This article was downloaded by: On: 18 April 2011 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498

A Survey into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority
Elias Avramidis; Phil Bayliss; Robert Burden Online publication date: 02 July 2010

To cite this Article Avramidis, Elias , Bayliss, Phil and Burden, Robert(2000) 'A Survey into Mainstream Teachers'

Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority', Educational Psychology, 20: 2, 191 211 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/713663717 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663717

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Educational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000

A Survey into Mainstream Teachers Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

ELIAS AVRAMIDIS, PHIL BAYLISS & ROBERT BURDEN, Research Support Unit, University of Exeter, UK

ABSTRACT Attitudes of mainstream teachers towards the inclusion of children with special needs in the ordinary school were surveyed soon after the release of the Green Paper. The survey was carried out in one Local Education Authority in the south-west of England and the sample comprised of 81 primary and secondary teachers. The analysis revealed that teachers who have been implementing inclusive programmes, and therefore have active experience of inclusion, possess more positive attitudes. Moreover, the data showed the importance of professional development in the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion. In particular, teachers with university-based professional development appeared both to hold more positive attitudes and to be more con dent in meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN. The role that training at both pre-service and post-service levels has in the development of teachers support for inclusion is discussed.

The integration of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school has been a key topic in special education for the last 25 years. However, more recently, the term `inclusion , which embodies a whole range of assumptions about the purpose and meaning of schools (Kliewer, 1998), has come to supercede `integration in the vocabulary of special educators. Integration is dependent on external agency; children are offered places in the `least restrictive environment and integration becomes a matter of `placement decisions (Fish, 1985). Such placement decisions are seen as failing some children because integration may not meet speci c needs of children with signi cant disabilities. This is because integration as a process does not imply a restructuring of the educational environment to accommodate the needs of a small number of children with signi cant disabilities. (Thomas, 1997). By contrast, inclusion
ISSN 0144-3410 print; 1469-5820 online/00/020191-21 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

192

E. Avramidis et al.

implies such a restructuring of mainstream schooling that every school can accommodate every child irrespective of disability (accommodation rather than assimilation) and ensures that all learners belong to a community. Such an argument locates the discussion in a social-ethical discourse which is strongly focused on values. The concept of inclusion thereby becomes part of a broad human rights agenda that argues that all forms of segregation are morally wrong. Several recent United Nations policies af rm the right of all children to be valued equally, treated with respect and provided with equal opportunities within the mainstream system. These include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the UN Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994). In the UK, the Green Paper, Excellence for All Children, published in October 1997 (DfEE, 1997), vigorously supports the principle that children with special educational needs should, wherever possible, be educated in mainstream schools. The Paper states that: Where pupils do have SEN there are strong educational, social and moral grounds for their education in mainstream schools (p. 34). However, it does not state that all children currently attending special schools should be immediately transferred to ordinary schools. Moreover, the Green Paper supports a gradual change towards greater integration of children in ordinary schools. It is subject to the same caveats as the 1981 Education Act regarding resources and the assumption that the integration of a child with signi cant disabilities will not affect the education of other children. In this sense, it is not inclusive in a categorical sense, but it supports the spirit (if not the letter) of the Salamanca statement. Whether the inclusive education policies which evolve from the Paper will be adopted and successfully implemented at the school level remains to be seen. In order for inclusion, rather than integration, to be effective, it is generally agreed that the school personnel who will be most responsible for its success that is, mainstream teachers should be receptive to the principles and demands of inclusion. Professional attitudes may well act to facilitate or constrain the implementation of policies which may be radical or controversial, for the success of innovative and challenging programmes must surely depend upon the co-operation and commitment of those most directly involved. Unfortunately, the NAS/UWT immediate response to the Green Paper (De Gruchy, 22 October 1997), on the BBC s Today programme took the view that inclusion would be feasible for pupils with physical disabilities, but stated that the inclusion of pupils with emotional and behavioural dif culties could be a big problem , an absolute disaster and bring untold misery . To paraphrase Orwell s Animal Farm, some people are more disabled than others. Such differentiation of values cannot describe the process as one of inclusion; inclusion does not discriminate by category (Bayliss & Lingham, 1998) but where teachers may discriminate as individuals the bases of such discrimination (classed under the broad rubric of an `attitude ) are crucial. At this point, before we refer to the aims of our study, it is necessary to present a review of the literature of both integration and inclusion attitude studies. Studies of Teachers Attitudes Towards Integration Although the movement for `inclusive education is part of a broad human rights agenda, many educators have serious reservations about supporting the widespread placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools (Florian, 1998). Research undertaken in Australia about professional attitudes towards integration education has

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

193

provided a range of information in this area. Studies undertaken between 1985 and 1989 covered the attitudes of headteachers (Center et al., 1985), teachers (Center & Ward, 1987), psychologists (Center & Ward, 1989) and pre-school administrators (Bochner & Pieterse, 1989), and demonstrated that professional groups vary considerably in their perceptions of which types of children are most likely to be successfully integrated. (Summary data from these studies were presented by Ward et al., 1994). These studies suggested that attitudes towards integration were strongly in uenced by the nature of the disabilities and/or educational problems being presented and, to a lesser extent, by the professional background of the respondents. The most enthusiastic group were those responsible for pre-school provision; the most cautious group were the classroom teachers, with heads, resource teachers and psychologists in between. The researchers concluded that there was no evidence of a consensus in favour of a total inclusion or `zero reject approach to special educational provision. Bowman (1986), in her 14-nation UNESCO study, reported a wide difference in teacher opinions regarding integration. The countries surveyed were Egypt, Jordan, Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, Botswana, Senegal, Zambia, Australia, Thailand, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Norway and Portugal. The teachers were found to favour different types of children for integration into ordinary classes. Although teacher responses varied in terms of the development of their educational systems in general and of special education in particular, there was a general hierarchy of conditions that were more or less regarded as possible for integration. Severe mental handicap and multiple handicaps were all considered least favourably, while medical and physical conditions were seen as most easy to manage. Overall, about a quarter of teachers felt that children with sensory impairments could be taught in mainstream classrooms, while less than 10% held this view for children with severe intellectual impairment and multiple handicaps. Interestingly, Bowman noted that in countries which had a law requiring integration, teachers expressed more favourable views. Thomas (1985), in a comparative study in Devon (England) and Arizona (USA), found that the balance of opinion was against the integration of children with intellectual dif culties (the moderate learning dif culties group) in England and the educable mentally retarded (EMR) in the USA. Also, in this study attitudes were more positive towards integration when the contact special educator also held positive attitudes towards integration, when there was con dence in selecting appropriate teaching methods and when there was a traditional policy of locational integration. Other attitude studies have suggested that general educators have not developed an empathetic understanding of disabling conditions (Berryman, 1989; Horne & Ricciardo, 1988), nor do they appear to be ready to accept students with special needs (Barton, 1992; Hayes & Gunn, 1988). This can be explained by the fact that integration had often been effected in an ad hoc manner, without systematic modi cations to a school s organisation, due regard to teachers instructional expertise or any guarantee of continuing resource provision (see the example of Italy where integration was radical in the 1980s). Center and Ward s (1987) study with regular teachers indicated that their attitudes to integration re ected lack of con dence both in their own instructional skills and in the quality of support personnel available to them. They were positive about integrating only those children whose disabling characteristics were not likely to require extra instructional or management skills on the part of the teacher. The previously mentioned studies suggest that teachers, who are the prime agents of the implementation of the policy, are often not prepared to meet the needs of students with signi cant disabilities and are more reluctant than administrators and policy-

