CLASSROOM TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSION

CLASSROOM TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSION

by

Karen E. Bahn

BRUCE FRANCIS, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

DAVID BALCH, Ph.D., Committee Member

CALLIE WELSTEAD, Ph.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

July 2009

UMI Number: 3368746

Copyright 2009 by Bahn, Karen E.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3368746Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to study teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Five

elementary schools serving grades K-6 were surveyed in a single public school district in

central Wisconsin. The Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities

(ORI) by Antonak and Larrivee (1995) was used to survey the regular classroom

teachers. Of the 82 surveys distributed, 41 were returned and scored to show a slightly

positive attitude in teacher attitudes toward inclusion with a mean score of 80.2 with a

score of 75 being neutral.

ii

Acknowledgments

There are many people who helped make the completion of this dissertation

possible for me. I am thankful to my children, Clarissa, Andrew, and Joel, for their

support and patience throughout this endeavor. I'm also thankful to my husband, Daryn,

for all his help with the computer and his support. A lot of time and effort was spent on

this project. I am thankful for their understanding and consideration during this entire

process.

I am also thankful to the faculty and staff of Capella University for helping me to

achieve my goal of receiving the doctoral degree. Their help and guidance was of great

importance to me, and I am grateful for their willingness to work with me when

circumstances didn't allow me to finish things as I had hoped and planned.

I am also grateful to the staff and faculty of Immanuel Lutheran School for their

support and patience when I had to be absent from my principal's duties at the school to

work on residencies and papers. The parents and students of the school also showed great

support for me during this time.

Most of all, I give all thanks to God for giving me the strength and courage to see

this project to completion.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ii

List of Tables vi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Background of the Study 3

Purpose of the Study 3

Research Questions 4

Significance of the Study 4

Definition of Terms 4

Assumptions and Limitations 5

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 7

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 8

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9

History of Special Education Legislations 9

Inclusion in Education 12

Inclusion and Classroom Management 13

Inclusion and Teacher Perceptions of Their Teaching Ability 14

Inclusion Versus Self-Contained Special Education Services 15

Research on Classroom Teacher Attitudes 16

Summary of chapter 2 17

iv

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 18

Methodology and Design 18

Sample 18

Research Instrument 18

Data Collection 19

Data Analysis 19

Ethical Considerations 20


CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 21

Collection of Data 21

Item Analysis 21

Research Questions 25


CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35

Summary 35

Conclusions 38

Recommendations 45

REFERENCES 47

APPENDIX A. LETTER TO MR. BRUCE KING 50

APPENDIX B. EMAIL TO DR. RICHARD ANTONAK 51

APPENDIX C. EMAIL FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONA 52

APPENDIX D. LETTER FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONAK 53

v

APPENDIX E. ORI SURVEY INSTRUMENT 54

APPENDIX F. ORI SCORING KEY 57

APPENDIX G. WAIVER OF SIGNED CONSENT 59

APPENDIX H. PERMISSION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT 60

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of ORI Responses 23 Table 2. ORI Statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24 26

Table 3. ORI Statements 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 29

Table 4. ORI Statements 2, 10, and 19 31 Table 5. ORI Statements 5, 8, 18, and 23 33

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Throughout the history of special education in the United States, the movement

towards teaching special needs students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) has led

educational trends toward fully including special needs students in the regular classroom

as much as possible, as is mandated in P.L.94-142 (Duvanis & Husley, 2002). Inclusion

has been defined as a set of practices and beliefs that all children should be educated,

regardless of disability and in age appropriate general education settings with appropriate

supports and services (Newman College, 2004, 1). On this basis, many special needs

students who have been deemed able to function in a regular classroom have been

integrated into regular education classrooms.

The regular education classroom teachers have been placed into positions of

needing to be more flexible and adaptable in meeting the learning needs of included

students. The teacher also must be able to help the regular education students understand

and be accepting of their new classroom peers. The belief systems the classroom

teachers hold and their willingness to work with special needs learners can greatly impact

the educational outcomes of special needs students (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).

Training of classroom teachers will be necessary to make inclusion work within

their classrooms. Teachers must be well-acquainted with types of disabilities and

understand the practices and premises behind inclusive education. Their efforts will also

2

need to be supported by school administration, special education personnel, and parents

in order to make inclusive education work (Hammeken, 1997).

Statement of the Problem

It is not known how and to what extent teacher attitudes about the inclusion of

special needs students affect their view of the classroom process. P.L. 94-142, the

Education of All Handicapped Children Act, introduced inclusion to the field of

education. This law also introduced what is known as the Least Restrictive Environment.

The premise behind the least restrictive environment was for a special needs learner to be

able to access the regular classroom as much as possible in a school day. Inclusion might

be for the whole day for those students who are able to learn fully integrated in the

classroom. For others, it might mean being in the classroom for certain subjects and at

certain times only. The law mandated, however, that the student be in the regular

classroom as much as his or her disability allowed (Anderson, Chitwood, & Hayden,

1982).

The classroom teacher’s abilities and willingness to work with special needs

learners may have an effect on the success of inclusive education in the regular education

classroom. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) found that teachers felt more stressed

about students with disabilities being in the classroom than regular education students.

They also found that teachers who had coursework in inclusive education tended to be

more positive about having special needs learners in their classrooms.

Of the 1,932 elementary students in the school district being sampled, 15.1% or

292 students were listed as having a disability (Wisconsin Department of Public

3

Instruction, 2006). Students in the elementary grades K-5 are included in the regular

classrooms as much as their disabilities allow.

Background of the Study

The concept of inclusive education developed over many years of Special

Education legislation. Since the inception of public education in the United States,

special education slowly evolved over decades. Compulsory education laws originally

did not include special needs learners. After much parent and educator advocating for

special education, schools started developing programs that allowed for special needs

students to attend public schools (Pardini, 2002).

Self-contained special education classrooms were created for special needs

learners in the 1960s and 1970s. With the inception of P.L. 94-142 in the early 1980s,

the least restrictive environment was instituted for placement of special needs learners.

Inclusive education was instrumental in allowing for least restrictive environments to

occur (Anderson et al., 1982).

Classroom teachers were now required to teach special needs learners in their

classrooms. The attitudes these teachers had towards these special needs learners could

have impacted the services they received (Parents United Together, 2002).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the researcher is to investigate classroom teacher attitudes toward

inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers will be surveyed for their attitudes about

the benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, perceptions of their ability

4

to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education versus

inclusive education.

Research Questions

1. What are teachers’ attitudes toward the benefits of inclusion?

2. What are teachers’ attitudes toward integrated classroom management?

3. What are teachers’ attitudes toward their perceptions of their ability to teach

special needs students?

4. What are teachers’ attitudes toward separate special education versus inclusive

education?

Significance of the Study

This study will add to the general body of knowledge in the area of classroom

teacher attitudes and inclusive education. Results from this study may allow classroom

teachers, special education teachers, parents, and school administrators to gain helpful

information from this research for use in educational planning, parenting programs, and

in long-range administrative planning. Teacher training and in-service programming can

also be implemented on the topic of inclusive education as a result of this study.

Definition of Terms

Classroom management has been defined as a gestalt, dependent upon several

interdependent components. These components include an engaging curriculum;

working with anger, projection, and depression; students as responsible citizens; the

5

teacher as a self-knowing model; classroom management skills; working with resistance,

conflict, and stress; and robust instruction (Hanson, 1998).

Inclusion is the practice of educating all or most children in the same classroom,

including children with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities (McBrien &

Brandt, 1997).

Least Restrictive Environment is defined as the educational setting where a child

with disabilities can receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) designed to meet

his or her education needs while being educated with peers without disabilities in the

regular educational environment (Least Restrictive Environment Coalition, 2001).

Self-contained classroom is defined as a single environment established where all

learning for disabled or non-disabled students takes place (Duvanis & Husley, 2002).

Special needs have been defined as of or relating to people who have specific

needs, as those associated with a disability (Barnett, 2003).

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

For this study, five assumptions were made.

1. It was assumed that the instrument was valid and reliable. The ORI was tested

for validity and reliability by its authors, Dr. Antonak and Dr. Laravee. The ORI

was put through the appropriate pilot studies and tests in order to deem it valid

and reliable (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995). The importance of this is that a test

lacking reliability and validity causes test scores to be ambiguous and hard to

6

determine. A test that is not reliable is not valid (U.W. Oshkosh Testing Services,

2005).

