Exploring factors influencing parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs about inclusion

Early Chikllto~ ResearchQuaderly,13, No. 1,107-124 (1998) ISSN: 0885-2006

© 1998 AblexPublishingCorporation All dghts in any form reserved

Exploring Factors Influencing Parents' and Early Childhood Practitioners" Beliefs about Inclusion Karen Callan Stoiber University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Maribeth Gettinger University of Wisconsin-Madison

Donna Goetz University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee To investigate beliefs concerning early childhood inclusion, we developed a 12-item brief scale and 28-item comprehensive measure, My Thinking About Inclusion (MTAI). The 28-item MTAI Total Scale had an internal consistency of .91, and was compnsod of three belief subscales: Core Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices. MTAI was administered to 415 parents and 128 early childhood practitioners. Parents of children with disabilities were more positive in their beliefs than parents of children without disabilities, and parents' beliefs were related to their level of education, number of children, and marital status. Practitioners held more positive beliefs than did the parent participants. Practitioners' beliefs were associated with their level of education, training background, and years of experience. Practitioners indicated that children with speech and language delays, learning disabilities, and mild cognitive disabilities can be most easily accommodated in early childhood inclusive settings, which corresponded to the children with disabilities for whom they felt most prepared to provide services. In contrast, children viewed to require the greatest accommodation were those with autism and neurological disorders, and similarly, practitioners reported being the least prepared to work with children with these disabilities. Limited time and limited opportunities for collaboration received the highest ratings as barriers to inclusion, whereas, direct "hands-on" experiences were the most preferred methods for improving inclusion practices.

Direct all correspondence to: Karen Callan Stoiber, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201. 107

108

Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz

During the past decade, inclusion, or the integration of children with and without disabilities, has emerged as a major systems-level change affecting early childhood programs across America (Salisbury, 1991; Tomlinson et al., 1997). At the same time, the beliefs of individuals involved in the change process have become a major research focus (Abelson, 1986; Alexander & Dochy, 1995; Olson & Astington, 1993). It is important to understand the beliefs of parents and practitioners in that beliefs influence both the process of change and standards of practice. Although conventional research on innovation in early childhood education has focused mainly on practice, the beliefs of parents and practitioners are also key personal and sociopolitical elements that deserve investigation. The issue of inclusion is being discussed widely within educational groups, at professional meetings, and in professional journals as well as in a variety of community, state, and national forums (Vauglm, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996). The public attention being given to inclusion is exemplified by the fact that several professional organizations have issued position statements to clarify implications for their members. Considerable polarity is evident in these position statements, ranging from endorsement of full inclusion practices in which no classes are designated as self-contained for special education students (Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 1991), to concerns about the impact of inclusion on the education of all children (American Federation of Teachers, 1993; Council for Learning Disabilities, 1993). The debate sun'ounding inclusion will influence how the concept of inclusion is perceived within public circles, educational systems, and community programs. Noticeably absent in these discussions on inclusion is consideration of the beliefs of parents and educators (Peck, 1993; Vaughn et al., 1996). Recent perspecfives on educational innovation suggest that for "systems change to be effective, the change process must be participatory"(York & Tundidor, 1995, p. 32). Consistent with this perspective is the view that the voices of those directly involved in change should be heard because they provide valuable "inside" perceptions and information. To the extent that inclusion promotes significant change in early childhood practices (Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993), it is imperative to focus on the beliefs among both parents and early childhood practitioners. LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE STUDY The current study was conducted to extend our knowledge concerning parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs related to inclusion. Two research strands provide the theoretical and empirical rationale for this study: (a) research examining the importance of beliefs for understanding educational and parenting pracrices, and (b) studies focusing on the conceptualization and measurement of belief domains related to inclusive education practices. The Importance of Parents" and Educators" Beliefs Our focus on beliefs is consistent with a recent paradigm shift from emphasizing effects of inclusion to emphasizing constructs that influence inclusive practices

Beliefs About Inclusion

lO9

(Peck, 1993; York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neffe, & Caughey, 1992). Peck argued that to advance an understanding of the issues associated with implementing inclusive practices, we must conceptualize research in terms of how and what influences practice. Beliefs comprise one factor that figures importantly in parents' and educators' decision making about inclusion. Beliefs include one's values and plans as well as ideologies about practices (Garner & Alexander, 1994; Stoiber & Houghton, 1994). Beliefs related to inclusion are formed by parents and practitioners on the basis of their personal experience and, more importantly, are used to develop expectations about how a child might function in a classroom or about the outcomes of inclusion. In this study, beliefs are conceptualized as powerful influences on the way we think and actwthey permeate one's perceptions and, in turn, influence teaching processes and learning outcomes (Schommer, 1994; Stoiber, 1992). Examining beliefs about inclusion is essential because previous studies have linked beliefs to parental and educational practices (Anders & Evans, 1994; Miller, Manhal, & Mee, 1991; Stoiber & Houghton, 1993). Specifically, the beliefs of parents and practitioners may determine whether and how inclusive approaches involving young children are implemented. Information about beliefs is needed to provide a framework for interpreting the actions and reactions of persons integral to inclusion. Despite the documented role of beliefs in influencing practice and systems change, few studies have explored both parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs concerning inclusion (Marchant, 1995). Previous work generally has focused either on parents (e.g., Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995) or on practitioners (e.g., Eiserman, Shisler, & Healey, 1995; Folsom-Meek, 1995; Vaughn et al., 1996). Because parents and early childhood practitioners differ in their opportunities to access information about inclusion, it seems likely that these two groups may also differ in their beliefs. In addition, little is known about how factors such as level of education and experience may influence beliefs toward inclusion.