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

194

E. Avramidis et al.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

makers. However, a study by Hellier (1988) supported a wider positive view of integration by those in the front line mainstream teachers. Hellier investigated six primary schools in the Tayside region of Scotland where children with severe learning dif culties were being integrated. The results revealed that these teachers who had direct experience of integration held exceptionally positive attitudes towards it. Not only did they favour integration for the children with SEN, they also mentioned positive effects on their own development. Another UK study by Clough and Lindsay (1991) investigated the attitudes of teachers towards integration and to different kinds of support. Their research provided some evidence that attitudes had shifted in favour of integrating children with SEN over the past 10 years or so. They argue that this was partly the result of the experiences teachers had had: whether they had developed some competence and if they had not been `swamped , as some had feared at the time of publication of the Warnock report. This study also revealed that, although the respondents appeared more supportive towards integration, they varied in their views regarding the most dif cult need to meet. In particular, teachers identi ed children with learning dif culties and, to a greater extent, children with emotional and behavioural dif culties (EBD) as the most dif cult categories. Finally, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their meta-analysis of American attitude studies, which included 28 survey reports conducted from at least 1958 through 1995, reported that two-thirds of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in total) agreed with the general concept of integration. A smaller majority was willing to implement integration practices in their own classes, but responses again appeared to vary according to disabling conditions. Moreover, only one-third or less of teachers believed they had suf cient time, skills, training and resources necessary for integration. Studies of Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion More recently, studies of teachers attitudes towards inclusion have been reported. Early American studies on `full inclusion reported results which were not supportive of a full placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools. A study carried out by Coates (1989), for example, reported that general education teachers in Iowa did not have a negative view of pullout programmes, nor were they supportive of `full inclusion . Similar ndings were reported by Semmel et al. (1991), who, after having surveyed 381 elementary educators (both general and special), concluded that those educators were not dissatis ed with a special education system that operated pullout special educational programmes. Another study by Vaughn et al. (1996) examined mainstream and special teachers perceptions of inclusion through the use of focus group interviews. The majority of these teachers who were not currently participating in inclusive programmes had strong negative feelings about inclusion and felt that decision-makers were out of touch with classroom realities. The teachers identi ed several factors that would affect the success of inclusion, including class size, inadequate resources, the extent to which all students would bene t from inclusion and lack of adequate teacher preparation. However, in studies where teachers had active experience of inclusion, contradictory ndings were reported; a study by Villa et al. (1996) yielded results which favored the inclusion of children with SEN in the ordinary school. The researchers noted that teacher commitment often emerges at the end of the implementation cycle, after the teachers have gained mastery of the professional expertise needed to implement

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

195

inclusive programmes. Similar ndings were reported by LeRoy and Simpson (1996), who studied the impact of inclusion over a 3-year period in the state of Michigan. Their study showed that as teachers experience with children with SEN increased, their con dence to teach these children also increased. The evidence seems to indicate that teachers negative or neutral attitudes at the beginning of an innovation such as inclusive education may change over time as a function of experience and the expertise that develops through the process of implementation.

The Present Study Research has suggested that, although teachers attitudes can be affected by several interacting factors, one of the most important is the level and nature of support that they receive. Based on this assumption, Clough and Lindsay (1991), referring to the UK context, have argued that there might be variations in teachers attitudes within the UK, re ecting the levels and history of support in each Local Education Authority. Indeed, LEAs vary in the provision they make to schools either directly through staf ng and capitation, or through support services (such as special needs support teachers, educational psychologists) and this is likely to affect the teachers attitudes. Moreover, some authorities have promoted inclusive education (Bannister et al., 1998; Lindsay et al. ,1990), while in others the pace of change has been slow. Consequently, we decided to carry out our study in one LEA in the south-west of England where considerable progress has been made over the last few years. The survey undertaken by the rst author in this LEA into the attitudes of mainstream teachers towards the inclusion of children with SEN in the ordinary school sought answers to the following questions: What were the mainstream teachers attitudes to the general concept of inclusion as opposed to integration of children with SEN in the ordinary classroom, given the current support services provided to assist them? To what extent did signi cant differences in attitude exist among the various subgroups of teachers under investigation and what was the relationship of attitudes to independent variables such as gender, age, grade level taught, type of school, class size? To what extent did SEN training (i.e. diploma in SEN, master in SEN, or simply in-service training) lead to more positive attitudes? To what extent did previous active experience of inclusive education lead to more positive (or negative) attitudes towards inclusion?

