of this study was regular education classroom teachers’ level of acceptance for full

inclusion compared with other subgroups of educational professionals. There were three major

areas of focus: 1) the ten practitioner groups, 2) acceptance of regular education classroom

teachers and 3) perceptions of regular education teachers.

“Inclusion” is a concept that had its beginnings in Public Law 94-142, also referred to as

the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA). The term “full-inclusion” (to be

formally defined later) usually refers to children with disabilities being educated for the entire

school day in settings with their non-disabled peers. The word "inclusion" was not included in

EHA nor is it mentioned in current special education law known as the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Both the original and revised versions of the law call for

students with disabilities to be provided with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in

their least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE means that, to the maximum extent appropriate,

school districts must educate students with disabilities in settings with their nondisabled

peers. Inclusion is basically a descriptive term, promulgated by educators to address LRE. The

original and revised regulations, originally enacted by Congress in 1975, have been dedicated to

ensuring that children with disabilities have the opportunity to receive a free appropriate public

education, just like other nondisabled peers. The law has been revised many times since its

inception with the last major changes in 2004. In each revision, the concept of “inclusion” has

gained more attention in order to develop and improve the delivery of educational and related

services for children with physical and mental disabilities by providing access to the regular

education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2007; Wright, P. W. D. & Wright, P. D,

2016). Thus, the question arises, what is the status of inclusion today and specifically what are

the opinions of educators, particularly classroom teachers, toward “inclusion” and specifically

the concept of “full inclusion?”


2___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Problem

Inclusion and especially full inclusion has been a widely debated and even misunderstood

topic. According to Villegas (2014),

Typically, when the term full inclusion was mentioned, there were usually one of two

reactions—the first possibility was utter horror (you mean you want students with

disabilities in general education classrooms all day every day?) and the second was

indifference or cynicism. (Inclusion? Yeah right.). (p. 1)

Many supporters of inclusion felt that all children should have been educated in regular

education classrooms regardless of the level of their handicapping condition, whether it be

moderate, severe, or even profound. Others believed that separate special education classes were

the best placement for children with exceptionalities; especially those needing help beyond the

skill level of the general education classroom teacher. Some felt that children with disabilities

should attend regular education classes only when it was determined suitable for that particular

student. Moreover, still, others felt that students with disabilities should have been fully placed

and included in general education classes all day, every day – full inclusion (McCarty, 2006).

Literature Review

A significant amount of research had been previously undertaken and reported regarding

inclusion. Since teachers, themselves, would have been the implementers of any inclusionary

practices that were to be adopted by schools, it was important to examine teachers’ perceptions,

beliefs, and attitudes regarding inclusion and in this context, full inclusion (Clampit, Holifield, &

Nichols, 2004). Because this particular study was concerned with full inclusion, it seemed

appropriate, at this point, to formally differentiate these two terms; inclusion and full inclusion.

According to Stout (2001), Director of Instruction and Professional Development for the

Wisconsin Education Association Council:

Inclusion was a term which expressed a commitment to educate all children (handicapped

or not), to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would

otherwise have attended without a handicapping condition. It involved bringing the

support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services), and Full

Inclusion meant that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, would

have been placed in a regular classroom/program full-time where all services must have

been taken to the child in that setting. (p. 2)

More explicitly, the key element that described and highlighted the major difference

between the two types of inclusion was the word “ALL.” All the students, all the time. Full

inclusion was like regular inclusion, just not selective based on type or degree of handicapping

condition nor arbitrary as to when services were to be delivered. Full inclusion required the

delivery of all educational services in the regular education classroom to ALL children,

regardless of handicapping condition, ALL the time.

As for any concerns expressed for the practice of full inclusion, a study by Machado

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________3

(1996), suggested that full inclusion had not benefited all students and that full inclusion should

have been only one of several alternatives employed to have met students' educational needs.

This same study’s argument was supported by a survey of approximately 400 teachers where

41% felt that inclusion was not working. A major concern cited in the literature as reason for any

negative teacher opinion of full inclusion was teachers' perceptions of their own preparedness to

educate students with special needs adequately, due to a lack of appropriate preparation

(Bufford, & Baylot-Casey, 2012; Fuchs, 2010; Heflin & Bullock, 1999; D’Alonzo, Giordano, &

Cross, 1996).

