Teacher and Administrator Attitudes toward Full Inclusion in Rural Mid-America

Abstract

Full inclusion as a service delivery model for all students with disabilities has generated significant recent controversy. In this study, questionnaires were sent to a sample of special educators, general educators, and administrators in rural, mid-western K-12 school districts. The subjects were asked to respond to four statements relating to inclusion. The analyses of variances of the group responses indicated a very cautious attitude toward full inclusion among all of the subjects in this study. The implications of the findings for K-12 professionals are discussed.

Rural General Education Teachers' Opinions of Adaptations for Inclusive Classrooms: A Renewed Call for Dual Licensure

“…rural, special education, inclusion, disabilities, general education, adaptations, licensure, least restrictive environment, accommodations, modifications, attitudes secondary general educators, Sebastian and Mathot-Buckner (1998) found that while inclusion was viewed as a proper educational approach, concerns were expressed regarding grading procedures, and the teachers felt they lacked adequate professional preparation regarding instructional techniques appropriate for students with disabilities. Wigle and Wilcox (1997) found that the majority of 256 rural administrators and teachers surveyed strongly supported the concept of inclusion, but chiefly on a case-by-case basis as opposed to the full inclusion of all students with disabilities. Related to the Wigle and Wilcox finding, Din (1997) found that full inclusion was only practiced in 9 of 211 rural schools in Kentucky, while approximately 80 percent of those schools had adopted partial inclusion practices.…”

Changing Roles and Responsibilities of Special Educators; Implications for Teacher Education

“…Lastly, the emphasis on inclusive practices in P-12 schools (Numbers 20 and 32), the ability to communicate and collaborate with administrators, general classroom teachers, and families of students (Numbers 3 1 , 13 and 3) and the ability to be an effective advocate of students (Number 5 ) are relatively new factors in the roles and responsibilities of special educators (Cates & Yell, 1994;Kaufman, 1994;Longmore, 1995;Treanor, 1993;Wigle & Wilcox, 1997). That the special educators in this study indicated relatively high levels of competency in these Group 3 competencies is an indication of the confidence they have in their ability to meet at least some of the new and challenging demands they face in special education.…”

Who are we Forgetting in the Inclusion Matrix?

“…Another vast array of the literature focuses on attitudes of teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals and students with disabilities toward the inclusion process (Boyer & Bandy, 1996, Downing, Eichinger, & Williams, 1997Olson, Chalmers, & Hoover, 1997;Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;Summey. & Strahan, 1997;Wigle & Wilcox, 1997). This approach to the inclusion initiative is the rationale for the development and implementation of this model.…”