2. It was assumed that the teachers surveyed have knowledge of inclusion. State

requirements for regular education licenses include classes in exceptional children

or inclusive education. The classroom teachers would have had to have taken one

or more classes in this area in order to receive a state teaching license

(Connecticut Department of Education, 2003).

3. It was assumed that education is valued by the teachers. Teachers who have

dedicated themselves to the field of education embrace the profession and its

responsibilities. They value respect, learning, parents, and students in the school

setting (Richards, 2004).

4. It was assumed that a person’s attitudes remain fairly constant. Russ Fazio and

Mark Snyder made a case for attitude consistency based on their findings in their

study of attitudes and behaviors. They found that attitudes are based on

knowledge and relevancy to a topic. These attitudes remain fairly consistent and

evidence themselves in consistent behavior ((Booth-Butterfield, 2006).

5. It was assumed that the survey was completed in an ethical and honest manner.

Immanuel Kant described the human condition which causes us to act morally and

just even though it is not what the individual wants to do as the categorical

imperative. The question remains no how strong this imperative is on individuals

and what factors affect it. For this study, the importance of honesty and ethical

behavior is assumed to exist (Wentz, 2001)

7

Limitations

The results of this study might have been affected by three factors.

1. The study was limited to four elementary schools. A greater number of schools

would be able to generate a larger sample.

2. Self-reported data might be biased. Those filling out the survey may interpret

survey items differently due to personal biases.

3. Attitudes tested were limited to four. Testing of a greater number of attitudes

could garner a greater knowledge of classroom teachers’ belief systems as they

apply to inclusion.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The importance of teacher attitudes toward inclusive education has been

documented by various researchers. Studies have shown that the ability of the classroom

teacher to adapt and accept the special needs students he or she works with has an impact

on the learning outcomes (Schultz, 1998).

In order to set up an inclusive classroom, the classroom teacher will need to be

able to collaborate with his or her colleagues and with special education personnel about

the best way to meet the needs of the special needs students in the classroom. The

teacher also needs to be able to take into account the needs of the regular education

learners (Hammeken, 1997).

Classroom teachers also need to be adequately trained to develop a successful

inclusive classroom. A teacher that is well-trained and well-equipped will know more

about the special needs learners and will respond to having these students in class as a

8

professionally stimulating challenge. If the regular classroom teacher works

collaboratively with the special educators, the students have a greater academic

advantage (Schultz, 1998).

The attitudes of teachers may determine the efficacy of inclusion. Teachers must

believe in and understand the practices of inclusion. They also need to be supported by

colleagues, administrators, and parents to meet the special needs students’ educational

needs. Their efforts need to be sufficiently reinforced to positively impact teacher

attitudes (Hammeken, 1997).

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remainder of the study is organized in a traditional way. Chapter 2 is the

Literature Review section which covers the history of inclusion, teacher attitudes towards

various aspects of inclusion, and classroom management; chapter 3 contains a description

of the methodology and design being used for data collection, sample information, the

instrument being used, data collection procedures, and data analysis; chapter 4 gives

information on the data collection procedures, analysis, and final results; and chapter 5

finalizes the study with a summary, conclusion section, and recommendations for further

study.

9

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

History of Special Education Legislation

By 1918, all states had some type of compulsory education laws in place. In the

past, families had the right to determine when and how long a child would attend school.

Proponents of compulsory education laws felt that by mandating students to attend

school, poor children would receive the benefits of an education that normally would

only be afforded to wealthy families (Grucke, 2001).

Even with the inception of these compulsory education laws, students with

disabilities and handicaps were often not included. Many children with disabilities were

excluded from public schools. The options their parents had were to keep their disabled

children at home or place them in institutions. Even those disabled students who did

enroll were more likely to drop out well before graduating from high school (Pardini,

2002).

This was very much the norm for the next several decades until the Civil Rights

Movement of the 1960s. This movement was aimed at ending discrimination to all

people, including the disabled. It also encouraged families of disabled children to

challenge the government to create legislation which would insure the education of their

children. This drive to get this type of education began in the late 1950s into the 1960s

(Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996).

During the 1960s, people advocating for disabled children petitioned the federal

government to provide funding for a free, appropriate, public education, or FAPE, to

10

children with disabilities. In response to this issue, Congress established legislation to

insure that students had this free education available to them (U.S. Dept. of Education,

2001).

As legislation for education continued to develop, new pieces of legislation were

being created that specifically targeted special needs students. In the early to mid 1960s,

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its amendments provided the first

legislation to grant federal funding for special education programs. At this time, these

programs kept special education students segregated from the regular education students

(U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).

In the 1970s, it became evident that special education was in a poor state.

Because of this, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in

1975. As parents and advocates for disabled children put pressure on both federal and

state governments, the need for change was apparent to insure that disabled students were

being properly served (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).

Public Law 94-142 (1975) introduced mainstreaming and the idea of inclusion to

the educational field. This law also introduced the term of least restrictive environment.

At this time, this meant that a student with disabilities would utilize some type of

resource room and would remain the primary responsibility of special education teachers.

However, the students would attend general education classes when it was appropriate for

part of the day (Sevier County Board of Education, 2001). Students who had disabilities

were part of the school system, but not necessarily in the general classrooms. Much of

this depended on the severity of the disability and the teacher’s ability or willingness to

have a disabled student in the classroom. At the time, mainstreaming seemed the best

11

way to serve disabled students without having them be a regular part of the general public

school system.

As time progressed, the need to review P.L. 94-142 became apparent. The least

restrictive environment needed to be revisited and also needed further implementation.

Schools began to do this by using classroom aides to allow special needs students the

opportunity to attend the regular education classroom. The resource room was still

available for those in need of it, but it was not the center of the educational environment.

The regular classroom became the focal point (Anderson et al., 1982).

The new legislation also showed a need for parent education. Parents needed the

opportunity to be involved more fully and be made more aware of how their child was

being educated and why the methods used were being employed. The Individualized

Education Plan (IEP) became the center of the disabled student’s curriculum. The IEP

was legally binding and this new law informed parents of their rights concerning making

sure the IEP was being met for their child (Anderson et al., 1982).

The early 1990s saw a resurgence of activism in continuing the least restrictive

environment clause existing in P.L. 94-142. The new law renamed P.L. 94-142 as the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of the IDEA law was

to establish (a) expansion of discretionary programs, (b) institution of school-to-work

transition services, (c) definitions of assistive technology devices and services, and (d)

the addition of autism and traumatic brain injury to the list of eligible disabilities. The

IDEA law has made educational programs available for many disabled students that

otherwise would be mislabeled or would not receive the proper educational methods they

12

might need, including inclusion into the regular classroom. The IDEA law has been

amended over the past ten years (Parents United Together, 2002).

Inclusion in Education

In order for a disabled student to be fully included in the regular classroom, a

variety of assessments are needed to be made in order to determine what needs the

student has and if these needs can be met without removing the child from the classroom.

These assessments involve the student, his or her environment, the tools that are available

in the classroom, and the tasks that are expected of each student in the classroom (Zabala,

1998).

An important characteristic of successful inclusion is the ability of the classroom

teacher to adapt and accept the disabled student. If the student is working with a

classroom teacher who is more skilled and flexible, the teacher will help all the students

in the room understand and accept disabilities as part of the normal range of human

abilities. A skilled teacher also gives the student many opportunities to show his or her

strengths in classroom activities. Because of this, the student will have a better chance of

being socially competent and socially accepted by his or her peers (Schultz, 1998).

An advantage to having a disabled student in the regular classroom is the ability

for the student to build social relationships with his or her non-disabled peers. It also

allows non-disabled students to learn acceptance for those who have special needs (Pavri

& Luftig, 2000).

In order to set up an inclusive classroom, the classroom teacher will need to

collaborate with his or her colleagues about the best environment that meets the needs of

13

the special learners. The teacher also needs to take into account the needs of the regular

learners in the classroom (Hammeken, 1997). It is important that all teachers work as a

team for the well-being of the students they teach.

One of the greatest concerns in full inclusion is that the classroom teacher is not

adequately trained to work with disabled students. Another is that the classroom itself

does not have the materials or staff necessary to allow the student to meet the objectives

specified in his or her IEP. Without proper training or materials, the student could be

placed in a classroom that is not an appropriate placement for him or her to reach their

full potential (Schultz, 1998).

