You are in:  
Mainstream secondary school educators’ attitudes to inclusive education in South Wales. 

Inclusive education, the education of children with a wide range of learning needs, has become the normal way of teaching in the majority of mainstream schools. While this is accepted as the best way of preventing exclusion from education for these pupils, it requires that teachers understand the educational needs of all their pupils and ‘buy in’ to the idea of inclusive education. Sixty-seven science teachers and 13 teaching assistants took part in this study.

This study aimed to:

1) determine teachers’ and learning support staff’s attitudes and experiences

to teaching pupils with identified educational needs in mainstream settings;

2) analyse teachers’ perceptions of best practice in mainstream schools;

3) recommend the most effective method(s) of teaching science to children with special educational needs (SEN).

Throughout this study, the term Special Educational Need, has been replaced by the term Identified Learning Difference.

Inclusive education

Major findings include that science educators generally reported negative views to inclusion of pupils with SEN within the science classroom. Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties caused more concern for teachers than for pupils with severe learning difficulties. The only independent variable that appeared to influence educators’ attitudes towards inclusion was type of teaching qualification. The attitude scores for educators with BEd were less positive towards inclusion than for PGCE and ‘other’ groups, notably the ‘other’ group. However, the number of cases of teachers with BEd qualifications was very low (n = 4). It is suggested that postgraduate training of educators may result in more positive attitudes towards inclusion and further research is needed. Some issues regarding inclusion, for example support in the classroom and time to prepare lessons, apparent in previous studies, continue to remain pertinent to educators in this study.

The study

This study presents the findings of a survey carried out in 108 mainstream secondary schools located in 13 local educational authorities (LEAs) in south and West Wales. Participants were surveyed using a 39-item survey instrument, which measured educators’ attitudes towards inclusion in the science classroom. A total of 81 educators [67 science teachers and 13 teaching assistants (TAs)] participated in the study. Educators’ replies from individual schools within each LEA were not recorded. This study aimed to examine the attitudes of science educators (classroom teachers and TAs) across schools in the LEAs and in particular:

1) determine teachers’ and learning support staff’s attitudes and experiences to teaching pupils with identified educational needs in mainstream settings;

2) analyse teachers’ perceptions of best practice in mainstream schools;

3) recommend the most effective method(s) of teaching science to children with special educational needs (SEN).

Method

In this study, science teachers’ and TAs/HLTAs’ attitudes were ascertained through the use of self-administered postal questionnaires. Local education authorities (LEAs) (n = 13) were contacted, from which schools (n = 108) were mailed the instrument. It was aimed to achieve a sample of onehundred science teachers from these schools. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted after receipt of the completed questionnaires.

Results

In order to involve classroom teachers and TAs/HLTAs, schools within the LEAs were contacted directly. The questionnaires for both teachers and TAs/HLTAs  were mailed directly to the Head of Science in each school to distribute to staff, as only the science department was involved in the study.

The Head of Science at each school was mailed six questionnaires in both English and Welsh (where appropriate) for science teachers (n = 1296) and four questionnaires in both English and Welsh (where appropriate) for TAs/HLTAs (n = 864). Thus, a total of 2060 questionnaires were mailed out during the survey. The questionnaires were mailed out between March and July 2007.

In terms of respondents, secondary school science teachers (n = 68) and TAs/HLTAs (n = 13) from several schools responded to the survey. Overall response rates from the schools were 5.3% for classroom teachers and 1.5% for TAs.

It appears that science educators (teachers and TAs/HLTAs) in the mainstream secondary schools within the selected LEAs in south and west Wales are generally negative towards the concept of inclusion of pupils with ILDs in mainstream science classrooms.

This may be due to teachers’ experiences over the intervening period between 2002 and the present research, resulting in teachers becoming more confident with pupils with ILDs in their classrooms. The low response rate in this study with respect to one-to-one interviews meant that detailed comment analysis could not be explored from participants.

Perhaps one of the most striking issues relating to this study was the very poor response rates. While it is recognised that mail-out questionnaires typically result in low response rates, response rates during this study were especially low (5.3% for teachers). It is possible that the political nature of this study, i.e. inclusive education, was one of the factors which contributed to such low numbers of respondents replying.

In this study, those that did reply reported more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with severe learning difficulties than those with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). This is consistent with the results of previous studies, where the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of pupils with disabilities has been shown in previous studies to be related to the nature and extent of the pupil’s disability.

Such attitudes may well be supported by the fact that pupils with EBD appear to provide the biggest challenge for educators in the classroom, and therefore, necessitate a more resource-intense intervention. In addition, it may be the educators’ perception that such children also appear to disrupt the education of others in the classroom. These findings substantiate the results of a previous study, in which it was found that pupils with EBD presented the biggest challenges for educators in the classroom.