Rationalefor Measuring the Specific Belief Dimensions The present study of beliefs is consistent with recent research suggesting that identifiable domains characterize aspects of parents' and educators' beliefs (Hyson & Lee, 1996; Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & Goodnow, 1992; York & Tundidor, 1995). To understand the thinking of parents and educators more specifically, it would seem useful to consider various categories or domains of inclusive beliefs. For example, an individual may value the concept of individualized instruction that is nondiscriminatory for all learners, but have concerns about the academic outcomes for more skilled learners. To examine these possible variations in beliefs, we identified three types of constructs in which individuals may hold varyhag perspectives: (a) core perspectives, (b) expected outcomes, and (c) classroom practices. • Core perspectives held by parents and practitioners is the f'wst belief category. The core perspectives dimension corresponds to research showing that beliefs permeate one's perception of a concept (Alvermann & Commeryas, 1994). This dimension taps

110

Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz

individuals' values about what is ethically right and what constitutes "best practices" related to educating children. The core perspectives category is perhaps best reflected in the belief that children with disabilities have the right to be educated in classrooms with typically developing children and that inclusion is considered "best practices" for educating all children (Berryman & Berryman, 1981; Eiserman et al., 1995). The core perspectives category is grounded in research documenting the importance of a positive perspective toward integration of children with disabilities on successful implementation of inclusion (Hanline, 1985; Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Odom & McEvoy, 1990). In addition, this belief category attempted to tap beliefs toward inclusion practices for all children--those with and without disabilities, and was not conceptualized to reflect differences in beliefs as a function of differences in a child's disability. Expected outcomes of inclusion constitute the second dimension. The expected outcomes dimension is consistent with the view that beliefs not only permeate perceptions, but also influence educational practices and outcomes (Ames & Ames, 1989; Schommer, 1994). The expected outcomes category is similar to the construct of expectations. Belief expectations and expected outcomes both reflect what one believes will happen or result from a situation or event (Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Stoiber & Houghton, 1993). Previous research examining parents' and educators' expectations has shown that expectations are, in fact, linked to behaviors. For example, Stoiber and Houghton found that parents who had realistic expectations for their parenting role and their child's behavior were likely to have children who demonstrated positive coping skills. Similarly, research on teachers' expectations has shown that positive expectations for students' learning are linked to higher student achievement (Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Schommer, 1994). The dimension of expected outcomes, therefore, is empirically-based on evidence that expectations influence adult and child outcomes (e.g., behaviors, development, practices, etc.). Unfortunately, the few studies that have examined expected outcomes related to inclusion (Eiserman et al., 1995; Vaughn et al., 1996), have not clarified what factors affect practitioners' outcome beliefs. Classroom practices dimension reflects thinking about how inclusion impacts on classroom life and actual instructional practices. Researchers have shown that beliefs determine the ways teachers structure their classroom environments, respond to children, or adapt instructional approaches and materials (Anders & Evans, 1994; Borko, Davinroy, Flory, & Hiebert, 1994). The classroom practices category also stems from discussions in the literature on adaptations, barriers, facilitators, and other environmental indicators related to day-to-day functioning in inclusive environments. Researchers using focus groups and interview methodologies have found that pragmatic issues, such as time and classroom management skills, affect the implementation of inclusion (Vaughn et al., 1996; York & Tundidor, 1995). Hence, the dimension of classroom practices attempts to capture beliefs related to how inclusion works in the "typical day" of inclusive educators.

Research Purpose and Questions The rationale for our study stems from the need to acquire a better understanding of parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs about early childhood inclusion. It is grounded in a theoretical framework emphasizing the importance of beliefs on educational practice, research documenting the importance of beliefs for systems change, and empirical evidence pointing to the multiple dimensions of

Beliefs About Inclusion

111

beliefs. Hence, a primary purpose of the present study was to develop a measure of parental and early childhood practitioner beliefs that demonstrated sound psychometric properties. In addition, our study had four research questions: 1. How do situational and experiential factors affect parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs related to inclusion? 2. How do parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs related to inclusion differ? 3. What are early childhood practitioners' perceptions regarding amount of accommodation and level of preparation for differing types of disabilities? 4. What are early childhood practitioners' perspectives on barriers to, and preferred methods for improving, inclusive practices?

METHODS Participants A total of 415 parents and 128 early childhood practitioners participated in the study. Participants were recruited from 10 early childhood inclusive programs (30 classrooms) in Wisconsin. A geographical sampling plan was used to solicit involvement, and to ensure representation from the four state quadrants (Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western regions) and from diverse communities (urban, rural, suburban). An early childhood consultant from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction assisted in identifying specific sites that approximated the ethnic distribution of children attending early childhood programs in Wisconsin. All programs that were contacted agreed to participate, which included four half-day kindergartens (for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds), three Head Starts, two itinerant supported day care centers, and a university-affiliated private preschool program. The racial-ethnicity of children in the 10 programs were: 52% European-American, 33% African-American, 10% American Indian, 3% Latino, and 2% Asian. In terms of characteristics of children with disabilities, the following percentages of disabilities occurred in the 30 classrooms: 41% speech/language delays, 17% cognitive disability, 14% behavioral disability, 10% physical disability, 7% other health impaired, 6% learning disability, and 5% hearing or visual disability or other disability type.