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

The survey not only aimed at producing, in the form of numerical data, indications of general attitudes of the teacher population, but sought also to identify barriers to the successful implementation of an inclusive policy, with particular reference to the support systems that were currently available in the given LEA. It is our strong belief that accurate judgements of teachers attitudes to inclusion cannot be made solely by employing traditional quantitative methodology that has been used in most previous studies (Avramidis, 1998). The interrelationships of the complex concepts of `SEN , attitudes and `inclusion , the social desirability factor and cynicism towards questionnaires among some teachers are some of the reasons for rejecting an exclusively quantitative approach. Therefore, the survey was designed to represent a component of a `bricolage approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), which will be supplemented by

196

E. Avramidis et al.

qualitative studies of individual schools which did not contribute (or, more importantly, refused to contribute) to the quantitative study. The research is ongoing. Method For the purposes of our study, we decided to adopt the three component model of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This view is based on the idea that an attitude is a combination of three conceptually distinguishable reactions to a certain object (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Triandis et al., 1984). These reactions are speci ed as affective, cognitive and conative components. According to this model, attitudes are viewed as being complex and multidimensional and when we measure attitudes we measure, in fact, aspects or attributes of the attitudes in which we are interested. Many researchers in the eld of teachers attitudes towards integration have used Likert-type inventories in attempting to ascertain the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with the general concept of integration as related to a range of disabling conditions. Here, much of the previous research has thusfar been primarily represented by acceptance rejection issues (addressing only the cognitive component of attitude by measuring beliefs) without much effort being directed towards uncovering the factors that may underlie particular attitudes. If attitude research is related to responses to categorical questions, issues of face validity arise when we are dealing with fuzzy concepts such as `inclusion and `SEN . Moreover, the use of labels or categories of exceptionality raises the issue that the questionnaire respondents in a population may have multiple interpretations for the same label (Hannah & Pilner, 1983). For example, asking general questions related to categories of disability such as Down s syndrome would elicit responses which were related to experiences of children with Down s syndrome. Such experiences might be positive or negative and would be largely unpredictable across a population of teachers. Also, because the integration of children with Down s syndrome in mainstream classes is relatively recent, a `halo effect could arise in a survey which could mask individual differences. Furthermore, the population of teachers in an LEA is also heterogeneous and, even though the stated policy might be `inclusive , the extent to which a school (and thus its staff) would see itself as `inclusive would also be variable. A further important dimension is that of `phase , where there might be predicted differences between primary and secondary schools. Instrumentation The main research instrument, which has already been used in a previous study investigating students teachers attitudes (Avramidis et al., 2000) where it was shown to provide reliable scores, is a modest attempt to address the multidimensional nature of attitude and to identify sources of potential in uence. The instrument consisted of reported personal and situational variables and the following components: A Likert scale measuring beliefs relative to inclusion (cognitive component), consisting of 12 items taken from the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming (ORM) scale (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995; Larrivee, 1982) which were adopted for an English context (e.g. words like `handicapped and `mainstreaming were replaced by `students with special educational needs and `inclusion ). These items form two factors of the original ORM which were initially reported as re ecting a general

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

197

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

philosophy of inclusion and academic and social growth of the included child. Five of these items required reverse coding. For example, the scale included statements like: Inclusion offers mixed group interaction which will foster understanding and acceptance of differences. Isolation in a special class has a negative effect on the social and emotional development of a student with special needs. The challenge of being in an ordinary classroom will promote the academic growth of the child with special needs etc. A semantic differential scale consisting of bipolar adjectives (Osgood et al., 1957) measuring the respondents emotional reactions when they had to deal with newly included SEN children (affective component). The scale consisted of seven items and included adjectives such as `anxious relaxed , `worried self-assured , `negative positive etc. Where previous literature has shown variable responses to different kinds of children (physically disabled, Down s syndrome, EBD), we decided to introduce a differential response to category subsumed under two broad categories: (a) those with severe or multiple and profound learning dif culties and (b) those with severe emotional and behavioural dif culties. A Likert scale (eight items) measuring intentions (conative component). The scale included items like: I will accept responsibility for teaching children with severe learning dif culties within a whole-school policy. I will change my teaching processes to accommodate children with severe learning dif culties. I will engage in developing skills for managing the behaviour of children with severe learning dif culties. In the above Likert scales, the respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each statement by selecting among the following response choices: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Undecided (3), Agree (4) and Strongly agree (5). In the semantic differential scale, the respondents had to circle the number closest to the adjective which best described their feelings on a scale from 1 to 7. The items were totalled to generate a composite score for each component; a higher score indicated positive attitude. Also, another Likert-type inventory (18 items, with responses again ranging from 1 to 5) was included measuring teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed. The scale consisted of items like: I feel con dent in diagnosing/assessing speci c needs. I feel con dent in collaborating with colleagues to provide coherent teaching programmes for students with SEN. I feel con dent in implementing Individual Educational Plans.

It needs to be stated here that the skills included in the scale are not speci cally concerned with teaching children with SEN; rather, we consider them as absolutely necessary for teaching a diverse group of learners and meeting all their needs. Additionally, the instrument included ve items assessing the respondents con dence in meeting the IEP requirements of children with SEN at different

198

E. Avramidis et al.

stages of the statementing process [1]. The items were phrased in the following way: `I feel con dent in meeting the IEP requirements of children with special educational needs at Stage 1 (similarly at Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5). The respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their con dence with each statement by selecting among the following response choices: Not con dent at all (1), I have misgivings (2), Neutral (3), I feel secure in my teaching (4) and Very con dent (5). The nal two sections were termed `Incentives and `Action planning and contained three open-ended items. The guiding principle in the construction of this new instrument was derived from Knoster s framework (1991) of change in complex systems; if we want to change our educational system, then we need vision, skills, incentives, resources and action planning (see LeRoy & Simpson, 1996) [2].

Sampling and Procedures Prior to the implementation of the study, we sought and gained the approval and co-operation of the Local Education Authority under investigation. The survey involved 23 mainstream schools, 14 primary and nine secondary, representing urban, suburban and rural areas of the LEA. Seven primary schools and four secondary were chosen because the LEA had identi ed them as examples of good inclusive practice in the authority s response to the UK government s recent Green Paper Excellence for All . According to the LEA, these schools were `inclusive and their staff had actual experience of implementing inclusion. These schools were self-selected. The sample was balanced with another seven primary and ve secondary schools randomly selected across the rest of the LEA [3]. Of the initial sample, seven schools ( ve secondary and two primary) opted out for the following reasons: in ve schools, the teaching body was protesting about the ever-increasing amounts of paperwork and, in accordance to their union s decision, were planning to take action against it. However, two secondary schools rejected the instrument on the grounds that it would not re ect a clear picture of their practice, which they claimed was truly inclusive; nevertheless, they agreed to participate in the second (qualitative) phase of our research project. The overall sample thus represented 16 schools participating in the survey (12 primary and four secondary). Questionnaires equal to the number of teaching staff of the primary schools were sent out (100 in total). From these, 48 questionnaires were returned (28 out of the 52 sent to the selected schools and 20 out of the 48 sent to the random schools). A pack with 15 questionnaires was sent to every secondary school participating in the study according to the request of their head teachers (60 in total). From these, 33 questionnaires were returned (15 out of the 30 sent to the selected schools and 18 out of the 30 sent to the random schools). The total sample thus consisted of 81 respondents (50.6% return rate). The study was carried out towards the completion of the school year and was conducted completely by post with no follow-up data collection. The Cronbach alpha reliability coef cients for this investigation were: a 5 0.88 for the scale addressing the cognitive component, a 5 0.85 for the rst affective scale and a 5 0.90 for the second, a 5 0.88 for the conative component and, nally, a 5 0.88 for the scale measuring the participants perceptions about the skills they possessed. Some relevant characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

