Perceptions of Regular Education

Teachers toward Inclusion of All

Handicapped Students in Their Classrooms

ROBERT DENNIS STOLER

The Clearing House - September/October 1992 (pg. 60-62)

Educators are coming to recognize the importance of the integration of students experiencing
severe handicaps into a regular education classroom (Stainback and Stainback 1985). Instead of
deciding who does or does not belong in regular education classes, there should be a change in
direction toward increasing the capabilities of the regular education program to meet the unique
needs of all students (Stainback, Stainback, and Forest 1989). This concept is known as least
restrictive environment, regular education initiative, or inclusion. The research described here
investigates this concept using the term inclusion.
Some educators believe that by placing severely handicapped students in regular education
classes, all individuals will benefit. Many experts in the field believe that students can assist one
another based on their individual strengths and needs as well as develop friendships and interact
with nonhandicapped peers (Stainback and Stainback 1990). It is believed that handicapped
students, regardless of their handicapping conditions, will be able to achieve their optimum
potential in this type of integrated setting (Will 1986).
Another major reason for educating handicapped individuals in the regular classroom is, in
part, to do away with segregation and separation in the schools. A number of early laws provided
limited opportunities to handicapped individuals, but it was not until the passage of Public Law
94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975, that a joint venture between both
regular and special education was mentioned in a law. This act mandated the concept of "least
restrictive environment." A student could be placed in a special education classroom only when
the nature of the handicap was such that his or her education could not be attained satisfactorily
after receiving supportive services in a regular education classroom.
Although the change in the educational environment is significant for handicapped students,
the concept of inclusion also brings up new issues for the regular education classroom teacher.
First, implementing the process of teaching handicapped children requires a change in
curriculum and teaching methods, which can affect other aspects of the instructional process
(MacDonald and Hardman 1989). Second, teacher attitude may be closely tied to the
effectiveness of educating handicapped students (Parish, Nunn, and Hattrup 1989). Third, the
perception is that both the regular education and special education student will benefit socially
from inclusion in a regular education program (Marchetti 1991). Fourth, regular education
teachers have the ability to devote enough tirne to the handicapped child and still not neglect the
regular education child (Stai1lback and Stainback 1989). Fifth, teachers must accept
responsibility for the students with moderate to severe physical disabilities (often combined with
emotional and behavior problems which can constitute an additional and unpleasant commitment
for these teachers)(Ward and Center 1987).

For years, society has accepted the idea that students have different learning abilities, physical
endowment, emotional behavior, and social skills. The education system has provided special
programs for those students who are unable to perform in a regular education program within the
public school system, thereby allowing there to learn at their own pace (Wasung 1990). Some
educators support the premise that we are not providing a real life experience for students in
these segregated settings (Statewide Communication and Dissemination System 1990).
As inclusion of handicappd students into regular education classrooms becomes a reality
within the public school system, it becomes necessary to determine attitudes and perceptions of
regular education teachers toward this concept. From previous literature and research, it has been
shown that the attitude of the regular education teacher toward a handicapped child can influence
the climate in the classroom (Raver 1980).
Educational programs specifically focused on teaching special education methodology are
available in most colleges of education. Those programs are typically completed by those
teachers who want to specialize in teaching the special student. Regular education teachers
normally do not take these classes, due to time constraints in completing the degree requirements
in their content area. As a result, regular education teachers are out of their area of expertise
when students who would normally be taught by special education teachers are placed in their
classrooms. Most schools do not attempt to fill this gap in the regular education teachers'
background by offering inservices and seminars on teaching and coping with the special need
student.
This study attempted to determine if attitudes and perceptions of regular education teachers
toward inclusion of handicapped children into their classrooms differ by educational level or
previous training in special education.
The following research questions were addressed by this study: 1. Was there a difference in
the attitudes and perceptions of regular education teachers with
varying educational levels toward inclusion of handicapped children into their classrooms? 2.
Did regular education teachers with previous training in special education have differing
attitudes and perceptions toward inclusion of handicapped children into their classrooms than
teachers without this special training?

Method
This study incorporates a nonexperimental, descriptive research design involving secondary
level teachers from nine high schools in six school districts in a large suburban county adjacent
to a large urban area. Surveys were sent to 225 teachers in these schools with 182 teachers
responding. The instrument used in this study was adapted from one developed by J. D.
Berryman and W. R. Neal, Jr. (1980). The instrument measured the four factors:
Learning capability: Disabilities that do not necessarily impede academic progress such as a
physical handicap.
Inclusion: Placement of students in regular education classrooms who are educably mentally
handicapped and/or have social-emotional problems.

Traditional limiting disability: Disabilities not historically present in the regular education
classroom, such as being blind or hearing impaired.
Classroom factors: Factors regarding regular education teachers within their classrooms such as
team teaching and class size.
The independent variables looked specifically at the level of completed education reported by
the teachers and previous training at the college or university level in special education.
Demographic information was collected about the teachers to develop a profile of regular
education teachers included in the study.