Historically, there had been a significant amount of support for (regular) inclusion. As an

example, a study by Belcher (1995) indicated that 78% of those attending the New Mexico

Council for Exceptional Children State Conference agreed that students with disabilities could be

educated in the regular education classroom. Those who fervently advocated for full inclusion

cited a variety of reasons supporting their position, and those who opposed full inclusion argued

their beliefs just as ardently (Grider, 1995).

Although there was a significant amount of support for regular inclusion, finding support

for full inclusion was not readily apparent. A Survey of 256 administrators and teachers from

rural Midwestern schools revealed that most respondents, particularly special education teachers,

strongly supported inclusion on a case-by-case basis as opposed to supporting full inclusion of

all students (Wigle, & Wilcox, 1997). There were a number of reasons given as to why the

concept of full inclusion had not been supported. Chief among these was the inadequate

pedagogical preparation of general education teachers to work with students with disabilities

(Hammond & Ingalls, 2003). In a study by Grider (1995), directed at the topic of full inclusion,

no one supported “true” full inclusion, where all students, regardless of disability, were served

100% of the time, exclusively in the general education classroom. However, in contrast, the

proponents of full inclusion believed that if students with disabilities were fully included in the

regular classroom, they would be more accepted by their peers, experience more balanced

friendships, and gain more academic knowledge (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, &

Goetz, 1994).Those who touted the concept of full inclusion believed inclusion not only

provided special education students with positive peer role models, but also helped these students

make gains in language development, appropriate behavior, as well as building self-esteem

(Staub, Schwartz, Galluci, & Peck 1994; National Association of School Psychologist, 2002;

Watnick & Sacks, 2006 ).

However, some groups like the Learning Disabilities Association of America (2012) did

not support full inclusion or any policies that mandated the same placement, instruction, or

treatment for ALL students with learning disabilities. Moreover, according to Douglas and Lynn

Fuchs (1998), there were several reasons full inclusion was not successful. They felt that full

inclusion was too presumptive and uncompromising and resulted in children with severe

disabilities, suffering from a lack of appropriate attention and thus deficient transference of

educational benefit.

In summary, full inclusion requires that all services be provided to all handicapped

students in their regular education classroom. Although there was significant support for regular

inclusion practices, the literature indicated otherwise for full-inclusion. The literature seemed to

indicate; full inclusion could be “good” for some students depending on the type and severity of

their disability, but not for all students all of the time. What was the position of Northeast

Arkansas educators on the acceptance of full inclusion?


4___________________________________________________________________________________________

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the levels of acceptance for the

concept of full inclusion held by various practitioner groups within the (PK – 12) education

community of Northeast Arkansas. The primary emphasis of this study was regular education

classroom teachers and their level of acceptance for full inclusion compared with other

subgroups of educational professionals from the sample. There were three major areas of focus:

First, to determine the level of acceptance for full inclusion of various subgroupings of

educational practitioners of the sample, based on their job descriptions; secondly, to compare the

acceptance levels for full inclusion of regular education classroom teachers with the other

subgroups of the sample; and third, to determine the perceptions held by others for regular

education classroom teachers’ level of acceptance of full inclusion and compare it with their own

self-perceptions.

Methodology

Research Design

A quantitative-descriptive survey research design was employed to determine the results

of the study. To obtain the necessary information to accomplish the purpose of this study, a

Likert-scaled survey, designed to measure “inclusion acceptance.” The survey was administered

to a sample of 1,247 Northeast Arkansas public school professionals during the spring of 2015.

“Inclusion Acceptance” was the term that was used to describe the beliefs, and attitudes

of survey respondents respective of their perception of the level of appropriateness for the full

inclusion of students with exceptionalities into the regular education classroom. To objectively

quantify and measure “Inclusion Acceptance,” an “Inclusion Acceptance Score” was determined

based on the result of a validated Likert-scaled survey, designed to measure these parameters.

Research Questions

Four research questions guided the design and collection of data for this research,

respective of the acceptance for full inclusion. They were:

(1) What was the overall acceptance level of the sample for full inclusion?

(2) What were the acceptance levels for full inclusion by the various subgroups of the

sample and how did they compare to one-another?

(3) Were there particular identified subgroups of the sample whose score distribution

differed significantly from other subgroups of the sample?