The training and attitudes of teachers may determine the efficacy of inclusion.

Teachers must be well-trained in the different types of disabilities. They must believe in

and understand the concept and practices of inclusion. Teachers’ efforts need to be

sufficiently recognized and reinforced. If these conditions exist within the regular

classroom, then inclusion works (Hammeken, 1997).

Inclusion and Classroom Management

Teachers who have been assigned special needs students in their classrooms need

to have plans on how to make the classroom work for both the special needs students and

the regular education students within it. Classroom teachers can utilize a number of ways

to insure the success of their educational program.

One management technique that some teachers use is peer mentoring or the buddy

system. This is where regular education students and special needs students are paired up

and hold each other responsible for their work and their behavior. A rewards system is

14

then in place for each pair of “buddies” as they meet their goals (National Education

Association [NEA], 2006).

Teachers also make use of their colleagues or specialists to make the classroom

more successful. Teacher aides are able to work one-on-one with special learners while

the regular classroom teacher is then able to teach the rest of the class. Specialists are

able to teach the regular education students how to better communicate with and accept

their disabled peers. Collaboration between regular education teachers and special

education teachers enables the development of innovative programs that are specifically

designed for the particular classroom group being taught. It also allows for regular

education teachers to receive some training in working with special needs learners (NEA,

2006).

Parents are a vital component of classroom management. Parents have insight to

how their child learns and how his or her disability manifests itself in behavior and in

learning. Teachers are able to use the support and information given by parents to better

teach the students that have been assigned to their classrooms (NEA, 2006).

Teachers make use of a variety of techniques to manage their classrooms.

Seminars, books, and research can provide a wealth of knowledge for teachers. Teachers

are then able to adequately plan for their classrooms.

Inclusion and Teacher Perceptions of Their Teaching Ability

Classroom teachers who have limited experience with or knowledge of special

needs learners might perceive themselves as inadequate or unable to teach in an inclusive

classroom. Teachers will need to self-evaluate their perceptions of special needs learners,

15

their own educational background concerning special education, and their willingness to

implement new teaching strategies. The Council for Exceptional Children has developed

a list of competencies regular education teachers should have in order to be successful at

inclusion. There are five necessary competencies.

1. Classroom teachers must realize that the education of every child in the class is

their responsibility. Teachers need to find out themselves how to work with each

child rather than assuming and waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.

2. Teachers need to have a variety of instructional strategies and know how to use

them effectively. This includes the ability to adapt materials and rewrite

objectives for a child's needs.

3. Teachers need to work as a team with parents and special education teachers to

learn what skills a child needs and to provide the best teaching approach.

4. Teachers need to view each child in the class as an opportunity to become a

better teacher rather than a problem to be coped with or have someone else fix.

5. Teachers need to be flexible and patient (Council for Exceptional Children,

2006).

Teachers whom feel they possess these competencies or are able to develop them

have the potential to be excellent inclusive teachers.

Inclusion Versus Self-Contained Special Education Services

P.L. 94-142 states that students should be taught in the least restrictive

environment possible. The ultimate goal of this law is to make the regular education

classroom attainable by special needs students. However, the least restrictive

16

environment for some students may be in a self-contained special education classroom.

Teacher attitudes about these two types of learning environments can have a great impact

on the education of their students (Ross-Kidder, 2003).

The attitude of the classroom teacher towards special needs students is an

important component of the success of inclusion in his or her classroom. The more

positive and flexible the teacher acts toward the special needs students in the classroom,

the more adaptable and accepting the rest of the students in the room will be. The teacher

models appropriate behavior and responses for the regular education students (Schultz,

1998).

If classroom teachers believe that special needs students should only be served in

separate classrooms, inclusion for these particular teachers would be very difficult or

highly unsuccessful. While it is true that some students cannot reach their potential in the

regular education classroom, others may thrive and reach greater milestones than if they

remained in a self-contained classroom. It is important that the classroom teachers

chosen for inclusive education be those that have the competencies to be effective,

inclusive educators (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006).

Research on Classroom Teacher Attitudes

In 1979, Larrivee and Cook developed an instrument to measure teacher attitudes

toward mainstreaming called the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming scale. It was a 5-

point Likert scale and contained 30 questions. The purpose of the scale was to measure

teacher attitudes toward the government mandated law of mainstreaming special needs

17

learners into the regular classroom. This scale was first used to study teachers in the New

England States (Cook & Larrivee, 1979).

In 1995, Antonak and Larrivee revised the ORM to make it more contemporary

and easier to use. The responses were reformatted to insure validity. The scale was

revised to a 6-point Likert scale and was renamed the Opinions Relevant to the

Integration of Students with Disabilities or ORI (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995).

In 1996, the ORI was used nationally to study teacher attitudes toward inclusive

education. One hundred and eighty-two surveys of the five hundred originally sent to

classroom public school teachers were returned. The findings in this study were that

teacher attitudes were neutral in regards to inclusive education (Jobe, Rust, & Brissie,

1996). A study conducted in the Midwest in 2001 of 69 classroom teachers in an urban

setting also returned neutral results. (Loomos, 2001).

The replicative study will show if the previous findings as scored by the ORI still

hold true for classroom teachers today. The findings of this study will be helpful to new

and veteran classroom teachers alike.

Summary of chapter 2

Chapter 2 began with a history of special education legislation. This legislation

was instrumental in the movement towards inclusive education. The least restrictive

environment (LRE) became a cornerstone in this type of legislation.

Inclusive education and how it impacts the attitudes of classroom teachers was

explored. Attitudes about teacher ability, resources, and belief systems associated with

18

inclusion were discussed which led to the usage of the ORI instrument. The use of this

instrument is discussed in chapter 3.

19

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Methodology and Design

The purpose of this study is to investigate classroom teacher attitudes toward

inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers will be surveyed for their attitudes about

the benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, perceptions of their ability

to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education versus

inclusive education.

Sample

Participants in the study will be K-5 classroom teachers from four elementary

schools in a public school district in central Wisconsin. Teachers will participate on a

voluntary basis.

Research Instrument

The instrument that will be used is the Opinions Relevant to Integration of

Students with Disabilities (ORI). The ORI was created by Antonak and Larrivee in 1994.

It is a revision of Larrivee’s and Cook’s 1979 Opinions Relevant to Mainstreaming scale.

The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses

vary from disagree very much, disagree pretty much, disagree a little, to agree a little,

agree pretty much, and agree very much. Teachers are to select which response best

answers the question based on their own perceptions.

20

This instrument answers four key research questions.

1. What are teacher attitudes towards the benefits of inclusion?

2. What are teacher perceptions about their ability to teach special needs

learners?

3. What are teacher attitudes towards inclusion versus separate classrooms?

4. What are teacher attitudes toward integrated classroom management?

Data Collection

The Opinions Relevant to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI)

instrument will be sent to the K-5 classroom teachers in a public school district in central

Wisconsin. These teachers will be identified by both the superintendent’s office and the

school district’s website. The instrument will be mailed to the teachers with a self-

addressed stamped envelope to return to the researcher.

Data Analysis

After the completed instruments are returned to the researcher, the instruments

will be scored using the scoring key provided with the ORI. The scores will be

transferred to a computer and will be tabulated and analyzed. Tables of the findings will

be illustrated and printed. The data will be analyzed and summarized.

21

Ethical Considerations

The researcher filled out and returned the IRB form to the IRB board for

consideration. A letter of waiver of informed consent (Appendix G) was sent along with

all the surveys to the random participants of this study. Since it is an optional survey, no

respondents were at risk of any physical or emotional harm by participating in the survey.

No names were written on the surveys, so all participants remained anonymous. The

surveys were destroyed when the data was collected.

Summary of chapter 3

Chapter 3 introduced the methodology and design that will be used for data

collection and analysis. The chapter discussed the population to be sampled. It also

described the research instrument that will be used, the Opinions Relevant to Integration

of Students with Disabilities (ORI). The chapter concluded with how the data will be

collected and analyzed.

22

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of the researcher was to investigate classroom teacher attitudes

toward inclusion of special needs learners. Teachers were surveyed for their attitudes

about the benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, perceptions of their

ability to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special education

versus inclusive education. The researcher used the Opinions Relative to Integration of

Students with Disabilities (ORI) to survey educators in these areas.