TABLE I. Gender, age, teaching experience, phase taught and professional development of the participants Background variable Gender Groups Male Female Missing 18 23 24 30 31 45 451 Missing Less than 1 year 1 4 years 5 9 years 10 14 years 141 years Missing Primary Secondary None School-based INSET LEA-based INSET Specialist s quali cations University-based Missing Frequency 18 61 2 2 8 35 34 2 3 7 8 14 47 2 48 33 18 31 10 10 11 1 81 Percentage 22.2 75.3 2.5 2.5 9.8 43.2 42.0 2.5 3.7 8.6 9.9 17.3 58.0 2.5 59.3 40.7 22.2 38.3 12.3 12.3 13.6 1.2 100.0

199

Age

Teaching experience

Phase Professional development

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

Total

Findings of the Study The participants appeared to be generally positive towards the overall concept of inclusion. Since this was the rst time that the instrument had been used with experienced teachers, it was not possible to compare the scores of the participants on the attitude scales with previous studies in order to determine whether they were high or low. However, considering the range of the scales (from 1 to 5 in the scale measuring the cognitive component, from 1 to 7 in the scale measuring the affective component and from 1 to 5 in the scale measuring the conative component), it seems reasonable to suggest that the mean scores of the participants demonstrated positive attitudes towards the general concept of inclusion (see Table II).

TABLE II. Mean scores of the participants in the scales measuring the cognitive, affective and conative component of attitude and the scale measuring their perceptions about the skills they possess Attitude components Cognitive component Affective component Conative component Skills N 80 77 79 77 Mean 3.75 4.58 4.01 3.54 Standard deviation 0.54 1.24 0.60 0.44

200

E. Avramidis et al.

TABL E III. Mean scores of teachers with active experience of inclusion and teachers from randomly selected schools in the cognitive, affective and conative component of attitude Cognitive component N 5 43 3.62 N 5 37 3.92 Affective component N 5 41 4.16 N 5 36 5.07 Conative component N 5 42 3.85 N 5 37 4.16

Groups of teachers Teachers from randomly selected schools Teachers with active experience of inclusion

N 43 38

Pupils with emotional and behavioural dif culties (EBD) were seen as causing more concern and stress than other types of SEN. A paired sample t-test was carried out in order to investigate the nature of the difference between the mean scores of the participants on the two affective scales. As previously mentioned, the rst scale was designed to measure emotional reactions to the placement of a child with a severe learning dif culty (a child with Down s syndrome, an autistic child etc.) in a mainstream classroom, while the second one examined emotional reactions to the placement of a child with emotional and behavioural dif culties in the mainstream classroom. The analysis revealed a signi cant difference between the mean scores in the two measures, t 5 4.98, p , 0.001, mean of the rst affective scale 4.54 and mean for the second 3.88, indicating that pupils with EBD were more likely to be the cause of more concern and stress to the teachers in this authority than pupils with other types of special educational needs. Nine one-way MANOVAs were calculated to test for differences in the cognitive, affective and conative components of attitude between groups identi ed in terms of: gender; age; teaching experience; phase taught; professional development of the participants; experience of inclusive education; area of school; size of school; and size of classroom. The variable `age comprised four groups, the variable `teaching experience comprised ve groups, the variable `phase taught comprised two groups and the variable `professional development comprised ve groups (see Table I). The variable `experience of inclusion comprised two groups: (a) the participants from schools which had long been implementing inclusive programmes (n 5 38) and (b) those from schools which had been randomly selected ( n 5 43). The variable `area comprised three groups: (a) village ( n 5 24), (b) small town ( n 5 17) and (c) large town (n 5 40). For the purpose of the analysis, the variable `school size was divided into two groups (median split): (a) schools with up to 355 pupils ( n 5 40) and (b) schools with 365 or more (n 5 41). Similarly, the variable `class size was divided into two groups (median split): (a) classes with up to 28 pupils (n 5 42) and (b) classes with 29 or more ( n 5 38).

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

Teachers with active experience of inclusion held signi cantly more positive attitudes towards inclusion than those from randomly selected schools. The analysis between groups in terms of their experience in inclusive education indicated a multivariate effect, F (df 3,71) 5 3.68, p , 0.05. A univariate test revealed that the multivariate difference was due to differences between teachers from the randomly selected schools and teachers with active experience of inclusion in all three components of attitude. In the cognitive component, F ( df 1,73) 5 6.08, p , 0.05; in

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

TABLE IV. Mean scores of groups with different professional development in the cognitive, affective and conative component of attitude Cognitive component 3.34 3.79 3.88 3.84 4.09 Affective component 3.73 4.60 4.80 4.90 5.47 Conative Component 3.79 3.89 4.26 4.11 4.40

201

Professional development None School-based INSET LEA INSET Specialist s quali cations University-based

the affective component, F (df 1,73) 5 11.03, p , 0.05; and in the conative component, F ( df 1,73) 5 4.95, p , 0.05 (see Table III). Examination of these mean scores (Table III) indicates that the teachers who had been implementing inclusive programmes for some years held signi cantly more positive attitudes than the rest of the sample who had apparently little or no such experience. The level of the professional development of the respondents was found to be signi cantly related to their attitude towards inclusion. The second important nding of the study refers to the professional development of the respondents. The analysis indicated a multivariate effect, F ( df 12,207) 5 2.29, p , 0.01. The univariate analysis revealed that the multivariate effect was again due to differences in all three components of attitude. In particular, for the cognitive component, F (df 4,69) 5 4.51, p , 0.01, for the affective component, F ( df 4,69) 5 4.06, p , 0.01, and for the conative component, F (df 4,69) 5 2.56, p , 0.05 (see Table IV). Post hoc test (Scheffe) revealed that the univariate effect was due to differences between participants who had received university-based professional development and those with no training at all in all three components of attitude. As can be seen in these mean scores (Table IV), teachers with substantial training in special education held signi cantly higher positive attitudes than those with little or no training about inclusion. None of the remaining variables was found to be signi cantly related to the respondents attitudes. The one-way MANOVAs for gender, age, teaching experience, phase taught, area of school, size of school and size of classroom did not reveal signi cant differences in the attitude components. The participants demonstrated a lack of con dence in meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN. However, the most important nding of this investigation is directly related to the participants con dence in meeting the IEP requirements of children with special educational needs. Although the participants appeared to be positive towards the general concept of inclusion (Table II), it was evident (Table V) that their con dence dropped considerably according to the stage at which the children stood in the statementing process (see also Fig. 1). Teachers with substantial training demonstrated more con dence in meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN. This decline in the con dence of the participants in meeting IEP requirements might