(4) How were regular education classroom teachers perceived on the issue of full

inclusion acceptance by the other members of the sample that did not include regular

education teachers?

The Sample

The sample consisted of 1,247, respondents from the public schools, ranging in size

below 500 and up to and above 2000 students in 21 counties in Northeast Arkansas.

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________5

Additionally, the sample included regular education classroom teachers, special education

classroom teachers, guidance counselors, special education administrators, building level

administrators, and district superintendents. The respondent sample was divided into ten major

subgroups, (see Table 2), based on job descriptions so comparisons could be made among the

subgroupings. Of the 1,247 respondents, there were 967 valid responses (77.5%) available for

consideration in the analysis.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument was a Likert-scaled survey consisting of 10 “Belief Statements”

addressing issues related to the full inclusion of students with exceptionalities in the general

education classroom. The survey used was modeled after a survey developed by Hessling-Hux

(2001) for a similar study of education practitioners in Southeast Missouri schools on the topic of

regular inclusion. The combined response for the ten belief statements resulted in an overall

“Inclusion Acceptance Score.” The survey was administered via Survey Monkey, during the

spring of 2015.

The issues addressed via the ten belief statements of the survey were:

1. the best way to meet the needs of students with exceptionalities, 2. general education teachers having the appropriate instructional skills to teach students

with exceptionalities,

3. sending special needs students to a "resource room,” 4. the effect students with exceptionalities could have on general education students, 5. the effect on special education students’ performance, 6. the rights of special students to receive their education in the general education

classroom,

7. the self-esteem of both students with exceptionalities and general education students, 8. the willingness of general education classroom teachers to implement full inclusion, 9. the minimum placement level of identified special needs students into the general

education classrooms, and

10. the level of collaboration staff members experienced in meeting the needs of exceptional students.

In addition to each respondent rating their own self-perception on each belief statement,

they were also asked to rate their perceptions of elementary and secondary teachers separately on

the same belief statements. The scores for the ten belief statements were averaged to provide an

overall survey score; a numerical value for each respondent’s belief in the processes related to

the inclusive classroom that resulted in an “Inclusion Acceptance Score.” Because this was a

forced-choice survey, the Neutral category was not included on the survey for the raters to

choose; they were required to make a choice, either positive or negative, on the issue described

in each belief statement. For purposes of interpretation and discussion, each of the levels for the

Likert scale was also assigned a particular description level, (Strong, Substantial, Uncertain,

Very Low, and Non-acceptance), as indicated in Table 1. The description levels were included to

provide a quality level rating for the strength of the response. The data were analyzed using

descriptive and inferential statistics. ANOVA and t-tests were applied to determine any

significant differences in responses per the research questions.


6___________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1

Response and Interpretation Levels for Likert Scale; 5-Point and Percent Scaling

Response Level

Scale

Value Description Levels

Score

Range

Range for

Percent Scale

Strongly Agree (SA) 5 Strong Acceptance 4.20 - 5.0 80.0% - 100%

Agree (A) 4

Substantial or Meaningful

Acceptance 3.40- 4.19 60.0% - 79.9%

*Neutral (N) 3

Uncertainty or Non-

Discernable Acceptance 2.60 - 3.39 40.0% - 59.9%

Disagree (D) 2 Very Low Acceptance 1.80 - 2.59 20.0% - 39.9%

Strongly Disagree (SD) 1 Non-acceptance 1.0 - 1.79 0% - 19.9%

* “Neutral” was not a choice for respondents. This was a forced-choice scale.

Scores were converted to percent by: % Score = 0.25 x (Likert-scaled score) - 0.25

Results and Findings

In this section, the results and findings of the research are presented based on the analysis

of the data respective of each of the four research questions. The results for each of the

subgroups of the study are presented in rank-order in Table 2. The findings are presented in both

narrative and tabular formats respective of each of the research questions.

Results

Table 2 provides the results of the survey response in terms of the average score for each

of the ten subgroups. The scores are presented in rank order from highest to lowest along with

percent values and Likert scale ratings (SA, A, N, D, SD). The mean score for the sample was

3.01/5.0. Special education administrators ranked the highest at 3.40/5.0 and PK - 6 elementary

counselors ranked the lowest at 2.83/5.0.