Results
Most of the teachers who responded to the survey had masters' degrees with thirty-nine having
bachelors' and five holding doctorates. The years of Michigan teaching certification ranged from
1 to 50 with an average of 19.92 years. Professional teaching experience paralleled years of
Michigan teaching certification with 19.86 calculated as the mean number of years of
professional teaching experience. As expected, most of the teachers indicated English, math,
science, and social science 'as their areas of specialization. There were forty-three who indicated
other areas of teaching specialization, specifically, music, art, and physical education. The results
of these descriptive statistics indicate that the respondents are typical of teachers in the area.
The teachers were also asked to report the number of courses that they had in special
education. Of the 182 responses, 141 indicated that they had never taken a class in special
education while 2 reported more than twenty hours in special education. Teachers participating
in inservice programs provided either by their home school district or the intermediate school
district fared no better. Only 11 of the 182 teachers had more than ten hours of inservice training
in special education while 141 teachers did not report any training in this area.
The research questions were addressed separately using inferential statistical techniques
including one-way analysis of variance and t tests for two independent variables. Research
question 1, "Is there a difference in the attitudes and perceptions of regular education teachers
toward inclusion who have different educational backgrounds?" was addressed using a one-way
analysis of variance on the overall perceptions of the teachers and each of the four subscales. The
results of the statistical analysis were statistically significant, indicating that teachers with
different educational levels have different perceptions of inclusion. Further investigation showed
that teachers with higher levels of education had less positive attitudes toward inclusion than did
those who had achieved master's degree status.
The second research question, "Is there a difference in the attitudes and perceptions of regular
education teachers toward inclusion who have differing amounts of special education courses
and inservice training?" was addressed using t tests for two independent samples. The number of
teachers who had had special education courses was too small to analyze using a one-way
analysis of variance. The results of the t test for each subscale and the overall perceptions of the
regular education teachers indicated statistically significant differences in the perceptions of
inclusion based on special education coursework. Those teachers who had had special education
coursework had more positive perceptions of inclusion than did those teachers without this
education. Although the statistical analysis showed no significant differences between those

teachers with inservice training and those without this training on the overall perceptions and
each of the four subscales, teachers
with inservice training in special education did show more positive attitudes toward inclusion
than did those teachers without training.

Discussion
The teachers who answered the survey were regular education high school teachers with
varying levels of education. These teachers were interested in this topic, as it affected them
personally and they were apprehensive about the future of the classroom, as they know it. Most
of these teachers have taught regular education for many years and are content in their niche.
They had not gone back to school to learn methodology in the area of teaching special education
students. Comments from the respondents indicated that they currently have at least one or more
learning disabled student in their classrooms and are receiving little or no support from the
special education department or school administration. The teachers were concerned about class
size given the influx of students with special needs, regular education students not receiving the
proper time or attention to develop within their educational programs, and a general feeling of
helplessness given a medical emergency in the classroom. Other concerns of the teachers
included their potential loss of classroom autonomy when a special education teacher is in the
classroom and how they will handle the presence of seeing eye dogs, medical equipment
required by the medically fragile students and aids for those students who are otherwise impaired
and cannot be left alone.
These concerns are impediments to the success of inclusion. Before inclusion can become a
viable educational reality, several factors must be addressed. Teachers must openly accept the
concept. They must be trained in handling special education students who are mentally and/or
physically impaired. They must realize both their strengths and weaknesses in handling these
students: some teachers, for example, may be able to deal with. mental impairment but not
physical impairment. Acknowledging these problems, the teachers must be given assistance.
Inservice training cannot be accomplished in one-day workshops. This training must be
comprehensive and complete before the inclusion process takes place. Inservice training should
include team-teaching techniques that pair regular education teachers with special education
teachers. Training in the recognition of chronic and acute physical problems that may present
themselves must also be considered. Teachers must be sure that they will not be sued if students
with special needs are included in their classrooms.
"Regular education initiative" and "least restrictive environment" are synonymous with
inclusion. Regardless of the name, the concept is the same. Unfortunately, as with some other
new concepts in education, there is a tendency for the higher-level administration to encourage
or require local school districts to adopt policy before adequate research or training has been
competed. This concept should be adopted only after extensive teacher training and evaluation of
pilot programs have been completed.

References
Berryman, J. D., and W, R. Neal. Jr. 1980. The cross validation of the attitude toward
mainstreaming scale {ATMS). Educational and Psychological Measurement 40(2): 469-74.
Marachetti, D. 1991. Special students join regular classes. The Detroit News (20 Jan.): lc-2c.
McDonnell, A. P., and M. L. Hardman. 1989. The desegregation of America's special schools:
Strategies for change. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 14 (1):
6$-74.
Parish, T. S., G. D. Nunn, and D. Hattrup. 1982. An attempt to reduce negative attitudes of future
teacher toward exceptional children. College Student Journal 16(3): 254- 57.
Raver, S. A. 1990. Ten rules for success in pre-school mainstreaming. Education Unlimited 2
(1):47-52.
Stainback, S., and W. Stainback. 1985. Integration of students with severe handicaps into regular
schools. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children.
Stainback, W, and S. Stainback.. 1990. Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent
integrated education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Stainback, W., S. Stainback, and M. Forrest. 1989. Educating all students in the mainstream of
regular education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Statewide Communication and Dissemination System.. 1990. LRE (Alias inclusive education. REI
and mainstreaming): Legal and related implications. Statewide Communication and
Dissemination System, Statewide Newsletter, 12.
Ward, J. and Y. Center. 1987. Attitudes to the integration of disabled children into regular classes:
A factor analysis of functional characteristics. British Journal of Educational Psychology
57:221-24.
Wasung, R. 1990. Stop, look and listen: Be cautious crossing LRE. Statewide Communication and
Dissemination System, Statewide Newsletter (Dec.): 5.
Will, M. 1986. Educating students with learning problems -A shared responsibility. Washington.
D.C.: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. U.S. Department of Education.

Robert Dennis Stoler is a special education instructional-services staff member and a teacher in
the Southfield Public Schools, Southfield, Michigan Copyright 1992 Robert Dennis Stoler.

105