Collection of Data

The superintendent of the surveyed school district was called by the researcher in

the summer of 2007. The researcher requested a letter from the superintendent giving her

permission to survey the K-6 classroom teachers in the school district (see Appendix 1).

The teachers were given a copy of the ORI, a cover letter, and a self-addressed

stamped envelope. The school secretaries placed these in the mailboxes of the classroom

teachers. Teachers could participate in the survey if they chose to do so. Eighty-two

surveys were given out. Of the 84, 44 were returned. Of the 44 returned, 42 were

complete as defined by Antonak and Larrivee (1995), authors of the ORI. The authors

stated on the scoring sheet that surveys that had more than five questions unanswered

should be removed. This left 42 surveys used for data analysis resulting in a 50% return.

23

Item Analysis

The instrument that was used was the Opinions Relevant to Integration of

Students with Disabilities (ORI). The ORI was created by Antonak and Larrivee in 1994.

It is a revision of Larrivee’s and Cook’s 1979 Opinions Relevant to Mainstreaming scale.

The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses

vary from disagree very much (-3), disagree pretty much (-2), disagree a little (-1), to

agree a little (+1), agree pretty much (+2), and agree very much (+3). Teachers selected

which response best answered the question based on their own perceptions concerning

their attitudes towards the benefits of inclusion, their ability to teach special needs

learners, their stance on inclusive classrooms versus separate classrooms, and their

attitudes toward classroom management. Data collected on the 25 questions is presented

on table 1.

Scores were calculated by the researcher scoring each survey by hand and then

using SPSS software for verification. Antonak and Larrivee (1995) stated on the scoring

instrument that scores of 0-150 were possible. Scores above the mean score of 75

indicated a more favorable attitude towards inclusion while scores below the mean

indicated a more unfavorable attitude.

24

Table 1. Summary of ORI Responses ORI Statements

N Disagree f %

Agree f %

M SD

1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments.

41 9 22 32 78 0.88 1.57

2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers.

41 26 63 15 37 0.59 1.77

3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster understanding and acceptance of differences among students.

41 2 5 39 95 1.78 1.54

4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in a general classroom.

41 23 56 18 44 0.37 1.59

5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general classrooms

41 18 44 23 56 0.24 1.95

6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students.

41 31 76 10 24 1.10 1.66

7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with the disability.

41 15 37 26 63 0.51 1.80

8. Integration of students with disabilities will require significant changes in general classroom procedures.

41 28 68 13 32 0.73 1.69

9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too much confusion for the student with a disability.

41 21 51 20 49 0.07 1.75

10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to work with students with disabilities.

41 13 32 27 68 0.44 2.06

11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote acceptance of differences on the part of the students without disabilities.

41 9 21 32 79 1.29 1.84

12. The behavior of the students with disabilities will set a bad example for students without disabilities.

41 11 27 30 73 0.93 1.59

13. The student with a disability will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a general classroom than in a special classroom.

41 23 56 18 44 0.46 1.90

14. Integration of the student with a disability will not promote his or her social independence.

41 9 21 32 79 0.85 1.81

15. It is not more difficult to maintain order in a general classroom that contains a student with a disability than in one that does not contain a student with a disability.

41 24 59 17 41 0.44 1.91

16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the general-classroom teacher's time.

41 29 71 12 29 0.85 1.90

17. The integration of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students without disabilities.

41 4 2 37 98 1.51 1.34

18. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general classroom.

41 14 34 27 66 0.56 1.67

25

ORI Statements

N Disagree f %

Agree f %

M SD

Table 1, continued. Summary of ORI Responses 19. General-classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities.

41

23

56

18

44

0.44

1.98

20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of the student with a disability.

41 7 17 34 83 1.15 1.39

21. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in the general classroom where possible.

41 5 12 36 88 1.59 1.55

22. The classroom behavior of the student with a disability generally does not require more patience from the teacher than does the classroom behavior of the student without the disability.

41 26 63 15 37 0.88 1.91

23. Teaching students with disabilities is better done by special-than by general-classroom teachers.

41 24 59 17 41 0.61 1.73

24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the social and emotional development of the student with a disability.

41 10 24 31 86 0.93 1.72

25. The student with a disability will not be socially isolated in the general classroom.

41 20 49 21 51 0.07 1.63

Note: N = number of responses, f = frequency, % = percentage, M = mean, SD = standard deviation

The lowest score on the ORI obtained during this study was 26 and the highest

score was 125. The mean scores for this study calculated at 80.2 with 75 being the

median score for the ORI. This indicates that the participants in this study had a slightly

favorable attitude towards inclusion with 75 being considered neutral.

Research Questions

Research Question 1. What are the attitudes of classroom teachers toward the benefits of

inclusion?

The minimum score for this question was 93, and the maximum score was 147.

The mean score of this section was 136.6. The standard deviation of 44.9. This score is

26

well above the neutral score of 75 which indicates a very positive attitude toward the

benefits of inclusion by classroom teachers.

The first question to be evaluated by the ORI was calculated from the scores of

statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24 from the instrument. Statement 3 (M = 1.78,

SD = 1.54) in the study referred to integration of disabled students fostering

understanding within the school community. 5% of the participants disagreed with this

statement while 95% agreed.

Statement 7 (M = 0.51, SD = 1.80) stated that the challenge of the regular

classroom will stimulate academic growth in disabled students. Of those surveyed, 37%

disagreed with this statement while 63% agreed.

Statement 11 (M = 1.29, SD = 1.84) stated that those with disabilities will not be

accepted within the regular classroom. Twenty-one percent of the respondents disagreed

with this statement while 79% agreed.

Statement 14 (M = 0.85, SD = 1.81) stated that disabled students will not build

self-independence within a regular classroom. Of those surveyed, 21% disagreed with

this statement while 79% agreed.

Statement 17 (M = 1.51, SD = 1.34) relayed that the integration of disabled

students in a classroom could be beneficial to regular education students. Two percent of

the participants disagreed with this statement while 98% agreed.

Statement 20 (M = 1.51, SD = 1.34) dealt with the likelihood that integration

would have a negative effect on the emotional development of disabled students. Of the

participants, 17% disagreed with this statement while 83% agreed.

27

Statement 21 (M = 1.59, SD = 1.55) stated that disabled students should be

allowed in the regular classroom as much as possible. Of those surveyed, 12% disagreed

with this statement while 88% agreed.

Statement 24 (M = 0.93, SD = 1.72) related that it is more beneficial for

emotional development of disabled students to have their own separate classrooms.

Twenty-four percent disagreed with this statement while 76% agreed.

Findings of this first research question are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. ORI Statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24

ORI Statements 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 24

N Disagree f %

Agree f %

M SD

3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster understanding and acceptance of differences among students.

41 2 5 39 95 1.78 1.54

7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with the disability.

41 15 37 26 63 0.51 1.80

11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote acceptance of differences on the part of the students without disabilities.

41 9 21 32 79 1.29 1.84

14. Integration of the student with a disability will not promote his or her social independence.

41 9 21 32 79 0.85 1.81

17. The integration of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students without disabilities.

41 4 2 37 98 1.51 1.34

20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of the student with a disability.

41 7 17 34 83 1.15 1.39

21. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in the general classroom where possible.

41 5 12 36 88 1.59 1.55

24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the social and emotional development of the student with a disability.

41 10 24 31 86 0.93 1.72


28

Research Question 2. What are classroom teacher attitudes toward integrated classroom

management?

The minimum score for this research question was 32 and the maximum score

was 111. These scores were based on questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 from

the ORI. The mean score for these questions was 64 with a standard deviation of 26.004.

This score is below the mean score for the ORI of 75 which indicates a slightly negative

attitude towards integrated classroom management.

Statement 1 (M = 0.88, SD = 1.57) stated that most disabled students would make

an adequate attempt to finish their homework. Of those surveyed, 22% disagreed with

the statement while 78% agreed.

Statement 4 (M = -0.37, SD = 1.59) reported the likelihood of disabled students

exhibiting behavior problems. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed disagreed with this

statement while 44% agreed.

Statement 6 (M = -1.10, SD = 1.66) stated that the extra attention disabled

students would need in the classroom would be detrimental to the regular education

students. Seventy-six percent of the respondents disagreed with this statement while 24%

agreed.

Statement 9 (M = -0.07, SD = 1.75) dealt with confusion of disabled students in

the freedom of a regular classroom. Fifty-one percent of the teachers disagreed with this

statement and felt it was not an issue while 49% did.