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________7

Table 2

Inclusion Acceptance Scores for Primary Sub-Groups Listed in Rank Order

Sub-Groups N n

Survey

Score

5-point

Scale

Survey

Score as

a

Percent

Likert

Scale

Rating Rank

Special Education

Administrators/Coordinators 21 20 3.40 60.0% Agree 1

Building Level Administrators

Jr. or Sr. High School (7 - 12) 43 33 *3.37 59.3% Neutral 2

School Superintendents 26 23 *3.36 59.0% Neutral 3

School Counselors

Jr. or Sr. High School (7 - 12) 35 27 3.27 56.8% Neutral 4

Building Level Administrators

Elementary (PK - 6) 51 40 *3.26 56.5% Neutral 5

Special Education Teachers


Special Education Teachers

Elementary (PK - 6) 113 98 3.09 52.3% Neutral 7

MEAN SCORE for Survey 1247 967 3.01 50.3% Neutral --

Regular Education Teachers


Regular Education Teachers

Elementary (PK - 6) 439 323 *2.86 46.5% Neutral 9

School Counselors - Elementary

(PK - 6) 36 26 2.83 45.8% Neutral 10

N= Number of total responses; n = number of valid responses

*Score was significantly different (p < .05) from the mean.

Findings

Research question 1: What was the sample’s overall average response for full

inclusion acceptance as determined by the survey score? The sample’s average response

score was 3.01 or 50.3%; a Neutral response within the distribution. This score indicated a “non-

discernable” level of acceptance level for full inclusion.

Research question 2: How did each of the ten primary subgroups of respondents

score on the survey and how did they compare to one-another? From Table 2, it may be seen

that all subgroups, except for special education administrators, scored at the Neutral level

exhibiting “uncertainty” on the issue of acceptance for full inclusion. However, as will be

determined later in the study, there were significant findings for full inclusion acceptance scores

relative to the relationships between and among subgroups and for the frequency of responses,


8___________________________________________________________________________________________

pro, and con. Special education administrators scored the survey highest among the subgroups, at

3.40 or 60.0%; an Agree level response, exhibiting a “substantial” level of acceptance for full

inclusion practices addressed by the survey. Elementary school (PK - 6) counselors scored the

survey the lowest among the subgroups at 2.83 or 45.8%. This score was a Neutral response,

exhibiting an “indiscernible” level of acceptance for full inclusion, neither pro nor con, but on

the negative side of “acceptance.” Seven of the major subgroups scored above the sample mean

and three scored below the sample mean. Two of the three subgroups scoring below the sample

mean included both elementary and secondary regular education classroom teachers. Single

sample t-tests revealed that superintendents and building level administrators (PK - 12) scored

significantly, (p < .05), above the mean and (PK-6) elementary regular education teachers scored

significantly below the mean (average).

Also, a one-way ANOVA was calculated comparing the full Inclusion Acceptance Scores

of the ten major respondent subgroups. A significant difference was found among the subgroups

(F(9,959) = 15.1354, p < .05). Tukey’s HSD was applied to determine the nature of the

differences between subgroups. Significant differences in the level of acceptance for full inclusion were determined among the subgroups. Follow-up post-tests were calculated to

determine the nature of the differences between subgroups. This analysis revealed 20

comparison’s that were significant for subgroup differences. The results may be seen in Table 3.

Table 3

Tukey HSD Post-hoc Test Results for ANOVA, Comparing Sub-Groups Having Significant

Differences on Inclusion Acceptance Scores

Subgroup Score Subgroup Score Difference

Regular Education

Teachers

(PK-6)

2.86

SPED Teachers (PK-6) 3.09 0.23

SPED Teachers (7-12) 3.12 0.26

SPED Administrators 3.40 0.54

Building Administrators (PK-6) 3.26 0.40

Building Administrators (7-12) 3.37 0.51

Counselors (7-12) 3.27 0.41

Superintendents 3.36 0.50

Regular Education

Teachers

(7-12)

2.96

SPED Teachers (7-12) 3.12 0.16

SPED Administrators 3.40 0.44

Building Administrators (PK-6) 3.26 0.30

Building. Administrators. (7-12) 3.37 0.41

Counselors (7-12) 3.27 0.31


SPED Teachers (PK-6) 3.09 Building. Administrators (7-12) 3.37 0.28

SPED Teachers (7-12) 3.12 Counselors (PK-6) 2.83 0.29

SPED Administrators 3.40 Counselors (PK-6) 2.83 0.57

Building. Administrators

(PK-6) 3.26

Counselors

(PK-6) 2.83 0.43

Building.

