Are Attitudes and Practices regarding Mainstreaming Changing? a Case of Teachers in Two Rural School Districts

Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (U.S. Congress, 1975), and its subsequent amendments e.g., PL 105-17 (U.S. Congress, 1997), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), ensure that all children with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. While considerable debate continues regarding this mandate identified as the mainstreaming and the inclusion principle (i.e., the belief that all children with disabilities belong in the regular education classroom whether or not they meet traditional curricular standards), about three-fourths of all students with disabilities are currently fully or partially integrated in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The success of the mainstreaming/inclusion mandate depends on several variables, including in particular, the attitudes held by teachers and the quality of instruction they offer to their students (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). Results of studies on teacher beliefs about mainstreaming are mixed. Some researchers reported that educators hold nonsupportive attitudes (Garvar-Pinhas & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1989; Larrivee & Cook, 1979; Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996), while others reported a more favorable perception (i.e., Duquette & O'Reilly, 1988; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Navin, 1996). In a recent review of the literature on teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming/inclusion between the years 1958 to 1995, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) concluded that overall teachers support the concept of mainstreaming depending on the degree of intensity of mainstreaming and the severity level. Studies of factors associated with teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming often show inconsistent results. For example, several researchers reported that secondary teachers were less supportive of mainstreaming than were elementary teachers (i.e., Larrivee & Cook, 1979; Savage & Wienke, 1989); while Leyser, Kapperman, and Keller (1994) found that they have more positive attitudes. In regard to gender, Curtis (1985) reported that female teachers were more supportive of mainstreaming than male teachers while Berryman (1989) found no gender differences. Some researchers reported that special education teachers held more positive views about mainstreaming than general educators (Garvar-Pinhas & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1989; Whinnery, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 1991) while Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, and Lesar (1991) found that both teacher groups preferred pull-out programs. Most authors, however, tend to agree that increased knowledge and training in mainstreaming were related to the formation of positive attitudes (Bender et al., 1995; Bennett, Deluca & Burns, 1997; Leyser et al., 1994). Studies which examined teacher use of instructional practices and adaptations to accommodate student diversity reveal that first, teachers prefer practices that focus on their direct actions rather than having someone else assume responsibility (Ellett, 1993; Myles & Simpson, 1989). Second, teachers report using classroom accommodations they might make for any student. These types of modifications do not seem to require increased time expenditure, or significant changes in their usual teaching practices, or strategies (such as adapting materials, adjusting course content, or adapting scoring or grading criteria) (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991). Third, teachers prefer adaptations related to the social and emotional well-being of mainstreamed students, such as providing an encouraging and supportive atmosphere, encouraging student attempts, and establishing personal relationships with them (Ellett, 1993; Johnson & Pugach, 1990; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991). Fourth, special education teachers as compared to general education teachers perceive themselves as more competent to teach students with mild disabilities and are more supportive of making instructional adaptations and accommodations for these students (Blanton, Blanton, & Cross, 1994; Minke et al. …