Parents. Parents who had young children attending the 10 early childhood inclusive programs were asked to complete a brief survey of their beliefs about inclusion. Of the 415 parents who completed the survey, 150 were parents of children with disabilities, and 260 were parents of typically-developing children (five parents did not provide this information). The majority of parents reported having a middle income level (64%), 31% reported low income, and 5% reported having a high income. Most parents lived in urban communities (48%), 33% lived in suburban, and 18% lived in rural areas. In terms of education, 68% reported some college education and 32% had received a high school diploma or less. Seventy-five percent of parents were married, 18% were single, and 7% were divorced. Parent participants had the following number of children: one - 19%; two - 41%; three - 27%; four or more - 13%.

112

Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goelz

Early Childhood Practitioners. Within the sample of early childhood practitioners, 39 were special educators, 35 were regular educators, 35 were paraprofessionals, and 19 were support service personnel (i.e., school psychologists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, or administrators). Participants varied in years of experience: 16% had less than 5 years, 27% had 5-9 years, 16% had 10-14 years, and 41% reported over 15 years of experience. The majority of practitioners held a college degree (52%), 9% had a high school diploma, 6% had an associate degree, and 32% attained masters degrees. Measures

A primary purpose of this study was to develop a measure of beliefs about inclusion that could be used with parents and early childhood practitioners. Two versions of the My ThinkingAbout Inclusion (MTAI) scale were constructed. First, a brief scale containing 12 items was developed. Second, an extended 28-item scale, which included the brief 12-item scale, was constructed. Both versions conrained (a) a demographics section that requested participants to provide relevant, descriptive information about themselves; and (b) an inclusion beliefs section. In the present study, parent participants completed the brief MTAI whereas practitioners completed the comprehensive MTAI. The demographics section used with parents elicited information about their education level (high school education or post high school education), community (urban, rural, suburban), family income level (high, middle, or low), marital status, number of children, and whether their child attending the early childhood program had a disability. On the demographics section for practitioners, participants reported their training (special education, regular education, paraprofessional, related service staff), education level (high school, undergraduate, or graduate degree), and years of experience. The beliefs section of the MTAI survey was cons~'ucted by reviewing the literature on parents' and practitioners' views, attitudes, and concerns related to inclusion or mainstre~lming. It should be noted that the majority of this literature has focused on mainstreaming because inclusion--the practice of fully integrating children with disabilities---is a policy that was rarely discussed and described prior to 1990 (Vaughn et al., 1996). To construct MTAI, questions were either adapted from previous mainstreaming-oriented measures or developed by the first two authors to reflect three belief domains related to inclusion: Core Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices. For example, the item "In general mainstreaming is a desirable educational practice" (Berryman & Berryman, 1981, p. 7) was adapted to "Inclusion is not a desirable practice for educating most typically developing students." When item adaptations were made, they were done (a) to use language consistent with the concept of inclusion, Co) to tap types of beliefs, and/or (c) to specify effects of inclusion not only for children with disabilities but also for typically developing children. A preliminary version of MTAI was piloted and reviewed by 50 early childhood practitioners (special educators, regular educators, paraprofessionals, and support service personnel) and 10 parents. The authors altered the scale based on comments regarding the importance, face validity, appropriate wording for parent use, and clarity of specific items. In

Beliefs About Inclusion

113

Figure 1. My Thinking About Inclusion Scale: (28-item Total Scale; alpha .9051) Core Perspectives (12 items; alpha .8040)

Parent X E.C. Prac. X

* 1. Students with special needs have the right to be educated in the 1.82 same classroom as typically developing students. *2. Inclusion is NOT a desirable practice for educating most typically 2.28 developing students. (R) *3. It is difficult to maintain order in a classroom that contains a mix of 2.53 children with exceptional education needs and children with average abilities. OR) *4. Children with exceptional education needs should be given every 1.75 opportunity to function in an integrated classroom. *5. Inclusion can be beneficial for parents of children with exceptional 1.95 education needs. *6. Parents of children with exceptional needs prefer to have their child 2.62 placed in an inclusive classroom setting. 7. Most special education teachers lack an appropriate knowledge base to educate typically developing students effectively. (R) 8. The individual needs of children with disabilities CANNOT be addressed adequately by a regular education teacher. (R) 9. We must learn more about the effects of inclusive classrooms before inclusive classrooms take place on a large scale basis. (R) 10. The best way to begin educating children in inclusive settings is just to do it. 11. Most children with exceptional needs are well behaved in integrated education classrooms. 12. It is feasible to teach children with average abilities and exceptional needs in the same classroom.