Statement 12 (M = 0.93, SD = 1.99) stated that regular education students would

be affected by the bad behavior of disabled students. Twenty-seven percent of the

respondents disagreed with this statement while 73% felt this was a true problem.

29

Statement 15 (M = -0.44, SD = 1.91) stated that it is not more difficult to

maintain order with a disabled student in the regular classroom than if there was not one

in the classroom. Of the respondents, 59% disagreed with this statement and felt it was

harder to maintain order with disabled students in the classroom than the 41% of the

teachers who felt it was not and agreed with the statement.

Statement 16 (M = -0.85, SD = 1.90) stated that disabled students would not

monopolize the regular classroom teacher's time. Of those surveyed, 71% disagreed with

this statement and felt the teacher's time would be monopolized while 29% agreed with

the statement.

Statement 18 (M = 0.56, SD = 1.67) dealt with the attitude that confusion would

be created by disabled students in the regular education classroom. Thirty-four percent of

the respondents disagreed with this statement but 66% agreed and felt confusion would

be created in the classroom.

Statement 22 (M = -0.88, SD = 1.91) discussed the attitude that a teacher does not

need more patience to deal with a disabled student than a regular education student.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents disagreed with this statement and felt that more

patience was needed. Thirty-seven percent agreed with the statement.

Statement 25 (M = -0.07, SD = 1.63) stated that disabled students will not be

socially isolated in the regular education classroom. Of those surveyed, 49% disagreed

with this statement while 51% felt disabled students would not be socially isolated.

Findings concerning questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 are illustrated

in Table 3.

30

Table 3. ORI Statements 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25

ORI Statements 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 25 N Disagree f %

Agree f %

M SD

1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments.

41 9 22 32 78 0.88 1.57

4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in a general classroom.

41 23 56 18 44 0.37 1.59

6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students.

41 31 76 10 24 1.10 1.66

9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too much confusion for the student with a disability.

41 21 51 20 49 0.07 1.75

12. The behavior of the students with disabilities will set a bad example for students without disabilities.

41 11 27 30 73 0.93 1.59

15. It is not more difficult to maintain order in a general classroom that contains a student with a disability than in one that does not contain a student with a disability.

41 24 59 17 41 0.44 1.91

16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the general-classroom teacher's time.

41 29 71 12 29 0.85 1.90


41 14 34 27 66 0.56 1.67

22. The classroom behavior of the student with a disability generally does not require more patience from the teacher than does the classroom behavior of the student without the disability.

41 26 63 15 37 0.88 1.91

25. The student with a disability will not be socially isolated in the general classroom.

41 20 49 21 51 0.07 1.63


Research Question 3.What are classroom teacher attitudes concerning their perceived

ability to teach disabled students?

The minimum score for this question was 53 and the maximum score was 93.

The mean score for this question was 68. It had a standard deviation of 21.8. This is

slightly below the neutral score of 75 which indicates a somewhat negative attitude

toward teachers' perceptions of their ability to teach disabled students. Statements 2, 10,

and 19 on the ORI were used to calculate the scores to this question.

31

Statement 2 (M = -0.59, SD = 1.77) stated that teachers would need extensive

retraining in order to integrate disabled students into their classrooms. Of the

respondents, 63% disagreed with this statement while 37% agreed.

Statement 10 (M = 0.44, SD = 2.06) stated that the regular education teachers

have the ability to teach disabled students. Thirty-two percent of the respondents

disagreed with this statement and felt they were unable to teach disabled students while

68% felt they had the teaching ability.

Statement 19 (M = -.044, SD =1.98) stated that regular education teachers have

sufficient training for teaching disabled students. Fifty-six percent of the respondents

disagreed with this statement and felt they did not have sufficient training while 44%

agreed with this statement.

Findings concerning statements 2, 10, and 19 for research question three are

illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4. ORI Statements 2, 10, and 19 ORI Statements 2, 10, and 19 N Disagree

f % Agree f %

M SD

2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers.

41 26 63 15 37 0.59 1.77

10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to work with students with disabilities.

41 13 32 27 68 0.44 2.06

19. General-classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities.

41 23 56 18 44 0.44 1.98


32

Research Question 4. What are teacher attitudes concerning special education classes

versus inclusive education?

The minimum score on this question was 45 and the maximum score was 84. The

mean score for this question was 74.2 indicating a neutral attitude towards special

education classrooms versus regular education classrooms. Statements 5, 8, 11, and 23

were used to calculate the scores for this question

Statement 5 (M = -0.24, SD=1.95) stated that disabled students are best served in

regular education classrooms. Forty-four percent of those surveyed disagreed with this

statement while 56% felt that students could be better served in the regular classroom.

Statement 8 (M = -0.73, SD=1.69) stated that integrated disabled students into the

regular education classroom would require significant changes in classroom procedures.

Of the respondents, 68% disagreed with this statement while 32% felt it would require

significant change.

Statement 13 (M = -0.46, SD=1.90) stated that disabled students would probably

develop academic skills more rapidly in a regular education classroom. Of those

surveyed, 56% disagreed with this statement and felt they would learn more rapidly in a

special education classroom than 44% of those who felt they would do better in the

regular education classroom.

Statement 23 (M = -0.07, SD=1.63) stated that teaching disabled students is better

done by special education teachers than regular education teachers. Fifty-nine percent of

those surveyed disagreed and felt they could teach as well as special education teachers

while 44% agreed with the statement.

33

Findings for statements 5, 8, 13, and 23 for research question 4 are illustrated in

Table 5.

Table 5. ORI Statements 5, 8, 18, and 23

ORI Statements 5, 8, 18, and 23 N Disagree

f % Agree f %

M SD

5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general classrooms

41 18 44 23 56 0.24 1.95

8. Integration of students with disabilities will require significant changes in general classroom procedures.

41 28 68 13 32 0.73 1.69


41 14 34 27 66 0.56 1.67

23. Teaching students with disabilities is better done by special-than by general-classroom teachers.

41 24 59 17 41 0.61 1.73


Summary of Chapter 4

Chapter 4 began with a description of the procedures used by the researcher to

collect the data for the study. Of the 82 questionnaires given out, 43 were returned to the

researcher via a self-addressed stamped envelope. The researcher discarded two

instruments due to lack of completion leaving 41 questionnaires to be used to calculate

data. This equaled a return of 50%.

The chapter also included an item analysis and explanation of the instrument. The

Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI) is a 6-point

Likert scale developed by Antonak and Larrivee (1995). It is a reformation of the

instrument created by Larrivee and Cook called Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming

(1975). The statements on the instrument measured teachers' attitudes about benefits of

34

inclusion, integrated classroom management, their perceptions of their teaching ability of

disabled students, and their attitudes concerning special education classrooms versus

regular education classrooms for disabled students. The results for each question were

given with each statement illustrated in tables. Chapter 5 will present a summary of the

study, conclusions, and recommendations.

35

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the researcher was to investigate classroom teacher attitudes

toward inclusion of special needs learners. The study was a descriptive study of teacher

attitudes about the benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, perceptions

of their ability to teach special needs students, and attitudes toward separate special

education versus inclusive education. The study was conducted in a single public school

district in central Wisconsin. Five elementary schools serving grades K-6 were surveyed.

The instrument, the Opinions Relative to Integration of Disabled Students (ORI), was

distributed to the schools and administered to the regular education teachers there. This

chapter begins with a summary and concludes with conclusions and recommendations for

further study.

Summary

The subject of inclusion of disabled students in the regular education classroom is

one that has been debated for quite some time. How classroom teachers perceive the

abilities of disabled students and their own ability to teach them has significance in the

body of knowledge for educators.

Historically, special needs students were either kept at home or institutionalized.

Education of special needs students did not seem to be of importance until the mid 1960s

and beyond. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was the catalyst for change in this

belief system (Pardini, 2002).

36

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, legislation for special education developed.

One of the most important of these was P.L. 94-142 or the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This act was the cornerstone for ongoing legislation

for special needs children and inclusion (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2001).

With the inception of P.L. 94-142 (1975), inclusion has become an important part

of the educational process. The least restrictive environment (LRE) was introduced by

this law as the best way to serve disabled students. To what extent a student may be

included in regular educational programs was dependent on the severity of the student's

disability. Teacher attitudes towards these students can also have a great impact on these

students' successes in the regular education classroom (Ross-Kidder, 2003).

