15
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 teacherslevel 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 The original and revised regulations, originally enacted by Congress in 1975, have been dedicated to ensuring that children with disabilities have the opportunity to receive a free appropriate public education, just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?”

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

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 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?”

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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?

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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.

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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

    Jr. or Sr. High School (7 - 12) 114 100 3.12 53.0% Neutral 6

    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

    Jr. or Sr. High School (7 - 12) 369 277 2.96 49.0% Neutral 8

    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,

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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

    Superintendents 3.36 0.40

    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

    Superintendents 3.36 0.53

  • 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.

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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

  • NATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL

    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/