1.48 1.74 2.12 1.67 1.76 2.49

Expected Outcomes (11 items; alpha .8506) "13. Inclusion is socially advantageous for children with special needs. "14. Children with special needs will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a special, separate classroom than in an integrated classroom. (R) "15. Children with exceptional needs are likely to be isolated by typically developing students in inclusive classrooms. (It) * 16. The presence of children with exceptional education needs promotes acceptance of individual differences on the part of typically developing students. 17. Inclusion promotes social independence among children with special needs. 18. Inclusion promotes self-esteem among children with special needs. 19. Children with exceptional needs are likely to exhibit more challenging behaviors in an integrated classroom setting. OR) 20. Children with special needs in inclusive classrooms develop a better self-concept than in a self-contained classroom. 21. The challenge of a regular education classroom promotes academic growth among children with exceptional education needs. 22. Isolation in a special class does NOT have a negative effect on the social and emotional development of students prior to middle school. OR) 23. Typically developing students in inclusive classrooms are more likely to exhibit challenging behaviors learned from children with special needs. (It)

1.87 2.72

1.49 2.50

2.42

2.04

1.75

1.55

3.89

3.66

Classroom Practices (5 items; alpha .6378) *24. Children with exceptional needs monopolize teachers' time. (R)

114

Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

Clasroom Practices (12 items; alpha .8040)

Parent X

*25. The behaviors of students with special needs require significantly 2.86 more teacher-directed attention than those of typically developing children. OR) 26. Parents of children with exceptional education needs require more supportive services from teachers than parents of typically developing children. (R) 27. Parents of children with exceptional needs present no greater challenge for a classroom teacher than do parents of a regular education student. 28. A good approach to managing inclusive classrooms is to have a special education teacher be responsible for instructing the children with special needs. OR) R = Reverse scoring. * = Brief version. Rated on a 5-point scale where I = Strongly Accept and 5 = Strongly Reject.

E.C. Prac. X 2.61

Table 1. Degree of Accomodation and Level of Preparation According to Disability Type Accommodation

Disability Speech and Language Delay Learning Disability Mild Cognitive Disability Moderate Cognitive Disability ADHD Visual Impairment Hearing Impairment Physical/Motor Impairment Emotional Disturbance Challenging Behavior Brain Injury/Neurological Autism/PDD

Preparation

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1.77 1.89 2.06 2.25 2.25 2,41 2.43 2.44 2.58 2.69 2.76 2.88

12 11 10 7 9 2 3 5 5 8 1 3

2.91 2.84 2.82 2.51 2.69 2.12 2.20 2.36 2.36 2.58 2.01 2.20

Note: Degree of Accommodation and Sense of Preparation rated on 1 - 4 scale, where I ffileast and 4 = greater.

addition, the pilot aimed to ensure that the surveys were self-explanatory so that they could be distributed without instructional assistance. Feedback from both the practitioner and the parent pilot groups indicated that demographic information on ethnicity should not be asked, hence it was omitted in the final MTAI survey. To complete the survey, participants indicated their degree of agreement for belief statements using a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Accept, 2 = Agree, 3 = Undecided/ Neutral; 4 = Disagree; and 5 = Strongly Reject). Figure 1 displays the 28-item scale, grouped by belief domains. A "Pragmatics" section was also included in the comprehensive version of the MTAI. Practitioners were presented with a list of 12 disability profiles (see Table 1) and asked to "indicate the ease that you believe each of the following types of disabilities can be accommodated in an inclusive classroom setting" (1 = No or

Beliefs About Inclusion

115

Table 2. Mean Ratings for Barriers to Inclusion Reason Limited Time Limited Opportunities for Collaboration Teacher Attitudes Lack of Experience Regarding Inclusion Little Knowledge in this Area Current Work Commitments Little Support from School/District Parent Attitudes Note:

Mean 2.62 2.57 2.47 2.39 2.37 2.24 2.18 1.91

Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1 - 4 scale, where 1 = does not and 4 = does extremely.

Table 3. Mean Rankings for Methods of Improving Inclusive Practices Method Direct Teaching Experience with Children with Disabilities Observation of Other Teachers in Inclusive Settings Inservice Training/Workshops Consultation Activities with other Teachers, Specialists, and Parents Exposure to Children with Disabilities Discussion Groups on Inclusive Practices University Coursework Research Involvement Collaborative Experiences with University Faculty Independent Reading Note:

Mean 2.95 3.12 3.75 4.20 4.48 5.14 6.37 7.26 7.36 7.53

Items were ranked with 1 = most preferred method and 10 = least preferred method.

Very Little Accommodation, 2 = Minor Accommodation, 3 = Much Accommodation, 4 = Major Accommodation). The same 12 disability profiles were presented again and participants were asked to indicate "the level of preparedness that you feel you have in teaching children in a full inclusive classroom setting" (1 = Not Prepared, 2 = Somewhat Prepared, 3 = Very Prepared, 4 = Extremely Prepared). In addition, practitioners were requested to rate the extent to which eight factors, such as limited knowledge or lack of experience, interfered with inclusion practices from 1 (Does Not) to 4 (Does Extremely) (see Table 2), and to rank 10 methods for improving inclusive practices in terms of their usefulness from best (1) to least (10) preferred (see Table 3). Procedure

The administration of the survey was completed using the following procedures. First, potential site participants were contacted by the researchers, given an explanation of the project, and offered an option to accept or decline (all sites accepted). The researchers held a meeting with a contact person from each early childhood program during which the surveys and procedures for their administration were