Administrators. (7-12) 3.37 Counselors (PK-6) 2.83 0.54

Counselors (PK-6) 2.83 Counselors (7-12) 3.27 0.44


ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________9

From Table 3, it can be seen that regular education classroom teachers (PK – 12) scored

significantly lower than many of the other subgroups. Regular education teachers (PK – 6)

scored significantly lower than seven other subgroups, and regular education teachers (7 – 12)

scored significantly lower than six other subgroups. In addition to other subgroups that had

significant differences from one-another, it was noted that the two counselor subgroups scored

significantly differently from one-another; grade (7 – 12) counselors’ inclusion acceptance score

of 3.27 (56.8%) was significantly higher than the (PK – 6) counselors’ who scored 2.83 (45.8%).

Research question 3: How did the distribution of scoring compare, between the

Likert designations among the various subgroupings of respondents? The frequency

distribution over the four categories of the Likert scale for each major subgroup can be seen in

Table 4. The distribution of scores was relatively similar among the subgroups across the Likert

categories, (SD, D, A. SA). The significance here was the ratio for positive to negative response

indicated a relatively consistent dichotomy of frequency responses between agreement and

disagreement for the acceptance of full inclusion. The division for the frequencies of response

for the entire sample was 56-44; a 56% frequency of positive responses and 44% frequency of

negative responses. Inferring that for every 100 respondents, 56 would choose a positive

response, (A or SA), and 44 would choose a negative response, (D or SD). For regular classroom

teachers the split was 55-45; 55% positive and 45% negative.


10___________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Survey Response Score Distributions for Sub-groups over the Likert Scale Category Ratings,

(SD, D, A, SA) and between Positive and Negative Response

n

Strongly

Disagree

(-)

Disagree

(-)

Agree

(+)

Strongly

Agree

(+)

Disagree

and

Strongly

Disagree

(-)

Agree

and

Strongly

Agree

(+) Diff.

All Sub-groups

Combined 967 8.4% 35.9% 44.7% 11.1% 44.3% 55.8% 11.5%

All Regular

Education

Classroom

Teachers 602 8.3% 36.6% 45.0% 10.1% 44.9% 55.1% 10.2%

(PK – 6)

Regular Ed.

Teachers 324 8.6% 36.5% 45.3% 9.6% 45.1% 54.9% 9.8%

(7 – 12) Regular

Ed. Teachers 278 8.0% 36.7% 44.6% 10.6% 44.7% 55.2% 10.5%

All SPED Teachers 198 10.2% 34.1% 41.0% 14.6% 44.3% 55.6% 11.3%

(PK – 6) SPED

Teachers 98 10.2% 34.0% 42.9% 12.9% 44.2% 55.8% 11.6%

(7 – 12) SPED

Teachers 100 10.2% 34.2% 39.2% 16.4% 44.4% 55.6% 11.2%

Building

Administrators 73 5.2% 33.0% 51.6% 10.1%

38.2% 61.7% 23.5%

(PK- 6) Bldg.

Administrators 40 6.5% 33.6% 49.0% 10.9% 40.1% 59.9% 19.8%

(7 – 12) Bldg.

Administrators 33 3.7% 32.3%

54.9% 9.1% 36.0% 64.0% 28.0%

SPED Directors 20 12.8% 29.1% 40.3% 17.9% 41.9% 58.2% 16.3%

School Counselors 53 5.5% 41.1% 43.2% 10.3% 46.6% 53.5% 6.9%

(PK– 6)

Counselors 26 6.9% 44.2% 39.2% 9.6% 51.1% 48.8% -2.3%

(7 – 12)

Counselors 27 4.1% 38.0% 47.0% 10.9% 42.1% 57.9% 15.8%

Superintendents 23 7.5% 34.5% 53.1% 4.9% 42.0% 58.0% 16.0%

*Highlighted categories had score distributions significantly different from the remainder of the

sample.