Parents also felt the need to be educated in what their rights and the rights of their

children were in reference to their education in the public school system. Parents have

their child’s IEP (individualized education plan) as a means of making sure their student

gets what he or she is entitled to in the educational setting. The IEP is developed by a

multidisciplinary team to determine the best educational plan for each student according

to his or her special needs. The IEP is legally binding and school districts are required to

follow it (Anderson et al, 1982).

The study was an exploratory Level I research design. The study performed was a

descriptive study on the attitudes of teachers toward inclusion of disabled students in the

regular classroom. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes of the grades

K-6 classroom teachers toward the ideology of inclusion, the attitudes of the grades K-6

classroom teachers on integrated classroom management, and the attitudes of the grades

K-6 classroom teachers on their own perceptions of their ability to teach students with

37

disabilities. This study was conducted in a single public school district in central

Wisconsin. Five elementary schools serving grades K-6 were given the ORI instrument

for implementation.

The ORI was a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. Eighty-two surveys

were given out amongst the five schools. Of the 82 surveys, 43 were returned with two

omitted by the researcher for lack of completion resulting in a return of 41 completed

surveys, a return of 50%.

The Opinions Relative to the Integrations of Students with Disabilities (ORI—see

appendix) created by Antonak and Larrivee, was the instrument used for this study. It is

a reformation of the original Likert scale created by Larrivee and Cook (1979). Teachers

were given the instrument in their school mailboxes along with a self-addressed stamped

envelope to the researcher. Teachers were asked to fill out the instrument and return it to

the research via the given envelope. After the questionnaires were returned to the

researcher, they were scored using the scoring key provided by Antonak and Larrivee.

These scores were then transferred to the computer for verification and analysis of data.

Descriptive statistics were then formulated using percentages, frequency distributions,

means, and standard deviations as shown on the tables in chapter 4. The data was then

reviewed and summarized by the researcher.

Of the 43 questionnaires returned of the original 82 given, two were removed by

the researcher. This left 41 valid questionnaires for scoring, and it resulted in a 50%

return. The results for each research question were discussed and illustrated earlier in

chapter 4. The remainder of chapter 5 will discuss conclusions and recommendations for

further study.

38

Conclusions

Research question 1 dealt with classroom teacher attitudes toward the benefits of

inclusion. Overall, the teachers had a very positive attitude toward the benefits of

inclusion. Teachers scored in this section with a mean score of 136.6. A score of 150

was the maximum possible score. Classroom teachers feel that disabled students could

benefit from being in the regular education classroom. Teachers are able to implement

the use of classroom aides, resource rooms, and modified individualized education plans

in order to make inclusion successful (Anderson et al. 1982).

An important characteristic of successful inclusion is the classroom teacher’s

ability to adapt and be flexible with the inclusion of a special needs child in the

classroom. A classroom teacher who is able to include the special needs student as a

regular member of the classroom not only serves that student, but also educates the

regular education students on acceptance and the benefits of having all types of students

in the classroom (Schultz, 1998). In this research setting, it was considered a positive

environment to have special needs students in the classroom setting. The classroom

teachers reported that the special needs students had a positive effect on the classroom

learning environment.

Research has also shown that the classroom environment is a positive place for

special needs students to learn appropriate social cues from the regular education

students. The classroom teacher has been able to act as a facilitator for these social

lessons. The regular education students also gain a greater knowledge and respect for

their special needs peers (Pavri & Luftig, 2000).

39

Teacher collaboration has been an important facet of successful classroom

inclusion. Teachers have the ability to brainstorm and discuss possible ideas and options

with special needs educators as well as classroom teachers who have experience with

inclusion. Working as a team allows the classroom teacher access to materials and

methods that might have been unavailable in different venues (Hammekin, 1997). The

researcher had observed this type of collaboration in the school district.

Adequate teacher training also had an effect on the teachers’ positive attitude

toward inclusion. Teachers who feel that have adequate training and materials develop a

more positive attitude toward having special needs students in the classroom (Schultz,

1998). The researcher had seen the list of the professional development opportunities

offered by the school district for classroom teachers and special needs teachers in

inclusive education. The school district pays for teachers to attend these training

opportunities.

The data provided by the instrument for question one verifies the existing body of

knowledge as evidenced in the literature concerning the benefits of inclusive education in

the classroom.

Research question 1 dealt with teachers' attitudes toward integrated classroom

management. This was one area that the teachers surveyed showed a slightly negative

attitude. The mean score for this question was 64 with a score of 75 being neutral.

Teachers in this study felt that disabled students could negatively affect the management

of their regular education classrooms. Teachers have the need to understand management

techniques and make use of a variety of them since disabled students may not be able to

40

function under the same management as the regular education students. Parents also are

a vital part of this management team (NEA, 2006).

Classroom management skills would be a place for collaboration amongst

teachers. As in collaboration between regular classroom educators, collaboration

between regular classroom educators and special needs educators could be a venue for

learning methodologies in classroom management of special needs students. Because

teachers in this study had a more negative attitude toward classroom management, it

would be beneficial to them to work with teachers who regularly work with special needs

students on how they maintain their classroom environment (NEA, 2006). Within this

specific research setting, it is unknown if collaboration about management techniques

take place.

Parents are also a vital resource for problems with specific special needs students.

Parents have their own ways of managing their home environments when it comes to

their special needs child. It might be possible to integrate the management techniques of

the home into the classroom setting and vice versa. This might provide continuity and

structure that the special needs child needs to be successful (NEA, 2006).

One area of classroom management that many teachers leave untapped is the use

of peer mentoring. The opportunity for growth within regular education students as they

mentor and model appropriate behavior for special needs learners is of utmost

importance. Special needs learners may also develop friendships with their non-disabled

peers where they might not have the opportunity to do so in a separate environment.

Classroom teachers would be able to develop classroom management strategies based on

positive behavior modeling instead of on a negative or punitive basis (NEA, 2006).

41

It is unknown to what extend parents, student peers, and teacher colleagues are

utilized in the area of classroom management from this study. The literature would show

that these areas are vital to classroom management. It would be beneficial to make use of

parents and colleagues in development of management strategies. School districts would

be wise to encourage their teachers to make use of these types of strategies and

methodologies. Teachers who feel negatively about having special needs learners in their

classrooms due to the perception that they will create classroom management issues

would most likely have a difficult time teaching special needs learners to the best of their

abilities (Ross-Kidder, 2003).

Research question three dealt with teachers' perceptions of their ability to teach

disabled students. The mean score for this question was 68. A score of 75 was neutral.

This indicates a slightly negative attitude towards teacher perceptions of their own ability

to teach the disabled.

Classroom teachers who doubt their ability to adequately teach special needs

learners may impact the quality of education the students in the classroom receive, both

regular education students and special needs students. Teachers need to be in a state of

self-evaluation when it comes to their perceived teaching ability and then seek to

implement strategies to improve their teaching skills (Council for Exceptional Children,

2006).

As indicated by the data of this study, the classroom teachers have a neutral view

of their perceived teaching ability. This shows that teachers could either feel their ability

to teach special needs students in their classrooms could use improvement or are

adequate enough. The Council for Exceptional Children (2006) has competencies for

42

what they believe make for a successful inclusive teacher including accepting

responsibility for the education of all students in the classroom, not just the regular

education students, and also implementing a variety of instructional strategies to reach all

students in the classroom so they may achieve success.

It is unknown to what extent classroom teachers in this study have the listed

competencies as outlined by the Council for Exceptional Children. The data would

suggest that the classroom teachers in this study feel they have enough of the

competencies to adequately teach special needs students in their classrooms.

It would be beneficial to school districts to survey their classroom teachers on

their perceived ability to teach special needs learners. The districts may find that some

teachers are more appropriate than others to have special needs learners in their

classrooms. The districts may also find the need to have professional development

opportunities created to help classroom teachers develop more positive attitudes about

their ability to teach special learners. Collaboration between special education teachers

and classroom teachers could help classroom teachers see that they have the potential

ability to be successful inclusive teachers (Ross-Kidder, 2003).

Research question 4 investigated classroom teacher attitudes in regards to having

special needs students in the regular classroom. It also investigated teacher attitudes

toward having special needs students in special education classrooms. The results of the

study indicate a neutral attitude toward having students in the regular classroom or

having them in their own specialized classroom.