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

202

E. Avramidis et al.
TABLE V. Mean scores representing the con dence of the participants in meeting IEP requirements at different stages of a statement N Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage 1 2 3 4 5 con con con con con dence dence dence dence dence 67 67 67 67 68 Means 4.18 3.96 3.57 3.09 3.03 Standard deviations 0.74 0.77 1.02 1.11 1.15

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the Table V mean scores.

well be considered to be within normal expectations, as children with signi cant disabilities (Stages 4 and 5) present a considerably greater challenge for every teacher. However, in our attempt to account for this decline, we decided to compare the respondents con dence and their professional development. The following descriptive table (Table VI) provides some insight into the participants con dence in meeting the needs of children at Stages 4 and 5 (see Table VI and Fig. 2). Examination of mean scores in Table VI indicates that teachers with substantial
TABLE VI. Mean scores of the con dence of different professional groups in meeting IEP requirements at Stages 4 and 5 Professional development None School-based INSET LEA INSET Specialist s quali cations University-based N 14 24 10 10 9 Means for Stage 4 2.71 2.83 3.40 3.40 3.67 Means for Stage 5 2.79 2.67 3.20 3.40 3.70

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

203

FIG . 2. Diagrammatic representation of the Table VI mean scores.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

training were more con dent in meeting the needs of students with signi cant disabilities (Stages 4 and 5). Teachers who had received external to the school training were found to be more con dent in meeting the IEP requirements of students with SEN than those who had received school-based training or no training at all. Next, for the purpose of the statistical comparison, the ve variables measuring the respondents con dence in meeting IEP s requirements in Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were summed and a new variable assessing their total level of con dence was computed. Also, the categorical variable measuring the professional development of the participants was recoded so that it represented three groups: (a) those with no training at all, (b) those with school-based training and (c) those with external training; this last group represented those with LEA-based training, those with specialist quali cations and those with university-based training (the previous 3, 4 and 5 groups). This recoding was not only considered necessary due to the small size of these groups (see Table I), but also because of the purpose of the comparison (INSET as opposed to longer-term and high-quality training). One-way analysis of variance was calculated to test for differences between these three professional development groups and their perceived con dence in meeting IEP requirements. The analysis revealed a signi cant univariate effect, F ( df 2,64) 5 3.16, p , 0.05. The post hoc test (Scheffe) which was conducted failed to reveal signi cant differences between these groups; nevertheless, a strong tendency was evident (Table VII), suggesting that respondents with no training at all and those with school-based training appear to be considerably less con dent than those who had received training external to the school (see Table VII and Fig. 3). There was an association between the respondents perceptions of the skills they possessed and their attitude towards inclusion. The relationship between teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed and their attitudes was examined by conducting a correlational analysis between the means of the

204

E. Avramidis et al.
TABLE VII. Mean scores of the overall con dence of groups with different professional development in meeting IEP requirements Professional development No training at all School-based INSET External quali cations N 14 24 29 Means 16.43 16.92 19.21 Standard deviations 4.26 4.10 3.85

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

FIG . 3. Diagrammatic representation of the Table VII mean scores.

three attitude components and the mean of the perceived skills. This analysis (Table VIII) revealed that skills were moderately correlated with all three attitude components. Although this correlational analysis cannot possibly establish causation, it does, however, suggest an important tendency: that is, that respondents who perceive themselves as possessing `generic teaching skills appear to hold positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in the ordinary school.

TABLE VIII. Correlations between mean scores of the cognitive, affective, conative and skills scales Cognitive Pearson correlation Cognitive Affective Conative Skills 1.000 Affective 0.704** 1.000 Conative 0.710** 0.563** 1.000 Skills 0.404** 0.469** 0.404** 1.000

** Correlation is signi cant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

TABLE IX. Mean scores of different professional groups in the scale measuring their perceptions about the skills they possess Professional development No training at all School-based INSET External quali cations N 17 30 29 Means 3.29 3.46 3.75 Standard deviations 0.43 0.42 0.39

205

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

High-quality professional development results in the acquisition of teaching skills necessary to meet the needs of all students. The association between the respondents perceptions of the skills they possess and their attitude towards inclusion might well have been expected, as it is reasonable to assume that teachers who perceive themselves as competent hold positive attitudes. However, the next step of our analysis was to examine whether there was any relationship between the three professional development groups (none vs school-based vs external courses) and teachers perceptions of the skills they possessed. One-way analysis of variance indicated a signi cant univariate effect F (df 2,73) 5 7.46, p , 0.001. The post hoc test (Scheffe) revealed the univariate effect was due to differences both between participants with no training and those who had attended external courses, and between the participants with school-based training and those who had attended external courses (Table IX). Examination of these mean scores (Table IX) shows that those who had attended external courses scored higher compared to those with no training at all and those with school-based training.

