Teachers’ Perspectives on p
Inclusion
Perspectives on Professional Engagement with V l
Vulnerable Young People
bl Y
P
l
Dr Charlotte Friel
cfriel@education.gov.gg
There is no single definition of inclusion (e.g., Odom,
2000;).......
This research used the following:
‘…the process of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, mainstream curricula, cultures and communities. We link the notions of inclusion l
d
ii
li k h
i
fi l i
and exclusion together because the process of increasing participation of students entails the reduction of pressures
participation of students entails the reduction of pressures of exclusion.’
(B h & Ai
(Booth & Ainscow, 1998, p. 2).
1998 2)
The research base looking at inclusion suggested:
ƒ some benefits to inclusion, with no significant drawbacks
(e g Farrell,
(e.g.,
Farrell Dyson,
Dyson Polat,
Polat Hutcheson & Gallannaugh,
Gallannaugh
2007; Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan, 2005).
ƒ
it is a dynamic and interactive process, with the school
environment potentially impacting upon inclusion (e.g.,
Dyson Howes & Roberts,
Dyson,
Roberts 2002; Lindsay,
Lindsay 2007).
2007)
The literature on the inclusion of students with special The
literature on the inclusion of students with special
educational needs in general schools pointed to the potential importance of the school‐based environment, including aspects such as the attitudes and behaviours of l d
h
h
d
db h
f
others within schools. Teachers’ attitudes appeared to be an influential factor in
the realisation of inclusion in schools.
ƒ
As a result this research aimed to explore the relationship
between teachers
teachers’ attitudes towards the ideology of
inclusion and towards the actual inclusion of individual
students with special education needs.
ƒ
It was hypothesised that teachers who hold positive views
towards inclusion in general would be more positive about
the actual inclusion of a student with special educational
needs in their class.
77 general education primary teachers completed a survey
looking at their views around inclusion in general and the
actual inclusion of a statemented student with special
educational
d
i
l needs
d in
i their
h i class.
l
The survey was based on that developed by Stoiber,
Gettinger and Goetz (1998) in Wisconsin,
Wisconsin USA.
USA It consisted
of:
ƒ a question relating to the actual inclusion status of a
student with special educational needs.
ƒ Thinking
g About Inclusion ‐ a ggeneral attitudes towards
inclusion scale, with 3 sub‐scales (Core Perspectives,
Expected Outcomes and Classroom Practices).
ƒ the
h Accommodation
d
and
d Preparedness
d
scales.
l
ƒ the Barriers and Improving Inclusion scales.
a high
hi h proportion
ti off teachers
t h
rated
t d their
th i included
i l d d student
t d t as
somewhat successfully included and had a somewhat positive
attitude towards inclusion in general.
g
ƒ correlation analysis indicated a small but significant negative
relationship between teachers’ rating of actual inclusion and
their more general attitudes towards inclusion (rs = ‐.25,
25 two
tailed, p<.05).
ƒ further correlational investigation of the sub
sub‐scales
scales of the
general attitudes towards inclusion questionnaire suggested
that this relationship was strongest for the Classroom Practices
sub scale (rs = ‐.35,
sub‐scale
35 two tailed,
tailed p<0.01).
p<0 01)
This indicated that the more positively teachers rated the inclusion f
f p
,
of a student with a statement of special educational needs, the more negative their views of inclusion in general, particularly in relation to classroom practices, and vice versa.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Survey findings
S
fi di
suggested
t d an attitudinal
ttit di l inconsistency
i
i t
around inclusion.
8 of the survey teachers participated in interviews to
further explore the complexities of their views around this
area.
H
Here
th inconsistent
the
i
i t t views
i
l k d att were a more
looked
positive view around actual inclusion and more negative
view around inclusion in general (reflecting the typical
pattern of response to the survey).
Interviews were analysed using the Interpretative
Ph
Phenomenological
l i l Analysis
A l i (IPA) approach.
h This
Thi attempts
tt
t
to explore participants trying to make sense of their world.
It also acknowledges the researcher trying to make sense
of the participants trying to make sense of their world
(Smith & Osborn, 2003).
ƒ
A
Apparent relationships between interview themes/nature of attitudes towards inclusion.
t l ti hi b t
i t i th
/ t f ttit d t
d i l i
*Bold represents superordinate themes, with normal text representing themes. **This seems to be related to the attitudinal inconstancy highlighted in the survey.
Barriers and/or facilitators of inclusion
Teachers’ personal response to inclusion
Inclusion Meanings*
Ownership and
commitment to inclusion
Balancing inclusion with
general teaching**
Inclusion as an active,
ongoing process
Inclusion as access
to education
Inclusion depends on
the individual
Social and emotional
aspects of inclusion
Behaviour difficulties
(from Those seen as difficult to
include)
This research suggests some was forward for working with and
supporting teachers involved in inclusion. For example:
ƒ Be aware that teachers can hold apparently conflicting views about
actual and specific inclusion (i.e., seem positive about inclusion while
simultaneously being negative about its practice).
ƒ It may be useful to explicitly acknowledge the difficulties in balancing
i l i
inclusion
and
d look
l k att ways off addressing
dd
i
it (with
( ith a focus
f
upon
classroom practices).
ƒ Both the survey and interviews suggested teachers would like more
practical opportunities to help their inclusive practice. Such Practical
positive experiences
p
of inclusion could include observations
and p
and/or joint working with school staff involved in effective inclusion).
‘…no other circumstance in life, can I think and maybe I’ve
can I think, and maybe I
ve got got
my head in the clouds, I would deliberately go about excluding
deliberately go about excluding groups of people within my work space for example Life
work, space, for example. Life isn’t like that.’ (Teacher; in research interview)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Booth, T.
Booth
T & Ainscow,
Ainscow M.
M (Eds.).
(Eds ) (1998).
(1998) From Them to Us – an international study of inclusion
in education. London: Routledge.
Dyson, A., Howes, A. & Roberts, B. (2002). A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of
School‐Level Actions for Promoting Participation by all Students. Technical Report. In:
R
Research
h Evidence
E id
i Education
in
Ed ti Library.
Lib
L d
London:
EPPI C t
EPPI‐Centre,
S i l Science
Social
S i
R
Research
h
Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). SEN inclusion and
pupil achievement in English schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, 3,
171‐178.
8
Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A. & Kaplan, I. (2005). The impact of population
inclusivity in schools on student outcomes. Technical Report. In: Research Evidence in
Education Library. London: EPPI‐Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of
Education,
d
University off London.
d
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational Psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1‐24.
Odom,, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: what do we know and where we g
go from here.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 20‐27.
Smith, J., A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In Smith, J., A.
(Eds.). Qualitative Psychology. A practical guide to research methods. (Chapter 4, pp. 51‐80).
London: Sage.
g
Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M. & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and
early childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
13, 1, 107‐124.