The only independent variable to produce a statistically significant result was highest teaching qualification, demonstrating that the level of teaching qualification impacts upon the teacher’s attitudes towards inclusion. This finding certainly agreed with the report by UNESCO (2005)1 that identified teacher education as a factor affecting teachers’ attitudes to inclusion. The majority of science teachers (n = 41), in all areas of science teaching specialism, undertook a PGCE ITT programme. Educators with a BEd qualification scored less positive attitudes than the educators qualified to PGCE and ‘other’ levels. However, it must be noted these represented a very small number of cases (n = 3). Those educators who undertook ‘other’ types of qualifications included postgraduate and graduate programmes: Masters, PhD and BSc qualifications; also educators (specifically TA/HLTAs) with no formal teaching qualifications.

There may be several reasons for this finding. This may be as a result of the extent to which inclusion issues are dealt with during the ITT programme. The knowledge and experience gained about inclusive education in ITT programmes has been shown to influence teachers’ attitudes. ITT programmes, such as BEd and PGCE, currently allocate only a small proportion of time to the teaching and learning of pupils with specific learning needs. This could indicate that teachers who have undertaken postgraduate level programmes report more positive attitudes towards inclusion in the science classroom.

Examples of best practice

In one example, a head teacher of a primary school admitted that there were initially huge anxieties about including children with Down’s syndrome. The head teacher reported: ‘You can’t expect a mainstream school to have a grasp of a wide variety of needs.’ The head teacher continued:

‘Inevitably, we have the children before we have the knowledge. It’s not ideal - but that’s the reality. The most difficult thing for schools is to get the expertise they need.' 2

Such comments demonstrate that the view held in the Warnock Report (1978), that all teachers should consider themselves as teachers of children with special needs, is not realised in practice.

Some studies (for example, Hastings, Hewes, Lock and Witting; Jones, Wint and Ellis both cited Brownlee and Carrington 2000)6 have indicated that prior experience with children with a learning disability during training has had positive impacts on attitudes towards inclusion. Interestingly in a study examining trainee teachers’ attitudes to learners with Down’s syndrome prior contact with children with the syndrome seems to have had little effect on the trainees’ knowledge and attitudes.3

Teachers at Dog Kennel Hill went through a steep learning curve to accommodate the needs of their learners with Down’s syndrome. Teachers received CPD given by the DSA; they managed to secure 30 hours a week support for one learner; a full-time speech therapist was employed, partfunded by the school and the LEA. Head Pat Boyer said, ‘It’s been a long hard struggle’.2

It is important to recognise that Down’s syndrome is not just another learning difficulty, says Lorenz, but has a “specific profile” of which teachers should be aware. In addition to being primarily visual learners, children with Down’s often have poor memory and forget what they’ve been told, whether thename of a book or when to go to lunch. They generally have language delay, and tend to still use short phrases when other children are forming full sentences. They can be clumsy, due to their floppy muscles, and therefore, not very good at PE.2

There’s absolutely no reason, with commitment, support and time, why children with Down’s syndrome can’t take part in 99.9% of what’s going on in a mainstream class’, stated Dr Lorenz.2 According to Birkett (2003)2 children with Down’s syndrome are visual, rather than, verbal learners. In some cases this is as a result of associated hearing impairment. By modifying teaching strategies, for example, teaching reading using visual methods – recognising whole words - instead of sound, many learners will be equal to their peers.

In another school, St Cenydd’s comprehensive, of the 1,100 pupils who attended the school, around 30 were wheelchair users, 25 were deaf and there was an increasing number with autism.2 According to head David Eynon,  attitudes must be part of the inclusion package. “There are physical obstacles to overcome - you have to have lifts. But it’s the adaptation to people’s attitudes that’s the most important. One is useless without the other”.2

In the study carried out by Harris and Farrell (2004)4, several examples of best practice were reported concerning the education of children with medical needs. These included mainstream ownership, where the LEA service/hospital school and mainstream school developed improved two- way communication to ensure a better flow of information about the pupil and improved medical knowledge for teachers within the mainstream setting.

Secondly, improved partnership and collaboration between the LEA service/ hospital school and other agencies was identified as an important theme, where agencies arrange joint planning meetings/reviews, and joint provision and training initiatives were undertaken.