Content Analysis of Open-ended Items Three open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire in order to give the respondents the opportunity to raise issues not covered by the attitude scales. The data were content-analysed and the key points that emerged are presented next. Factors which could make the participants responses more positive. The rst open-ended question was posed to the participants immediately after the affective scale, asking them what extra things they would need in order to make their responses more positive. The following issues emerged: Support: 56 teachers (representing 69.13% of the total sample) reported that they needed more support in teaching classes that included students with signi cant dif culties. Moreover, the ancillary support was required to be constant and well trained. Simply more people in the class was not considered enough; in particular, the need for a stronger SEN department was essential for teachers working in secondary schools where the role of the SENCO as a co-ordinator and manager, as well as the importance of the learning support team was stressed in most of the responses. Training: 40 teachers (49.38%) felt the need for systematic, intensive training, either as part of their certi cation programmes, as intensive and well-planned in-service training, or as an ongoing process with specialists acting as consultants. In particular, the respondents asked for more knowledge on how to deal with

206

E. Avramidis et al. speci c learning dif culties, as well as in managing the behaviour of children with emotional and behavioural needs. Material Resources: 32 teachers (39.50%) also required adequate curriculum materials and other classroom equipment appropriate to the needs of students with disabilities. The data indicate that differentiation of the teaching tasks is absolutely necessary if the needs of all the students are to be met; however, under the current circumstances, it was felt that the increased amount of workload made that extremely dif cult.

Proposed changes in the classroom and school environment. The remaining two open-ended items asked the participants what needed to be done/changed (a) in the classroom and (b) at the whole-school level. The following themes were identi ed: Classroom Layout and Restructuring of the Buildings: a different classroom layout and a physical restructuring of the school to accommodate children with physical disabilities was reported by 53 teachers (65.43%): layout of chairs, tables, lifts in the school or stairways more accessible to classrooms, ramps, boards at different positions around the classroom. Class Size: 29 teachers (35.80%) agreed that their class size should be reduced to fewer than 20 students, if students with signi cant disabilities were to be included. More speci cally, the respondents complained about overcrowded classes which caused a lack of space. Time: 27 teachers (33.33%) reported a need for 1 hour or more per day to plan their work with students with severe learning dif culties.
Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

Discussion Generally, the participants appeared to be positive with the overall concept of inclusion (see Table II). This nding re ects the progress which has been made in the LEA under investigation over the last few years. However, this nding was coloured by the participants responses to the open-ended questions where they appeared to ask for more support, resources, training and time. In this sense, the results of this investigation are in accordance with Scruggs and Mastropieri s (1996) meta-analysis which included 28 survey reports conducted from at least 1958 through 1995. This research synthesis of teachers attitudes towards integration studies reported that, although two-thirds of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in total) agreed with the general concept of integration, only one-third or less believed they had suf cient time, skills, training and resources necessary for implementing inclusive programmes. Additionally, pupils with emotional and behavioural dif culties (EBD) were seen as causing signi cantly greater concern and stress than pupils with other dif culties. This nding is hardly surprising because teachers have been consistently averse to having dif cult pupils in their classes (Chazan, 1994; Clough & Lindsay, 1991; Johnson, 1987). Moreover, they are very sceptical about their reintegration even after a period in a special school or unit (Avramidis & Bayliss, 1998). In the light of a rise in exclusions in recent years (OHMCI, 1996), teachers need to be provided with training in managing classroom behaviour and meeting the needs of children deemed to experience EBD, a need which was reported by half of the respondents (see the content analysis). The results of our survey demonstrated clear differences in responses between

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

207

teachers who had experience of varying degrees and years of including children with signi cant disabilities in their classroom and those with limited or no experience. Our data indicate also that educating students with signi cant disabilities in mainstream classrooms results in positive changes in educators attitudes. In this, our study con rms previous research undertaken by Villa et al. (1996), who concluded that teacher commitment often emerges at the end of the implementation cycle, after the teachers have gained mastery of the professional expertise needed to implement inclusive programmes. Similar ndings were reported by LeRoy and Simpson (1996), who studied the impact of inclusion over a 3-year period in the state of Michigan. The assessment of teacher attitudes was based on the desirability of segregation, the responsibility for the education of children with severe dif culties and the bene t of inclusion for children with disabilities. They found on all three accounts that teacher attitudes changed in a positive direction over the 3-year period. Their study showed that, as teachers experience with children with SEN increased, their con dence to teach these children also increased. Our study also examined the relationship between independent demographic variables, such as gender, age, phase taught and years of teaching experience, and teachers attitudes towards inclusion. None of the mentioned variables was found to be signi cantly related to the respondents attitudes. Indeed, in previous studies the relationship between these variables and attitudes has been inconsistent and what is evident from reviewing the relevant literature (e.g. Jamieson, 1984; Hannah, 1988) is that none of the mentioned variables can be regarded as a strong predictor of educator attitudes. However, our study revealed that teachers with substantial training in special education had a signi cantly higher positive attitude than those with little or no training about inclusion. The importance of training has been stressed in a number of surveys (Bowman, 1986; Center & Ward, 1987; Leyser et al., 1994) and, in particular, the importance of training in the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion was supported by the ndings of Beh-Pajooh (1992) and Shimman (1990), based on teachers in a tertiary college. Both studied the attitudes of tertiary college teachers in the UK towards students with SEN and their inclusion into ordinary college courses. Their ndings showed that college teachers who had been trained to teach students with learning dif culties expressed more favourable attitudes and emotional reactions to students with SEN and their inclusion, than did those who had no such training. Our study supports these ndings because it not only revealed that teachers with substantial training were more positive to inclusion, but also indicated that their con dence in meeting IEP requirements was boosted as a result of their training. Another nding of our study is that the means of all the three components of attitude (cognitive, affective and conative) are signi cantly correlated with the mean of the skills. That is, respondents who perceived themselves as competent enough to cater for SEN pupils, appear to hold positive attitudes towards inclusion. This reinforces our nding about the importance of training; if skills arise out of skilled-based training courses as well as out of careful and well-planned INSET courses where practitioners have the opportunity to discuss and plan collaboratively, then it can be anticipated that the more effective programmes on inclusion are offered to teachers, the more favourable will be their attitudes about inclusion. However, what is interesting here is that the respondents who had attended external and long-term courses (e.g. LEA-based, university-based) scored signi cantly higher in the scale measuring their perceptions about the skills they possessed than those with school-based (INSET) training only. This

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

208

E. Avramidis et al.

highlights the importance and effectiveness of substantial self-re ective training which results in the acquisition of generic teaching skills necessary for meeting the needs of all the children as opposed to short-term technical responses to speci c needs. At this point, it is worth noting that implementing an inclusive programme is likely to put considerable pressure on teachers especially at an early stage due to the necessary signi cant restructuring of the educational environment. In the present study, in their responses to the open-ended questions, the participants stressed the need for more non-contact time. In a number of studies, teachers have reported that they did not have suf cient time for inclusion (Diebold & Von Eschenbach, 1991; Semmel et al., 1991). In particular, in the Myles and Simpson (1989) investigation, 48 out of 55 teachers (87.2%) reported their perceived need for 1 hour or more of daily planning time for inclusion. Also, the content analysis suggested that teachers have other needs as well and that there are many obstacles that have to be surmounted if inclusive programmes are to be successful, for example, overcrowded classrooms, insuf cient pre-prepared materials (differentiated packages), insuf cient time to plan with learning support team, inadequately available support from external specialists and lack of regular INSET. The model which seems to underpin the discussion here is that included students with SEN demand extra time, resources, personnel and co-operation between departments (in the secondary schools). However, this poses an obstacle in the inclusion debate as the complete absence or inadequacy of some or all of the above would mean that the placement of a student with severe learning dif culties is unfeasible. In this, the present study seems to replicate the Center and Ward (1987) and the Clough and Lindsay (1991) studies whose focus was on `integration . In particular, the content analysis revealed that the participants are more enculturated into the integration model in the sense that they were stressing the need for more resources and for more support from external specialists in order to accommodate children with SEN in their classrooms. As was indicated earlier, this is not what inclusion is about. Inclusion is not about funding and resources (which is a reductionist approach) because there will always be some children with signi cant disabilities who do not ` t a particular school environment. Rather, it is about developing critical thinking and reconstructing the vision. However, what is important here is that the participants who had received training of high quality appeared to feel competent in their teaching skills and found the concept of inclusion easy to deal with. This carries major implications about the level and depth of teacher training courses, if we are to promote practices that are truly inclusive.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Practice In reviewing the ndings from this study, readers should be aware of several important limitations. Speci cally, respondents were drawn from one Local Education Authority, with a great proportion deliberately selected from schools identi ed as actively implementing inclusive programmes. Moreover, some of the schools dropped out, resulting in a smaller number of participants than had been anticipated. Another limitation is that the instrument employed did not provide for a differentiation between attitudes towards the inclusion of children with different exceptionalities. Therefore, it is possible that in the case of the more severe presenting conditions, segregationist attitudes were obscured by a format which referred only to the concept of inclusion.

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

209

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

However, recognising these limitations, the results reported from this investigation offer several important practical implications for policy-makers and administrators. We would argue strongly that with the provision of more resources and extensive opportunities for training at both pre-service and post-service levels, teachers attitudes towards inclusion can become more favourable. However, what was evident in our investigation is that substantial training, such as university-based courses, fostering critical thinking is more likely to result in a critical understanding of `inclusion and in the acquisition of generic teaching skills. This means we have to move our thinking about professional development away from low (INSET) level technical responses to need, towards longer-term re ective practitioner training (Bayliss, 1998). Such training is more likely to provide the practitioners with both a vision and knowledge skills to operationalise that vision; skills which allow them to modify their everyday practice in ways which are ultimately inclusive. This is an outcome and a hypothesis for the next step. As far as the issue of resources is concerned, we do recognise that resources are essential; successful inclusion depends on resources, both human and material, but also on their successful implementation. Simply more people or more computers are not enough; rather, how the resources are being utilised is of importance and this issue has to be addressed in the school level within a whole-school policy and at the LEA level through a reorganisation of the support services. Finally, we would like to point out that, however useful the ndings reported in this study might be, further research is needed. What is recommended here is the follow-up use of more ecological research methods rooted within qualitative designs. It is planned that a series of interviews with mainstream teachers will be carried out with the aim of gaining some insight into their perceptions and of identifying `barriers to inclusion. Of particular interest will be the participants understanding of inclusion as well as their `institutional view of inclusion. At a later stage, it is hoped to present a series of case studies from this work which exemplify best practice and identify areas where further development is needed. Correspondence: Elias Avramidis, Research Support Unit, University of Exeter, St Luke s School of Education, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK. Fax (01392) 264736.

NOTES
[1] In the UK, the `Code of Practice for the Identi cation and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (DfEE, 1994) introduced a ve `stage formal assessment process which ranges from Stage 1 (child with mild SEN whose needs can be met wholly by teachers in the regular classroom without any further assistance), to a Stage 5 `statemented child, where the severity of need requires formal (legal) recognition by the Education Authorities who guarantee extra resources external to the school to meet the childs needs. The stages of the Code of Practice therefore represent a measure of `severity of need . Stages 2 5 of the Code require teacher to prepare an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) which has formal status of implementation and review. [2] In order to acquaint the reader with the demands and wordings of the scales, some examples have been provided. The whole instrument is available from the authors on request. [3] Methodologically, it is appropriate to assume that the schools recommended by the LEA have had experience of some form of `inclusion, while it is problematic to assume that the randomly selected group were, or were not, `inclusive either of these positions are possible given the random nature of selection. Any differences in outcomes for these two groups are dependent on the ndings of the study rather than on a set of a priori assumptions related to `inclusive vs `non-inclusive schools.