There were two subgroups, (highlighted in Table 4), for which their distributions were

significantly different from the other subgroups; (7 – 12) secondary building administrators and

(PK – 6) counselors. These two groups were the outliers whose distribution of frequency

between positive and negative responses were significantly different from the rest of the

subgroups of the sample. Grade (7 – 12) secondary building administrators had an extreme

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________11

difference of 28% between its frequency for positive and negative responses; the positive side,

(Agree and Strongly-Agree), at 64% and the negative side, (Disagree and Strongly-Disagree), at

36%. (PK – 6) elementary counselors were significantly different from the rest of the sample’s

subgroup distributions because the difference between the subgroup’s positive and negative

proportions was very small, only 2.3%.; almost an “even” split. Overall, the ratio was

approximately 55 to 45 for “acceptance.”

Research question 4: On the issue of full inclusion acceptance as demonstrated by

regular education teachers, how did their self-perceptions compare to the perceptions held

for them by others (remainder of the sample that did not include regular education

teachers)? As a part of the survey, there were two additional questions for each belief statement,

asking each respondent to rate their perception of both subgroups of regular education teachers,

(PK – 6 and 7 – 12), on each belief statement. In Table 5, the score values of acceptance for full

inclusion regular education teachers reported for them are compared with the perceptions’ scores

others of the sample held for them.

Table 5

Comparisons of Perceptions of Regular Education Teachers on Inclusion Acceptance

Regular Education Classroom Teachers

(PK-12)

X

All Other Professional Personnel N n

Inclusion

Acceptance

Score

5-point scale

Inclusion

Acceptance

Score

Percent

All Regular Ed. Teachers’ Self -

Perception (PK - 12) 808 602 2.91

47.8%

Sub-Group's Perception of All Regular

Ed. Teachers (PK – 12) 439 365 2.68 42.0%

Difference 0. 23 5.8%

Reg. Ed. Teachers' (PK - 6) Self -

Perception 439 324 2.86 46.5%

Sub-Group's Perception of Reg. Ed. (PK -

6) Teachers 439 365 2.74 43.5%

Difference 0.12 3.0%

Reg. Ed. Teachers' (7 - 12) Self -

Perception 369 278 2.96 49.0%

Sub-Group's Perception of Reg. Ed. (7 -

12) Teachers 439 365 2.62 40.5%

Difference 0.34 8.5%

Regular education teachers for grades (PK – 6) perceived themselves at a 3.0% higher

level of acceptance for full inclusion than the subgroup's perception of them. Regular education

teachers (7 - 12) perceived themselves at an 8.5% higher level than the subgroup's perception of

them as well. The significance of this result was that regular education teachers (PK – 12) held a

5.8% higher perception of themselves for the full inclusionary process than was perceived of


12___________________________________________________________________________________________

them by the subgroup composed of superintendents, counselors, building administrators, special

education directors, and special education teachers.

Conclusions

Regular education teachers were not as accepting of the concept of full inclusion as the

other subgroups of the sample. Regular education classroom teachers (PK -12) and elementary

counselors (PK – 6) were determined to have the lowest level of acceptance for full inclusion

among all subgroupings of the sample. The subgroups having a significantly higher level of

acceptance for full inclusion that regular education teachers were, SPED teachers (PK - 6), SPED

administrators, secondary counselors (7 – 12), building-level administrators (PK – 12), and

superintendents.

The conclusions discussed here were limited to the sample from whom the information

was obtained. It was the purpose of this study to determine and compare the levels of acceptance

for the concept of full inclusion held by various practitioner groups within the (PK – 12)

education community of Northeast Arkansas. The primary emphasis of this study was regular

education classroom teachers and their level of acceptance for full inclusion compared with other

subgroups of educational professionals from the sample. A summary of the conclusions follow:

(1) Overall, the sample’s full inclusion acceptance level was determined to be 3.01 (50.3%); a Neutral response level considered to be an “uncertain” level of acceptance

for full inclusion. Compared to results noted in the literature reviewed, this seemed to

be fairly consistent with results documented by the education community as a whole

(Ross-Hill, 2009; Hammond & Ingalls, 2003; Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988;

Heflin, & Bullock, 1999).

(2) Regular education classroom teachers ranked at the lowest level among the subgroups on full inclusion acceptance except for (PK – 6) counselors who ranked the very

lowest. Again, this result seemed to be in agreement with results reported in the

literature (Hessling-Hux, 2001). It was worth noting that elementary counselors,

elementary building administrators and elementary special education teachers, all

rated full inclusion lower than their counterparts at the secondary level.

