Integrating Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities: Classroom Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes about Implementing an Educational Change

Abstract

Interviews were conducted with 26 classroom teachers from five school districts to investigate their beliefs and attitudes about implementing integrated special education services for students with moderate and severe disabilities. These teachers' views toward integration focused on four aspects of the change: its purpose, the clarity of its implementation methods, the effort it would require of teachers, and its rewards. The ways teachers' beliefs and attitudes affected the manner in which the change was implemented and the way those beliefs and attitudes were altered through experience are described. Steps administrators could take to ensure that this complex change is broadened and sustained are discussed.

Understanding Mainstreaming Through the Perceptions of All Participants: A Case Study

“…These findings confirm earlier findings reported by Janney et al (1995a) and are in concert with the distinction between beliefs and knowledge made by Pajares (1992). The special education teacher provided us with an example of this distinction: Mrs. Reiss chose to use physical characteristics to distinguish between handicapped and nonhandicapped in her definition, yet she knew in practice this was not reasonable because part of her job was to assist classroom teachers with providing educational programs for mainstreamed students with less visible handicaps.…”

“…Although student outcomes are important and provide one measure of success, as in the study completed by Osborne, Schulte, and McKinney (1991), consideration of other measures is equally important because different questions and audiences are addressed. Studies that consider teacher evaluations of mainstreaming program success include (a) teachers' understandings of the purpose and rationale for the process (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995a), (b) teachers' understandings of their roles in the process (Janney et al, 1995a), (c) teachers' attitudes (Clark, 1976;Harasymiw & Horne, 1975;Williams & Algozzine, 1979), (d) teachers' knowledge and understandings of the time and energy requirements (Janney et al, 1995a), (e) teachers' perceptions of the rewards that would result from their efforts (Janney et al, 1995a), (f) classroom atmosphere (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994), (g) support from administrative and special education support staffs (Johnson & Griffith, 1985;Leibfried, 1984;Prillaman, 1984;Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994), (h) the curriculum (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994), (i) general teaching and disability-specific teaching skills (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994), and (j) peer assistance (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994). Parents were concerned about the effects of social desegregation (Johnson & Griffith, 1985), teacher preparation for mainstreaming (Johnson & Griffith, 1985), and the value of mainstreaming for students both with and without disabilities (Abelson & Weiss, 1984;Cohen, 1986).…”

Issues and Challenges for Middle School Mathematics Teachers in Inclusion Classrooms

“…Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes (1995) concluded that the more experience general educators had with integrating students with disabilities into the classroom, the more positive were their attitudes. The researchers attributed the general educators' original negative perceptions to the “confusion and uncertainty” (p. 111) that arise when objectives, policies, functions, and responsibilities are altered, sometimes drastically.…”

Including High School Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes: Perspectives of General and Special Educators, Paraprofessionals, and Administrators

“…As a result, information must be obtained that focuses on educational practices related specifically to supporting the general education participation of students with severe disabilities. However, limited research has addressed the perceptions of educators regarding the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in high school classrooms (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002;Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, Lamaster, & O'Sullivan, 2004;Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995;Smith, 1997Smith, , 2000York & Tundidor, 1995).…”