116

Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

described. Practitioner survey packets were provided to the program contact person with a letter describing the study, consent forms, and envelopes to ensure confidentiality. The number of classrooms involved at each participating site ranged from 1 to 6, with a total of 30 classrooms. Practitioner surveys were administered by having the contact person distribute them during a staff meeting to individual early childhood practitioners. Participants remained anonymous, and completed surveys were returned to the researchers by the contact person. Intact faculty groups, rather than a random sampling of early childhood practitioners within a program, were used to provide for a more broad representation of participants. Each contact person was given 15-20 parent survey packets per classroom in her program (each containing a survey, consent form, and envelope) to distribute to families. Classrooms serving more families were given a greater number of surveys (i.e., 20 vs. 15). Parent surveys were distributed either through parent-child conferences or by sending them home with a child. Parent surveys were returned to the classroom teacher in a sealed envelope. Based on the number of surveys that were distributed, a 92% return rate occurred for practitioners and an 85% rate for parents. RESULTS Participants' responses to the MTAI survey were used to validate the measure, to examine factors affecting parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs, and to analyze patterns in respondents' beliefs. In addition, practitioners' perceptions of accommodation, preparation, barriers, and facilitators related to inclusion were analyzed.

Measure Validation The three belief subscales and the total belief scale were examined for internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. Reliability analyses for the MTAI resulted in the following alphas for the 28-item comprehensive version (and 12-item brief version): Core Perspective, .80 (.77); Expected Outcomes, .85 (.69); Classroom Practices, .64 (.69); and Total Beliefs, .91 (.86). Subscale-to-total-scale correlations ranged from .73 to .91, suggesting an association between each belief domain and the Total Scale. Next, intercorrelations among the three subscales were examined. Subscale intercorrelations were moderate (r = .50 for Core Perspective-Classroom Practices, r = .55 for Expected Outcomes-Classroom Practices, and r = .75 for Expected Outcomes-Core Perspectives). The unidimensional structure of the three belief domains was confirmed by the use of principal components analysis. For each domain, only one factor was extracted. The total percentage of variance that was explained by each factor was 47.7% for Core Perspectives, 52.2% for Expected Outcomes, and 69.2% for Classroom Practices. Because the intercorrelatious among subscales were not high (< .80) and the principle component analysis supported the conceptually distinct nature of each subscale, they were retained as separate scales for further analysis.

Beliefs About Inclusion

117

Parent Beliefs To address our fLrSt research question concerning factors that affect parents' beliefs regarding inclusion, analyses were conducted using summary scores for each subscale and the Total Scale of the brief MTAI (12 items). Parents of children with special needs were more positive in their beliefs than parents of children without special needs on the Total Scale, t(404) = 2.97, p <.01, Core Perspectives subscale, t(404) = 3.47, p < .001, and Classroom Practices subscale, t (404) = 2.84, p < .01. Analysis of variance (A_NOVA) showed significant associations between parents' social-economic status and their beliefs on all three subscales (F = 4.67, p < .01; F = 8.14, p < .001; F = 3.40, p < .05; for Core Perspectives, Outcomes, and Classroom Practices, respectively) and the Total Scale (F = 7.59, p < .001). Follow-up analyses using the Tukey HSD showed that parents with high or middle incomes reported more positive beliefs than did parents with low income on the Core Perspectives subscale, Outcomes subscale, and Total Scale. Although the overall ANOVA was significant for the Classroom Practices subscale, no two groups differed significantly at the .05 level. To investigate further the effect of income, ANCOVAs were conducted with level of education as a covariate. When education level was controlled, the relationship between income level and inclusion beliefs was not significant for any scale. Parents with a college education had more positive beliefs on the Core Perspecfives subscale compared to parents with a high school education or less (F = 5.58, p < .05). Parents with one or two children had more positive beliefs about inclusion than did parents with four or more children on the Total Scale (F = 3.10, p < .05) and Outcomes subscale (F = 4.30, p < .05). Significant differences due to marital status were detected on the Total Scale and Core Beliefs subscale. Tukeys showed that married parents held more positive beliefs than did single parents (F = 3.16 and F = 4.18, respectively, on the Total and Beliefs scales, both ps < .05). No significant variations among parents from different community settings were found.

Early Childhood Practitioner Beliefs Using the 28-item MTAI scale, the next set of analyses examined factors associated with beliefs among early childhood practitioners (Research Question #1). The full 28-item inclusion belief scale was used for these analyses because the comprehensive version demonstrated somewhat better psychometric properties than the brief MTAI. Analysis of variance showed a significant association between classroom role arid inclusion beliefs on the Core Perspectives (F = 3.55), Classroom Practices (F = 3.35), and Total Scale (F = 2.93), allps < .05. Post hoc comparisons revealed that regular and special education teachers expressed more positive beliefs than did paraprofessionals on the Classroom Practices subscale, and special educators were more positive than paraprofessionals on the Core Perspectives and Total Scale. Similarly, practitioners' level of education was si,Lmificantly related to their Classroom Practices beliefs (F = 3.82, p < .01), however, no significant variations occurred on the other subscales. Post hoc analyses indicated that practitioners with

118

Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

a high school degree demonstrated lower endorsement of inclusive classroom practices than did practitioners with masters degrees. Finally, A_NOVA results showed significant associations between practitioners' years of experience in early childhood programs and their beliefs (F = 2.91, p < .05), and the Tukey procedure indicated that practitioners with 15 or more years of experience were more positive than those with 1 to 4 years. To examine the second research question of how parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs differ, a series of t-tests were used to compare their responses on the brief 12-item belief scale (see Figure 1). As a group, early childhood practitioners had more positive beliefs about inclusion than did the parent participants on all three subscales and the Total Scale, t(525) - 5.04, 4.07, 2.92, 4.40, for Core Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices, and Total scales, all ps < .01.