(3) Although there was a differential in the frequency (56-44) of positive responses over negative responses for inclusion acceptance among the sample, there was not enough

of a difference to be considered statistically significant. Thus, the most profound

finding for the score distributions was that there was a notably high proportion of

respondents that scored the survey negatively, 45%. Based on the 56-44 split,

positive to negative, of the 967 valid responses to the survey, 540 scored inclusion

positively, but a significant number, 427, scored it negatively. Here we were

presented with a challenge to determine why such a large proportion, 44%, of the

respondents, disagreed with the concept of full inclusion. However, this result was

also in agreement with other studies on the acceptance of full inclusion (Machado,

1996; Wigle, & Wilcox, 1997, Hessling-Hux, 2001).

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________13

This result seemed to suggest that, for schools considering the implementation of full

inclusion, for it to be successful, considerable planning, effort, and staff development was

needed to change the “hearts and minds” (perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes) of approximately

half of their staff prior to its implementation. More research was needed as to why these sub-

groups had so many respondents with a negative attitude for full inclusion.

Although the score distribution result was fairly consistent among all subgroups, there

was an exception for, SPED directors, superintendents and building administrators, especially

secondary (7 -12) administrators. For secondary school administrators, 64% of that subgroup was

positive on full inclusion acceptance while only 36% were negative on the level of full inclusion

acceptance. Contrast that with regular education teachers of which were 55% were positive and

45% were negative on the level full inclusion acceptance. Administrator groups were

disproportionately in favor of full inclusion, more-so than any other subgroup. These subgroup

rankings, relative to one-another were consistent with a previous research as well (Hessling-Hux,

2001).

(4) Regular education teachers were perceived by other subgroups of the sample as

having a lower level of acceptance for inclusion than they perceived of themselves.

These perceptions were determined by personal observation and personal knowledge

others observed in regular education teachers. Self-perceptions were very likely

shaped by regular education teachers’ own confidence in their ability, level of

training, and preparedness to manage a full inclusion classroom. Teachers,

themselves, as well as parents, were concerned that they were unskilled at providing

the necessary support for full inclusion (Heflin, & Bullock, 1999).

If full inclusion was to be a successful endeavor, a great deal of attitude transformation

was needed. Individual responses to the survey indicated that staff development activities were

profoundly needed for this particular population, in the area of providing fully inclusionary

special education services. Analysis of educators’ concerns for the challenges posed by full

inclusion practices could assist in identifying issues for staff development, both preservice and

in-service training, and could be useful information for school districts considering the

implementation of full inclusion.

References

Belcher, R. (1995). Opinions of inclusive education: A survey of New Mexico teachers and

administrators. Las Vegas, NV: American Council on Rural Special Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED381321). Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED381321.pdf

Bufford, S., & Baylot-Casey, L. (2012). Attitudes of teachers regarding their preparedness to

teach students with special needs. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 16-32. (ISSN 2160-

9179). Retrieved from

http://www.deltastate.edu/PDFFiles/DJE/Shannon Buford Final for Publication.pdf

http://www.deltastate.edu/PDFFiles/DJE


14___________________________________________________________________________________________

Clampit, B., Holifield, M., & Nichols, J. (2004). Inclusion rates as impacted by the perceptions

of teachers’ attitudes, SES, and district enrollment. National Forum of Special Education

Journal, 14(3), 1-16. Retrieved from

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Clampit,%20Dr.%20

Brenda%20Inclusion%20Rates%20as%20Impacted%20by%20the%20Perceptions%20of

%20Teachers%20Attitudes,%20SES,%20and%20District%20Enrollment.pdf

D'Alonzo, B., Giordano, G., &, Cross, T. (1996). Improving teachers' attitudes through teacher

education toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into their classrooms. Teacher

Educator, 31(4), 304-312. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /08878739609555123

Fuchs, W. (2010). Examining teachers' perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE

Journal, 19(1), 30-35. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail

?vid=3&sid=10896d23-9753-4c16-8160-8d93a676f2f4%40sessionmgr120&hid=

108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=EJ948685&db=eric

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1998). Competing visions for educating students with disabilities -

Inclusion versus full inclusion. Journal of Childhood Education, 74(5), 309-316.

Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956

?journalCode=uced20

Grider, J. (1995). Full inclusion: A practitioner's perspective. Focus On Autistic Behavior, 10(4),

1-11. Available from Education Source. (Electronic Journal Accession Number:

9601115425). Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/

Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers' attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results from

elementary school teachers in three southwestern rural school districts. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 22(2), 24-30. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail

/detail?vid= 10&sid=d44ea241-09aa-40c6-a0a1-1546f2ee530f%40sessionmgr4006&hid=

4202&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=RN145191463&db=edsbl

Heflin, L., & Bullock, L. (1999). Inclusion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders: A

survey of teachers in general and special education. Preventing School Failure, 43(3),

103-111. doi:10.1080/10459889909603310

Hessling-Hux, A. (2001). Administrator, counselor, and teacher attitudes on the inclusion of

special education students into the regular classrooms in selected Southeast Missouri

schools (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University). (Dissertation No. 3014250). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/docview

/250887848/fulltextPDF/AFD1414257A141A4PQ/1?accountid=8363

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects

of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special

classes. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 19(3), 200-214.

Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid= 1&sid=149d9275-46d7

-4edd-887f-a2cdac2ed4fa%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4202&bdata= JnNpdGU9ZWRzL

WxpdmU%3d#AN=ejs33897251&db=edo

Kauffman, J., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the

regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 6-11. Retrieved from

http://ldx.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/content/21/1/6.full.pdf+html

http://dx.doi.org/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detailhttp://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/docviewhttp://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/docview/250887848/http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=%201&sid=149d9275-46d7%20%20-4edd-887f-a2cdac2ed4fa%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4202&bdatahttp://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=%201&sid=149d9275-46d7%20%20-4edd-887f-a2cdac2ed4fa%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4202&bdata

ANNETTE R. HUX

___________________________________________________________________________________________15

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2012). Full inclusion of all students with learning

disabilities in the regular education classroom. Retrieved from https://ldaamerica.org

/advocacy/lda-position-papers/full-inclusion-of-all-students-with-learning-disabilities-in

-the-regular-education-classroom/

Machado, R. (1996, Winter). The full inclusion movement. The Journal of Alternative

Education, 3(1), 110-24. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ23560).

Retrieved from Abstract http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ523560

McCarty, K. (2006, March 11). Full inclusion: The benefits and disadvantages of inclusive

schooling; An overview. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED496074).

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496074.pdf

National Association of School Psychologists. (2002). Inclusive programs for students with

disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_ipsd.html

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.

Journal of Research In Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer

?sid=34d55cfb-da00-4325-b65f-1780e69ef738@sessionmgr4008&vid=4&hid=4103

Staub, D., Schwartz, E., Galluci, C., & Peck, C. (1994). Four portraits of friendship at an

inclusive school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9(4),

314-325. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ499246

Stout, K. (2001). Special education inclusion. Retrieved from the Wisconsin Education

Association Council website: http://weac.org/articles/specialedinc/

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 25 year history of the IDEA (Contributors: G. Rhodes,

O. Fisher , & P. Adelstein). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/ speced/ leg

/idea/history.html

Villegas, T. (2014). What does full inclusion really mean? Think Inclusive. Retrieved from

http://www.thinkinclusive.us/what-does-full-inclusion-really-mean

Watnick, B., & Sacks, A. (2006). A snapshot of teacher perceptions on full inclusion in an

international urban community: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Journal of the

International Association of Special Education, 7(1), 67-74. Retrieved from

http://www.iase.org/?journal,7

Wigle, S., & Wilcox, D. (1997). Teacher and administrator attitudes toward full inclusion in rural

mid-America. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 16(1), 3-7. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ545092

Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (2016). Wrightslaw. In U. S. Department of Education Office

of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), "Inclusion: Answers to

frequently asked questions from the NEA." Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com

/info/lre.faqs.inclusion.htm
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496074.pdfhttp://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.astate.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewerhttp://weac.org/articles/specialedinc/https://www2.ed.gov/policy/

Documents

A Comparison of the Acceptance Levels for Full Inclusion ... Journal Volumes...original and revised regulations, originally enacted by Congress in 1975, have been dedicated to ensuring