Thirdly, the study identified flexibility in which service provision is organised to fit individual cases, where best practice was highlighted as staff deployment within difference settings, ensuring a continuum of provision and developing a timetable to meet the needs of the child. Fourthly, responsiveness, or the ability of the LEA service/hospital school to respond to the needs of all stakeholders was highlighted. In the context of the mainstream school setting, this meant addressing the pupils‘ needs; the needs of parents and carers; ensuring staff in mainstream school are kept informed; and meeting the needs of service staff. Fenton (2002)5 reported on examples of good practice. These include a special school that established a science project examining a pond. Web cams were installed to enable activity to be monitored for pupils unable to access the pond. In another case, a laboratory was set up to enable students to participate in activities – adopting a ‘hands on’ approach. One special school collaborated with a mainstream school. Pupils were divided into teams, comprised of students from both schools, ensuring that ‘every school had a winner’.5

 Finally, the study identified clarity in policy documentation and dissemination of information as being important.

 Background variable  Groups  Frequency  Percentage
 Gender  Male  30 50.0
   Female  29 48.3
   Missing  1  1.7
 Age  21-30  20 33.3
   31-40 11 18.3
   41+ 28 46.7
   Missing 1 1.7
 Role Teacher 56 93.3
   TA/HLTA 4 6.7
 Teaching experience Less than 1 year 7 11.7
   1-4 years 15 25.0
   5-9 years 8 13.3
   10-14 years 7 11.7
   14+ years 20 33.3
   Missing 3 5.0
 Teaching specialism Science 11-16 12 20.0
   Physics 16 26.7
   Biology 15 25.0
   Chemistry 12 20.0
  Other 4 6.7
   Missing 1 1.7
Professional None 18 30.0
School based INSET 32 53.3
LEA based INSET 8 13.3
Missing 2 3.3
School location Urban 39 65.0
Rural 16 26.7
Missing 5 8.3
Teaching qualification BEd 3 5.0
PGCE 41 68.3
Other 14 23.3
  Missing 2 3.3

Table 1: Summary of background data.

Conclusions

In terms of the numbers of pupils with ILDs within the study area, the majority of pupils were not issued with a statement of need. From the numbers of this sub-group, most pupils were categorised as having moderate learning needs. Research analysed the professional attitudes of science teachers and learning support staff across 108 schools in 13 LEAs located in south and West Wales. In particular, the aims of this work were to: determine teachers’ and learning support staff’s attitudes and experiences to teaching pupils with identified educational needs in mainstream settings; analyse teachers’ perceptions of best practice in mainstream schools; recommend the most effective method(s) of teaching science to children with SEN. Whilst all the aims of this study were met, the drawbacks of this study were that the study was conducted only with LEAs within Wales.

Major findings included that educators generally reported negative views to the inclusion of pupils with identified learning difficulties within the science classroom. Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties caused more concern for teachers than pupils with severe learning difficulties. The only independent variable that appeared to influence educators’ attitudes towards inclusion was type of teaching qualification.

The attitude scores for educators with BEd were less positive than for PGCE and ‘other’ groups, notably the ‘other’ group. This may indicate the fact that postgraduate training results in more positive attitudes towards inclusion. However, the small number of participants in this study means that, although such a conclusion cannot be made with any certainty, it warrants further research. Some issues regarding inclusion, for example support in the classroom and time to prepare lessons, that were apparent in previous studies, still continue to remain pertinent to the educators who participated in this study.

Study limitations of this study included low response rates of participants from the LEAs. Whilst the number of participants was similar to the numbers involved in several previous studies, the low response rate meant that detailed analysis could not provide unbiased results. In addition, none of the teachers or teaching assistants available to offer one-to-one interviews. These would have been invaluable to be able to provide added value to the interview process. Furthermore, subsequent studies would benefit from improved involvement from the LEAs involved in the study.

 This was certainly the case from several of the previous studies, where the researchers focused in detail on one or two schools from within a single LEA, receiving support from the LEA.

References

1 UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All. Paris:UNESCO. (ED-2004/WS/39 cld 17402)

2 Birkett, D. (2002). ‘Attitude Problem’. The Guardian [online]. Birkett, D. (2003). ‘Learning Together’. The Guardian [online]

3 Wishart, JG and Manning, G. (1996). ‘Trainee Teachers’ Attitudes to Inclusive Education for Children with Down’s Syndrome’. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 40 (1), 56-65

4 Harris, K and Farrell, P. (2004). ‘Educating Children and Young People with Medical Needs: effective provision and practice’. Support for Learning, 19 (1), 13-18

5 Fenton, A. (2002a). ‘Inclusive Resources for Science and Special Educational Needs’. Education in Science, 200, 14-15

6 Brownlee, J and Carrington, S. (2000). ‘Opportunities for Authentic Experience and Reflection: a teaching programme designed to change attitudes towards disability for preservice teachers’. Support for Learning, 15 (3), 99-105

Page last updated: 22/12/2011 16:22 
 
 
Downloads
 
© 2012 Cerebra | Registered charity No: 1089812 | Company Limited by Guarantee, registered in England and Wales 4336208