Practitioners' Perceptions related to Accommodation, Preparation, Barriers, and Facilitators With regard to research question #3, practitioners indicated that children with speech and language delays, learning disabilities, and mild cognitive disabilities can be most easily accommodated in early childhood inclusive settings. They felt the greatest amount of classroom adaptation is needed for children with autism, neurological impairments, and challenging behaviors (see Table 1). Analysis of variance showed no significant associations between participants' role or degree and their beliefs about accommodating children with various types of disabilities. Participants' level of experience, however, was significantly related to their accommodation beliefs. Specifically, practitioners with 1 to 4 years of experience felt that children with neurological disorders are more difficult to accommodate than did practitioners with 10 to 14 years of experience (F = 2.96, p < 05). Practitioners indicated that they felt least prepared in integrating children with neurological disorders, visual/hearing impairments, and autism. Conversely, they reported feeling most prepared to include children with speech and language delays, learning disabilities, and mild cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings. Interestingly, these disability types correspond to children for whom the least amount of accommodation was needed. A series of A_NOVAs showed a pattern where special educators reported feeling a greater sense of competence in serving children with (a) ADHD, compared to regular educators and paraprofessionals (F = 4.88, p < .01), (b) autism, compared to regular educators (F = 2.72, p < 05), (c) challenging behaviors, compared to related services professionals (F = 3.20, p < .05), (d) emotional disturbance, compared to regular educators or related services professionals (F = 4.56, p < .01), (e) hearing impairment, compared to paraprofessionals (F = 5.91, p < .001), and (f) mild (F = 6.61) and moderate cognitive disabilities (F = 7.49), learning disabilities (F = 7.86), and speech and language disorders (F = 11.25), compared to regular education teachers and paraprofessionals, all ps < .001. Related service professionals reported being better trained to provide services to children with (a) brain injury or neurological disorders, compared to regular education teachers (F = 3.06, p < .05), (b) hearing

Beliefs About Inclusion

119

impairments, compared to regular education teachers and paraprofessionals (F = 5.91, p < .001), and (c) learning disabilities (F = 7.87) and children with speech and language disorders (F = 11.25), compared to paraprofessionals (both ps < .001). In examining the association between level of education and sense of competence, practitioners with masters degrees reported significantly higher preparation than did those with high school or associate degrees for working with four groups of children: (a) learning disabilities (F = 5.36, p < .01); (b) mild cognitive disabilities (F = 5.15, p < .01); (c) brain injury/neurological disorders (F = 3.05, p < .05), and (d) speech and language disorders (F = 6.06, p < .001). Practitioners with greater experience (15 or more years) felt better prepared to work with children with mild (F = 3.92, p < .01) and moderate cognitive disabilities (F = 3.51, p < .05) than did those with 1 to 4 years of experience. Finally, concerning our fourth research question, limited time and limited opportunties for collaboration received the highest ratings as barriers to successful inclusion, whereas, parent attitudes received the lowest rating (see Table 2). As can be seen in Table 3, direct teaching experiences, peer observation of other practitioners in inclusive settings, and inservice training were the most preferred methods for improving inclusion practices; reading literature on inclusion was least preferred.

DISCUSSION One primary purpose of our study was to determine whether a scale measuring the beliefs of both parents and practitioners could be developed that demonstrates sound psychometric properties. Our data indicate that both the brief 12-item MTAI and the more comprehensive 28- item MTAI demonstrate good internal reliability. The internal consistency for the brief MTAI supports its use with both parents and practitioners as a general measure to explore their beliefs related to inclusion. Validation work on the comprehensive MTAI suggest that inclusion beliefs are fairly consistent within the specific domains it measures (i.e., Core Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices). Some variations were found, however, in the ways practitioners having differing backgrounds and experiences responded to items within the three MTAI subscales, reflecting the multidimensional nature of inclusion beliefs. Overall, greater variance in beliefs were evident in comparing participants' responses on the Core Perspectives and Classroom Practices subscales than on the Expected Outcomes subscale. Together these findings lend support for differential use of the MTAI. The brief version has utility for further comparative investigations of beliefs or for early childhood programs to obtain a general indication of whether an individual or group holds positive or negative beliefs toward inclusion. The comprehensive 28-item MTAI might be used to provide more refined indications of what dimensions are most important to address in promoting greater awareness or acceptance toward inclusion. Prior to discussing what we view as key findings, several limitations of the study should be acknowledged.