P.L. 94-142 mandates that students be taught in the least restrictive environment.

Classroom teachers need to be prepared to have special needs students in their classrooms

43

due to this mandate. The attitude the classroom teacher has may have an effect on the

success of the special needs student (Ross-Kidder, 2003).

Schools have implemented teacher aides to make it easier for special needs

learners to be in the regular education classroom without monopolizing the teacher’s

time. Resource rooms are also an alternative to allowing students to be in the regular

classroom part of the time and then be with special education teachers who could work

one-on-one with the student. Some teachers welcome the classroom aide while others

prefer that special needs students be able to achieve on their own in the classroom or not

be in the regular education classroom at all (Anderson et al, 1982).

For inclusive education to be effective, the classroom teacher needs to be positive

and flexible in attitude. Flexibility in teaching strategies and methodologies could prove

valuable to both the special needs students and the regular education students. The

teacher would also need to have an attitude that embraces the least restrictive

environment as being important to the success of the special needs learner (Schults,

1998).

Classroom teachers who do not have a vested interest in the least restrictive

environment and espouse the belief that special needs students should be separated from

the regular education population would have a difficult time in being receptive to special

needs learners in their classrooms. The teaching of special needs learners in their

classrooms might prove to be highly unsuccessful.

In some instances, special needs learners might be unable to succeed in the

regular education classroom, but this should not limit all special needs learners who

might reach a higher potential by being in a regular classroom. School districts need to

44

be aware of the teachers who would be better choices for inclusive classrooms and

implement them (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006).

In this study, the classroom teachers have a neutral view of which environment is

better for special needs students. Due to P.L. 94-142, it would be to the benefit of all if

classroom teachers evaluate their own belief systems on inclusion and make the

necessary changes to make their classroom a positive learning environment for all

students.

For inclusion to be successful, the classroom teacher must have the ability to

adapt to the needs of the disabled student. If the classroom teacher perceives himself as

someone who is skilled and flexible, he will help all the students in the room understand

and accept disabilities. Because of this, the student will have a better chance of

succeeding and feel accepted by his or her classmates in the regular education classroom.

Teachers will also have the feeling of success themselves in their own ability to teach

disabled students (Schultz, 1998).

Overall, the regular education teachers see a great benefit to inclusion, but do not

always feel adequate in providing it (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). This

study showed that, in general, the teachers have a slightly positive attitude towards

inclusion with an overall mean score of 80.2.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, three recommendations have been developed.

1. It is recommended that the study be conducted in other school districts of

varying sizes. Implementing this study in other school districts of different sizes

45

would be able to provide additional data to the body of knowledge concerning

classroom teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. A research study could be done

comparing the attitudes of classroom teachers from smaller to larger school

districts. This study could include factors such as availability of services, poverty

levels, and levels of education of classroom teachers. There may be a correlation

between factors in regards to how teachers perceive students requiring special

education services in relation to school size. The availability and types of

assessment materials may also vary with the size and location of schools.

Inclusive classroom testing data may vary between schools of different size. This

data could provide useful in determining if class size has any affect on classroom

teacher attitudes (Zabala, 1998). Data generated by these studies would prove

useful in school districts as they develop their plans for professional development

and funding for these programs. Additional funding may also be generated for

teacher training in inclusive education. School districts from other areas of the

country may also garner data with very different results from this study due to

cultural and societal belief systems of teachers in different regions. This study

could be useful within their districts in determining if their inclusive programs are

adequate for classroom teachers.

2. It is recommended that classroom teachers be provided more specified training

on inclusive practices via in-services or other class work. Teachers who have

training in special education methods develop competencies to better service the

students assigned to their classrooms. These competencies include: developing

new strategies with the help of parents, exercising patience and flexibility, and

46

acknowledging that every child in the classroom is his responsibility to teach and

accept that responsibility with positivity (Council for Exceptional Children,

2006). Research has shown that students who are taught in a classroom with

teachers who have had more training and flexibility in dealing with special needs

students have a higher rate of success (Schultz, 1998). It is difficult for many

school districts to fund this type of training for their teachers, but the need is one

that must be addressed. By researching this area of inclusion, data may provide

the information needed to make this type of funding a priority.

3. It is recommended that a survey of classroom teachers concerning specific

disabilities be administered and collected for data. As the researcher of this study

collected data from the participants, several surveys had comments listed on them

containing statements such as, "This is too vague," "What disability are you

talking about," and so forth. This would indicate that there may be differences in

classroom teacher attitudes toward different student disabilities. A study in this

area may produce data useful to school districts, students, and classroom teachers.

This type of study would facilitate the development of a new instrument or use of

instruments designed specifically for evaluating the attitudes of classroom

teachers toward specific disabilities. It seems, according to the additional

responses as stated above, that classroom teachers might have more positive

attitudes toward one type of disability over another. The instrument used in this

study would not be able to test specific attitudes.

47

References

Anderson, W., Chitwood, S., & Hayden, D. (1982). Negotiating the special education maze. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the

Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 132-149. Booth-Butterfield, S. (2006, August 21). Attitudes drive behavior. Retrieved September

4, 2006, from http://www.as.wvu.edu/sbb/comm221/chapters/abc.htm Connecticut Department of Education. (2003). Approved special education courses.

Retrieved September 4, 2006, from http://www.state.ct.us/side/dtl/cert/cspeced.htm

Cook, L., & Larrivee, B. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of variables affecting teacher

attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13(3), 315-324. Council for Exceptional Children. (2006). Teacher Competencies. Retrieved June 12,

2006, from www.uni.edu?coe/inclusion/standards/competences.html Duvanis, G., & Husley, D. (2002). The least restrictive environment: how has it been

defined by the courts? The Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, EC Digest #E629

Grucke, V. (2001). Compulsory education. Fargo, North Dakota: North Dakota

University. Hammeken, P. (1997). Inclusion: 450 strategies for success. Minnetonka, MN: Peytral.. Hanson, J. R. (1998). Developing a classroom management repertoire. Classroom

Management: An ASCD Professional Inquiry, , . Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.8835d3e3fbb1b0cddeb3ffdbc2108a0c

Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students

with disabilities into regular classrooms. Education, 117(1), 148-154. Least Restrictive Environment Coalition. (2001). What is LRB? Retrieved June 12, 2006,

from http://www.lrecoalition.org/01_whatIsLRE;#1 Loomos, K. A. (2001). An investigation of urban teachers' attitudes toward students with

disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Chicago, IL: Loyola University.

48

Marshfield Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2005, January 2005). Education.

Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.marshfieldchamber.com/education.aspx

Martin, E., Martin, R., & Terman, D. (1996). The future of children. Washington D.C.:

U.S. Dept. of Education. McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education

Terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Education Association (2006). Works for Me. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from

http://www.nea.org/tips/manage/inclusion.html Newman College (2004, June 21). Inclusion. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from

http:/www.newman.ac.uk/students_websites/ Pardini, P. (2002). The history of special education. Rethinking Schools, 16(1), . Parents United Together, (2002). Legislative history of special education. Parents United

Together, 1, . Pavri, S., & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: Are students with

disabilities really included in the classroom?. Preventing Social Failure, (Fall Edition, 2),

Richards, J. (2004, January/February). What new teachers value most. Retrieved

September 4, 2006, from http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentld=1128 Ross-Kidder, K. (2003). Pull-out or pull-in?. LD Online, , . Retrieved June 12, 2006,

from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/special_education/inclusion_pullin.html Schultz, J. (1998). Inclusion and learning disabilities:frequently asked questions.

Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=20id=499&loc=27

Sevier County Board of Education, (2001). Board of education report. Sevier County

Board of Education, 1, . U.S. Dept. of Education, (2001). History of special education. U.S. Dept. of Education

OSEP Report, , 1-2.

49

U.W. Oshkosh Testing Services (2005, August 30). Importance of reliability and validity. Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://www.uwosh.edu/testing/facultyinfo/importanceofreliabvalid.php

Wentz, T. (2001, February 5). I Kant believe it's not socially constructed. Retrieved

September 4, 2006, from http://jrscience.wcp.muchio.edu/humannature01/IdeaArticles/WeekasPhilosophy-Draft11k.html

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2006, January 2006). What is the

enrollment by student group? Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://data.dpi.state.wi.us/data/graphshell.asp?Group=Disability&GraphFile=GROUPS&DETAIL=YES&CompareTo=PRIORYEARS&STYP

Zabala, J. (1998). Get SETT for successful inclusion and transition. Retrieved April 18,

2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=2-&id=504&1oc=51

50

APPENDIX A. LETTER TO MR. BRUCE KING

Karen E. Bahn 300 N. Adams Ave.