210

E. Avramidis et al.

REFERENCES
ANTO NAK, R. & LARRIVEE, B. (1995) Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale, Exceptional Children, 62, pp. 139 149. AVRAMIDIS, E. (1998) Methodological Issues Relating to the Study of Teachers Attitude s Toward Inclusion, Paper presented in the European Educational Research Association, Slovenia 1998. AVRAMIDIS, E. & BAYLISS, P.D. (1998) An inquiry into emotional and behavioural dif culties in two schools in the southwest of England, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Dif culties , 3, pp. 25 35. AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P.D. & BURDEN, R. (2000) Students teachers attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 1 16. BANNISTE R, C., SHARLAND, V., THOMAS, G., UPTO N, V. & W ALKER, D. (1998) Changing from a special school to an inclusive service, British Journal of Special Education, 24, pp. 65 69. BARTON, M.L. (1992) Teachers Opinions on the Implementation and Effects of Mainstreaming, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 802. BAYL ISS, P.D. (1998) Models of complexity: theory driven intervention practices, in: C. CLARK, A., DYSON & A., MILL WARD (Eds) Theorising Special Education, pp. 61 78 (London, Routledge). BAYL ISS, P.D. & LINGHAM, J. (1998) What is Inclusion?, (Paper presented at the 1998 BPS Conference, Exeter, UK). BEH-PAJO OH, A. (1992) The effect of social contact on college teachers attitudes towards students with severe mental handicaps and their educational integration, European Journal of Special Needs Education , 7, pp. 231 236. BERRYMAN, J.D. (1989) Attitudes of the public toward educational mainstreaming, Remedial and Special Education , 10, pp. 44 49. BOCHNER, S. & PIETE RSE, M. (1989) Preschool directors attitudes towards the integration of children with disabilities into regular preschools in New South Wales, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, pp. 133 150. BOWMAN, I. (1986) Teacher training and the integration of handicapped pupils: some ndings from a fourteen nation UNESCO study, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1, pp. 29 38. CENTER, Y. & WARD, J. (1987) Teachers attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools, The Exceptional Child, 34, pp. 41 56. CENTER, Y. & WARD, J. (1989) Attitudes of school psychologists towards the integration of children with disabilities, International Journal of Disability, 36, pp. 117 132. CENTER, Y. WARD, J., PARMENTER, T. & NASH, R. (1985) Principals attitudes toward the integration of disabled children into regular schools, The Exceptional Child, 32, pp. 149 161. CHAZAN, M. (1994) The attitudes of mainstream teachers towards pupils with emotional and behavioural dif culties, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, pp. 261 274. CLOUGH, P. & LINDSAY, G. (1991) Integration and the Support Service (London, NFER). COATES, R.D. (1989) The regular Education Initiative and opinions of regular classroom teachers, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, pp. 532 536. DE GRUCHY, N. (1997) A response to the Green Paper , on Today, 22 October 1997, BBC Radio 4. DENZIN, N. & LINCOLN, Y. (Eds) (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research (London, Sage). DFEE (1994) The Code of Practice for the Identi cation and Assessment of Children with Special Educationa l Needs (London, HMSO). DFEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: meeting Special Educationa l Needs (London, DfEE). DIEBO LD, M.H. & VON ESCHE NBACH, J.F. (1991) Teacher educator predictions of regular class teacher perceptions of mainstreaming, Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, pp. 221 227. EAGLY, A.H. & CHAIKEN, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitude s (San Diego, CA, and Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich). FISH, J. (1985) Equal Opportunities for All? The Fish report (London, ILEA). FLORIAN, L. (1998) An examination of the practical problems associated with the implementation of inclusive education policies, Support for Learning, 13, pp. 105 108. HANNAH, M.E. (1988) Teacher attitudes toward children with disabilities: an ecological analysis, in: H.E. YUKER (Ed.) Attitude s Toward Persons with Disabilities , pp. 154 171 (New York, Springer). HANNAH, M.E. & PIL NER, S. (1983) Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children: a review and synthesis, School Psychology Review, 12, pp. 12 25. HAYES, K. & GUNN, P. (1988) Attitudes of parents and teachers toward mainstreaming, The Exceptional Child, 35, pp. 31 38.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011

SEN Children in Ordinary Schools

211

HELLIER, C. (1988) Integration a need for positive experience, Educationa l Psychology in Practice, 4, pp. 75 79. HORNE, M.D. & RICCIARDO, J.L. (1988) Hierarchy of responds to handicaps, Psychological Reports, 62, pp. 83 86. JAMIESO N, J.D. (1984) Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped, in: R.L. JONES, (Ed.) Attitude and Attitude Change in Special Education: theory and practice, pp. 206 222 (Reston, VA, The Council for Exceptional Children). JOHNSON, A. (1987) Attitudes towards mainstreaming: implications for in-service training and teaching the handicapped, Education , 107, pp. 229 233. KLIEWER, C. (1998) The meaning of inclusion, Mental Retardation, 36, pp. 317 322. KNOSTE R, T. (1991) Managing Complex Change (Washington, DC, The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps Annual Conference). LARRIVEE, B. (1982) Factors underlying regular classroom teachers attitudes to mainstreaming, Psychology in the Schools , 19, pp. 374 379. LEROY, B. & SIMPSON, C. (1996) Improving student outcomes through inclusive education, Support for Learning, 11, pp. 32 36. LEYSE R, Y., KAPPERMAN, G. & KELLE R, R. (1994) Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: a cross-cultural study in six nations, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, pp. 1 15. LINDSAY, G., LEWIS, G., JESSOP, C. & QU AYLE, R. (1990) Special Needs Review (Shef eld, Shef eld Local Education Authority). MYLES, B.S. & SIMPSON, R.L. (1989) Regular educators modi cation preferences for mainstreaming mildly handicapped children, Journal of Special Education, 22, pp. 479 491. OFFICE OF HER MAJESTY CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS (1996) Exclusions from Secondary Schools 1995/96 (London, The Stationery Of ce). OSGOOD, C.E., SUCI, G.J. & TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning (Illinois, University of Illinois Press). ROSENBERG, M.J. & HOVLAND, C.I. (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes, in: C.I., HOVLAND & M.J., ROSENBERG (Eds) Attitude Organisation and Change: an analysis of consistency among attitude components, pp. 1 14 (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). SCRUGGS, T.E. & MASTROPIERI, M.A. (1996) Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-inclusion, 1958 1995: a research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63, pp. 59 74. SEMME L, M.I., ABERNATHY, T.V., BUTERA, G. & LESAR, S. (1991) Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative, Exceptional Children, 58, pp. 9 24. SHIMMAN, P. (1990) The impact of special needs students at a Further Education College: a report on a questionnaire, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 14, pp. 83 91. THOMAS, D. (1985) The determinants of teachers, attitudes to integrating the intellectually handicap, British Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 55, pp. 251 263. THOMAS, G. (1997) Inclusive schools for an inclusive society, British Journal of Special Education, 24, pp. 103 107. TRIANDIS, C., ADAMO POUL OS, J. & BRINBERG, D. (1984) Perspectives and issues in the study of attitudes, in: R., JO NES (Ed.) Attitude s and Attitude Change in Special Education: theory and practice, pp. 21 40 (Virginia, The Council of Exceptional Children). UNITED NATION S (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, UN.). UNITED NATIONS (1993) Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, UN). UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (Salamanca, Spain, UN). VAUGHN, S., SCHUMM, J.S., JALLAD, B., SLUSHER, J. & SAUMELL, L. (1996) Teachers views of inclusion, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 96 106. VILLA, R.A., THOUSAND, J.S., MEYERS, H. & NEVIN, A. (1996) Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education, Exceptional Children, 63, pp. 29 45. WARD, J., CENTER, Y. & BOCHNER, S. (1994) A question of attitudes: integrating children with disabilities into regular classrooms?, British Journal of Special Education, 21, pp. 34 39.

Downloaded At: 11:45 18 April 2011