12o

Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goe~

First, our primary intent was to explore the beliefs of both parents and practitioners because these adults' actions and reactions play an important role in the implementation of inclusion. Our attempt to give voice to parents and practitioners cannot capture their many subtle, yet critical, conceptions about inclusive pracrices. Although the use of a survey provided a quantitative approach for examining diverse inclusion beliefs, this method did not fully assess the complexity of beliefs. In addition, our conceptual distinctions regarding inclusion beliefs (Core, Pracrices, Outcomes) represent one possible conceptualization. Clearly, other categories or dimensions of inclusion beliefs exist and need to be examined in further research. Despite these limitations, we observed important patterns related to how situational and experiential factors affect inclusion beliefs among parents. Differences in beliefs due to having a child with a disability were revealed on two subscales (Core Perspectives and Classroom Practices) and the Total Scale, with parents of children with disabilities responding more positively than parents of typically developing children. These findings differ from Vaughn et al.'s (1996) teachers who "anticipated that parents of students with disabilities would not view inclusion favorably" (p. 103). Parents with lower incomes and lower education levels (high school education or less) held less positive beliefs concerning inclusion, however, these differences were attributable to education level. One explanation for this difference based on parents' education is that socialization toward inclusion occurs through the education process. It is also possible that individuals with higher education levels have more opportunities to reflect on the advantages of inclusive practices in reducing discrimination based on ability. Although parents' marital status and number of children were associated with their beliefs about inclusion, community context (urban, suburban, rural) did not influence parents' beliefs. The current results support Sigel et al.'s (1992) contention that parental beliefs are determined by multiple experiences, demographic characteristics, and sociocultural contexts. In addition, our findings suggest that there are variations in the degree of influence by differing factors. Proximal individual factors (i.e., education, marital status) appear to be more potent in influencing inclusion beliefs than distal, global factors (i.e., community). Clearly, the need for more information about parents' beliefs and for dissemination of parents' beliefs to practitioners is apparent. Research that replicates or clarifies the contextual nature surrounding parents' beliefs should also occur. For example, do parents of children at the elementary or secondary levels differ in their beliefs about inclusion from parents of young children? Do parents of typically developing children who have greater contact or involvement with inclusive programs hold more positive beliefs related to inclusion practices? Answers to these questions have important implications for understanding how patents' beliefs are formed as well as how they may be altered through different experiences. Regardless of whether or when these questions are pursued, our results support the need for public awareness efforts aimed at broadening the understanding of inclusion both to parents and practitioners.

Beliefs About Inclusion

121

In our analysis of practitioners' beliefs, we found repeated evidence that education and experience affect the ways individuals think about inclusion. Teachers with special and regular education training shared more positive beliefs about the implementation of inclusion practices than did paraprofessionals. Similarly, compared to early childhood practitioners with only high school training, practitioners with extensive and specialized training were more apt to have positive beliefs concerning inclusive practices in early childhood settings, and feel better prepared to provide services for children with diverse disabilities in inclusive settings. Practitioners with greater experience in the field of education held more positive beliefs about inclusion than did those with less experience (1 to 4 years of experience). Together these findings suggest that situational and experiential factors impact on inclusion beliefs, again pointing to the likelihood that the context surrounding inclusion beliefs plays an important role in belief development. Interestingly, our findings differ significantly from Vauglm et al. (1996) who reported "Regardless of background knowledge, the most consistent response of teachers.., was strong negative feelings about inclusion." (p. 100). One reason for the difference in findings may be methodological; Vaughn et al. used focus groups to capture the feelings of teachers who were not presently participating in inclusion. Nonetheless, the differential nature of beliefs due to the length and type of practitioners' training is important because it warns against "broad brush" interpretations of practitioners' beliefs. Rather, beliefs about inclusion appears to be a complex phenomena that evolve based on various situations and experiences. When compared to parents, practitioners held more positive beliefs toward inclusion. The more positive beliefs of practitioners suggest an individual's role may influence what Weiner (1986) has called a "norm to be kind" (p. 146) to those having limitations, which can include those with disabilities. Perhaps practitioners' participation in inclusion promotes a culture that produces more positive beliefs. Children with challenging behavior, neurological problems, and autism were perceived by practitioners as requiting the greatest amount of accommodation. Other research verifies that children with significant behavioral challenges are among the least preferred to instruct in mainstream education settings (Johnson, 1987; Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996). Conversely, children with more mild disabilities, including speech and language delays, learning disability, and mild cognitive disabilities, were ranked most easily accommodated, which also concurs with other research (Clark, 1997). The evidence that practitioners' level of preparation in working with children of different disabilities corresponds to their accommodation rankings is noteworthy. Previous studies have indicated that teacher acceptance of behavioral problems is facilitated through exposure to children with behavior disabilities. Practitioners have also been shown to be more tolerant of diverse learners when they believe they have the knowledge and skills to differentiate instruction (MoeUer & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Tomlinson et al., 1997). The finding that limited time and limited opportunities for collaboration emerged as the greatest barriers to inclusion holds important practical implications. The early childhood practitioners who served as participants in the present

122

Stoiber, GetUnger, and Goelz

study were all working in inclusive settings. Their concerns are consistent with other research on teacher perceptions of inclusion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Vaughn et al., 1996), and suggest that attention should be given to increasing time for planning and collaborating in inclusive settings. In addition, the need for collaborative skills is consistent with Putnam, Spiegel, and Brninink.q (1995) who revealed strong support for all education majors to be trained in communication skills and teamwork. Field-based approaches emphasizing direct, hands-on experience were considered most effective by our practitioners for improving inclusion practices, thus underscoring the importance of training that is authentic and relevant. Given these beliefs, it appears that effective training to move practitioners toward "best" practices requires major restructuring of professional development. The model for professional development that emerges from the preferences of early childhood practitioners in the present study concurs with Moeller and Ishii-Jordan (1996), who proposed that traditional, didactic instruction does not match the dynamic and practical needs of inclusive practitioners. Practitioners believe that they need more than just single-session inservice training to provide them with appropriate teaching and intervention strategies; they need peer support and ongoing opportunities for professional development. Patterns evident throughout the data support the goal of increasing both parents' and practitioners' exposure to diverse learners and strategies for accommodation. It appears that propinquity or "getting up close" to children with diverse disabilities and to inclusion has a powerful positive effect on our beliefs about inclusion. Efforts aimed at motivating individuals to find ways to differentiate instruction for the most challenging children may produce a powerful influence on beliefs related to inclusion. Hence, school or program cultures dedicated to nurturing the positive value of diverse learners and differentiated instruction are critical to support continued progress in the inclusion movement. Our results also point to the need for continued research on parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs, especially regarding the impact of various educational and socialization approaches. It would be informative, for example, to examine how one's beliefs about inclusion develop over time with different types of knowledge and experience (e.g., knowledge about what is meant by inclusion vs. knowledge of how to differentiate instruction; knowledge constructed through didactic training vs. knowledge constructed through an action research project). In addition, more information is needed on how individuals from various cultural groups view inclusion. As progress is made in these areas, the beliefs of individuals assuming the critical roles in inclusion will be more clearly understood. Such understanding is essential to develop meaningful frameworks for enhancing both parents' and practitioners' growth toward inclusion policies and practices. Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to Jenny Lange, Early Childhood Consultant of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, for her assistance with this research. The authors are also indebted to the early childhood programs that agreed to participate. This project was funded, in part, through an IDEA Preschool Flow-Through Grant to the State of Wisconsin.

Beliefs About Inclusion

123

REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 223-250. Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. R. (1995). Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: A comparison across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 413-442. Alvermann, D. E., & Commeryas, M. (1994). Gender, text, and discussion: Expanding the possibilities. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 183-199). HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbanm. American Federation of Teachers. (1993). Draft AFT position on inclusion. (Available from the American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001) Ames, C., & Ames, R. (Eds.). (1989). Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu, Vol. 3. San Diego: Academic. Anders, P. L., & Evans, K. S. (1994). Relationship between teachers' beliefs and their instructional practice in reading. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 137-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1991). TASH resolutions and policy statement. (Available from The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11201 Greenwood Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98133) Berryman, J. D., & Berryman, C. R. (1981, April). Use of the "Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale" with rural Georgia teachers. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 082) Borko, H., Davinroy, R. H., Flory, M. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Teachers' knowledge and beliefs about summary as a component of reading. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 155-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 69-79. Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the "full inclusion" of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 126. Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S. (1995). A community assessment of preschool providers' attitudes toward inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 149-167. Folsom-Meck, S. L. (1995). Validity and reliability of a mainstreaming attitude inventory for child-care providers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1113-1114. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1994). Beliefs about text and instruction with text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hanline, M. F. (1985). Integrating disabled children. Young Children, 40, 45-48. Hyson, M. C., & l.,ee, K. (1996). Assessing early childhood teachers' beliefs about emotions: Content, contexts, and implications for practice. Early Education and Development, 7, 59-78. Johnson, A. (1987). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: Implications for inservice training and teaching the handicapped. Education, 107, 229-233. Marchant, C. (1995). Teachers' views of integrated preschools, Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 61-73. Miller, S. A., Manhal, M., & Mee, L. L. (1991). Parental beliefs, parental accuracy, and children's performance: A search for causal relations. Developmental Psychology, 27, 267-276. Moeller, A. J., & Ishii-Jordan, S. (1996). Teacher efficacy: A model for teacher development and inclusion. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 293-310. Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential barriers and tasks for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 48-61. Olson, D. R., & Astington, J. W. (1993). Thinking about thinking: Learning how to take statements and hold beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 28, 7-23. Peck, C. A. (1993). Ecological perspectives on the implementation of integrated early childhood programs. In C. A. Peck, S. L. Odom, & D. D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation (pp. 3 - 16). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

124

Stoiber, GetUnger, and Goetz

Peck, C. A., Odom, S. L., & Bricker, D. D. (1993). Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61, 553- 576. Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157. Salisbury, C, L. (1991). Malnstreaming during the early childhood years. Exceptional Children, 58, 146-154. Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm. Scruggs, T. E., & Matropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74. Sigel, I. E., McGillieuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (Eds.). (1992). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stoiber, K. C. (1992). Parents' beliefs about their children's cognitive, social, and motor functioning. Early Education and Development, 3, 244-259. Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1993). The relationship of adolescent mothers' expectations, knowledge, and beliefs to their young children's coping behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 14, 61-79. Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1994). Adolescent mothers' cognitions and behaviors as at-risk indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 296-316. Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, N., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282. Vaughn, S.; Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996). Teachers' views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 96-106. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Vedag. York, J., & Tundidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 31-44. York, J., Vandercook, T., Macdonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992). Feedback from teachers and classmates about integrating middle school learners with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 244-259.