Marshfield, WI 54449 715-384-7968

Bruce King, Superintendent School District of Marshfield 1010 E. 4th St. Marshfield, WI 54449 Dear Mr. King: My name is Karen Bahn, and I am a doctoral learner at Capella University. My dissertation is on Classroom Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion. I am requesting permission from you to administer the attached survey to the elementary teachers of your district. I will send the survey to the teachers and they have the option of filling it out or not. If this is agreeable to you, please give me your written permission on school district letterhead and mail it to me at the above address. I will be happy to share the results of my research with you and your teachers. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Karen Bahn Capella University Doctoral Learner

51

APPENDIX B. EMAIL TO DR. RICHARD ANTONAK

-----Original Message----- From: Daryn and Karen Bahn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:47 AM To: Richard F. Antonak Subject: Request for ORI instrument March 29, 2006 Dr. Antonak: My name is Karen Bahn and I am a doctoral student at Capella University. I am currently serving as principal and grades 7-8 teacher in a Wisconsin Lutheran school. I am writing my dissertation on classroom teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. The Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities instrument you have developed would be very helpful to me in my research. I intend to survey the K-5 teachers from the Marshfield School District in Marshfield, Wisconsin. With your permission, I would like to use this instrument and any scoring and background information that goes with it. I would greatly appreciate a copy of both the instrument and the scoring materials. Thank you so much for your help. Sincerely, Karen Bahn [email protected]

52

APPENDIX C. EMAIL FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONAK

Ms. Bahn, I am attaching to this message a copy of the ORI and the scoring key, together with a letter granting permission to use the instrument in your study. Best wishes for success. Richard F. Antonak Vice Provost for Research University of Massachusetts Boston [email protected] Voice: 617-287-5600 FAX: 617-287-5616

53

APPENDIX D. LETTER FROM DR. RICHARD ANTONAK

March 29, 2006

Dear Inquirer:

Thank you for your inquiry about the scale entitled Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Special-Needs Children. This scale was completely revised recently. It is now entitled Opinions Relative to the Integration of Students with Disabilities. I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the most recent version of the ORI scale and a scoring key for your use.

You may reproduce the ORI scale in any form that suits your research needs. The only requirement that we have for the use of the instrument is that you ascribe authorship to Dr. Larrivee and me somewhere on the instrument and acknowledge us as the authors of the instrument, using the citation below, in any publication that may arise from your use of it.

Good luck with your research. Please call or write if I can assist you further.

Very truly yours,

Richard F. Antonak, Ed.D. Vice Provost for Research

Appropriate citation:

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.

UNIVERSITY of Office of the MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON Vice Provost for Research 100 Morrissey Blvd. 617.287.5600 Boston, MA 02125-3393 Fax: 617.287.5616

54

APPENDIX E. ORI SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Opinions Relative To The Integration Of Students With Disabilities

General Directions: Educators have long realized that one of the most important influences on a child's educational progress is the classroom teacher. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information that will aid school systems in increasing the classroom teacher's effectiveness with students with disabilities placed in his or her classroom. Please circle the number to the left of each item that best describes your agreement or disagreement with the statement. There are no correct answers: the best answers are those that honestly reflect your feelings. There is no time limit, but you should work as quickly as you can.

Please respond to every statement.

KEY -3: I disagree very much +1: I agree a little -2: I disagree pretty much +2: I agree pretty much -1: I disagree a little +3: I agree very much

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 1. Most students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 2. Integration of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of general-classroom teachers.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 3. Integration offers mixed group interaction that will foster understanding and acceptance of differences among students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 4. It is likely that the student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in a general classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 5. Students with disabilities can best be served in general classrooms.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 6. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 7. The challenge of being in a general classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 8. Integration of students with disabilities will require significant changes in general classroom procedures.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 9. Increased freedom in the general classroom creates too much confusion for the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 10. General-classroom teachers have the ability necessary to work with students with disabilities.

55



-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 11. The presence of students with disabilities will not promote acceptance of differences on the part of students without disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 12. The behavior of students with disabilities will set a bad example for students without disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 13. The student with a disability will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a general classroom than in a special classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 14. Integration of the student with a disability will not promote his or her social independence.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 15. It is not more difficult to maintain order in a general classroom that contains a student with a disability than in one that does not contain a student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 16. Students with disabilities will not monopolize the general-classroom teacher's time.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 17. The integration of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students without disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 18. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general classroom.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 19. General-classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 20. Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of the student with a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 21. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in the general classroom where possible.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 22. The classroom behavior of the student with a disability generally does not require more patience from the teacher than does the classroom behavior of the student without a disability.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 23. Teaching students with disabilities is better done by special- than by general-classroom teachers.

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 24. Isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the social and emotional development of the student with a disability.

56



-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 25. The student with a disability will not be socially isolated in the general classroom.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

57

APPENDIX F. ORI SCORING KEY

Opinions Relative To The Integration Of Students With Disabilities

ORI Scoring Key

Item # +/- Factor Item # +/- Factor

1 + II 14 - I

2 - III 15 + II

3 + I 16 + II

4 - II 17 + I

5 + IV 18 - II

6 - II 19 + III

7 + I 20 - I

8 - IV 21 + I

9 - II 22 + II

10 + III 23 - IV

11 - I 24 - I

12 - II 25 + II

13 + IV

To score the ORI:

1. Positively score the 12 items that are worded negatively by reversing the sign of the response (i.e., from + to – , or from – to +).

2. Sum the 25 item responses.

3. Add a constant of 75 to the total to eliminate negative scores.

4. Scores range from 0 to 150 with a higher score representing a more favorable attitude toward the integration of students with disabilities into general education classrooms.

5. It is suggested that protocols with omitted responses to 4 or more items should not be scored. Protocols with omitted responses are scored as described above, with the omitted responses assigned a value of zero.

Preliminary research data suggest there may be four orthogonal factors that account for the variation in the ORI item responses. Scores for these four factors are determined by summing the positively-scored item responses as indicated in the table below. The use of factor scores as subscale scores for differential prediction of attitudes has not been investigated. The computation of ORI subscale scores cannot be defended until these

58

factors can be shown to be homogeneous, reliable, and specific, and until they consistently predict valid indicators of favorable attitudes of education professionals.

Factor # Items # + / #– Range Factor Title I 8 4+ / 4– 0 to 48 Benefits of Integration II 10 5+ / 5– 0 to 60 Integrated Classroom Management III 3 2+ / 1– 0 to 18 Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities IV 4 2+ / 2– 0 to 24 Special versus Integrated General Education

Reference citation:

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.

For more information:

Richard F. Antonak, Ed.D. Barbara Larrivee, Ed.D. Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Special Education Indiana State University California State University at San Bernardino Terre Haute, IN 47809 San Bernardino, CA 92407 812-237-2304 909-880-5670

59

APPENDIX G. WAIVER OF SIGNED CONSENT

WAIVER OF SIGNED CONSENT Capella University

225 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402

Karen E. Bahn

Capella University Doctoral Student 300 N. Adams Ave.

Marshfield, WI 54449 (715)384-7968

Dear Participant: My name is Karen Bahn and I am conducting research for my dissertation at Capella University. The title of my research project is “Classroom Teacher Attitudes Towards Inclusion.” You were selected for this survey because you are an elementary classroom teacher in the Marshfield School District. Your name was selected from a list posted on the Marshfield School District website. You are asked to simply fill out the enclosed survey and return it in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Filling out this survey should take about ten minutes. Please do not sign your name to the survey or the return envelope to guarantee your anonymity. The data collected is confidential and surveys will be destroyed after they are calculated. Your participation in this project is totally voluntary. This results of this research could prove beneficial to you in that it pertains to classroom teachers. If you have any questions about this project, feel free to call or email me at the above address or you can direct your questions to Dr. Bruce Francis ([email protected]) from Capella University. Thank you for your consideration of being a participant in this project. Sincerely, Karen Bahn Capella University Doctoral Learner

60

APPENDIX H. PERMISSION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT

CLASSROOM TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSION

Documents

Transcript of CLASSROOM TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSION