Towards inclusive education

For ^{Booth and Ainscow (2011}), inclusive education is a set of processes that aims to eliminate or reduce barriers that limit the learning and participation of all learners. They describe three dimensions: culture, policies, and practices. Culture refers to an educational community with shared values and beliefs oriented towards learning for all. Policies focus on inclusion as the engine of the educational institution and define the different support methods that respond to diversity. Practices guarantee that school activities promote full and effective participation in line with the culture they belong to and the policy guidelines they have (Booth & Ainscow, 2011).

^{Ainscow (2001}) argues that inclusive education allows an educational institution to provide quality education for all learners, whether they have special educational needs (SEN) or not, on the basis of equal opportunities and accepting diversity. According to ^{Echeita (2007}; p.15) inclusive education strives to address diversity and answers the question of “how to learn to live with differences, and how to learn from differences.” In the field of education, educating among diversity refers to individual differences as something intrinsic in all people, and not as the specific situation of a certain setting, group, or person (^{Bravo, 2013}). According to ^{Arnaiz Sánchez (2003}), diversity is a fact that manifests as differences in ability, interests, motivations, attitudes, thinking styles, and learning styles, among others. As with other countries in Latin America, inclusive education is still conceived of in Uruguay as targeted towards a certain group of learners who have SEN associated with some type of disability. For this reason, the existing initiatives have arisen from the need to modify the curriculum in accordance with differences in learner capabilities, and not on diversity in a broader sense (^{Cardona, 1995}; 2003; ^{Chiner & Cardona, 2013}). This obstacle to a paradigm shift is reflected in educational practices that do not yet comply with the inclusive education model.

^{Eisenman, Pleet, Wandry y McGinley (2011}) highlight some of the relevant components necessary for making progress in inclusive education. These include leadership in the educational institution, a collaborative culture, and adapted access to infrastructure, among others. ^{Idol (2006}) also indicates certain important indicators of successful implementation of inclusive practices in school settings. These include: the type of disabilities learners have, the use of and number of support staff available, how the members of the educational community perceive their ability to make changes in their teaching methods and in the curriculum, and their ability to control learner discipline and class management. Additionally, Idol (2006) notes that the success of inclusive practices depends on the attitudes of the members of the educational community towards other members, collaborative work, learners with special educational needs and inclusion.

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are a determining factor for academic success in a normal classroom environment. (^{Batsiou, Bebetsos, Panteli, & Antoniou, 2008}; ^{Dupoux, Hammond, Ingalls, & Wolman, 2006}).

^{Bravo (2013}) defines attitude as a person’s disposition, or learned predisposition to react in a certain way towards an event, person, or situation, and that this manifests in an organized way through experiences, and influences or guides behavior towards objects or situations. Figure 1

Figure 1 Theory of Reasoned Action, ^{Ajzen and Fishbein (1975}) 

According to the contributions of ^{Ajzen and Fishbein (1975}), the more inclusive the institutional culture and the educational policies of the institution in which a teacher works, the greater the probability that a teacher with a positive attitude towards inclusion will implement inclusive educational practices in the classroom (subjective norm). Ajzen (1998) added the importance of perceived control over behavior to this model. Teachers will be more willing to change their educational practices the more they perceive that they are able to do so (perceived control over behavior). For that to occur, teachers must feel competent to manage said practices, trained in attending to diversity, and supported on an organizational level by their institution (time for planning and coordination with colleagues).

If attitude is such a determining factor in developing inclusive education, then it is pertinent to wonder whether a negative attitude can be changed, and how to change it. To be able to do so, it is crucial to discover what factors affect teachers’ attitudes.

One relevant theory when considering inclusion and disability is the Intergroup Contact Theory (^{Allport, 1954}), which argues that not all contact has a beneficial effect on attitude change; the quality of the contact between two groups determines whether the vulnerable group is accepted or rejected (Allport, 1954). The theory indicates three factors that promote positive attitudes towards a group of people: equal status of the individuals in a given situation, having common goals, and receiving institutional support.

Attitudes are gradually learned through experience. Thus, if attitudes are acquired over a lifetime through personal experiences, then teaching experience in classrooms with learners with different types of disabilities-and therefore experience in serving diverse needs-can influence teachers’ perceptions of the issue and consequently their attitudes towards inclusive education.

Research on teachers’ attitudes

Current research has not produced conclusive results when describing teachers’ attitudes or determining which factors influence positive attitudes (Verdugo, 2002). However, it is agreed that positive attitudes towards people with disabilities tend to improve these learners’ educational prospects (Merino & Ruiz, 2005; en Sanhueza, Granada & ^{Bravo, 2013}). ^{Chiner (2011}) claims that teachers’ attitudes are affected by factors related to the body of learners, the teachers, and the context. This study will consider the factors related to the teachers and the context.

^{De Boer, Pijl and Minnaert (2011}) carried out a literature review of 26 studies on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. They posit that most teachers have a neutral or negative attitude towards including learners with SEN in mainstream education, and that the factors that have an impact on these attitudes include training, gender, years of experience in inclusive settings, and the type of educational needs of the learners.

One of the first teacher-related factors to consider is professional training. Nowadays, after receiving basic training, a teacher is expected not only to be competent in the subject matter he or she must teach, but also capable of encouraging all learners to learn and participate and fostering opportunities for educational development and inclusion (^{Sola, 1997}). He or she should have the tools to provide quality educational solutions for diverse learners in the teaching-learning process. Similarly, a teacher should expect ongoing training throughout his or her professional career that provides the up-to-date skills and knowledge necessary to meet potential future demands.

To this effect, there are also various studies that refer to teachers calling for further training. ^{Sánchez, Díaz, Sanhueza and Friz (2008}) claim that 92% of student teachers indicate that teachers in mainstream education do not have the training necessary to address the needs of learners with SEN. Different studies signal the importance of teacher training as a deciding factor in making inclusive education possible (Arnaiz 2003; ^{Stainback & Stainback, 1999}). ^{De Boer et al. (2011}) indicate that teachers do not feel well prepared to serve the needs of the learners with disabilities in their classrooms. To this effect, teachers with more training have a more positive attitude than those with less training.

Studies show that another relevant factor to consider when analyzing teacher attitudes is teaching experience. Teaching experience is understood as the time a teacher has spent practicing professionally that has allowed him or her to discover, develop, and experience a particular educational practice. Past studies indicate that years of experience have an influence on attitudes towards inclusive education. Teachers with less years of teaching experience show more positive attitudes than those with more experience.

Similarly, teachers with previous experience in inclusive education show more positive attitudes than those with less experience in inclusive settings (^{De Boer et al., 2011}). ^{Sanhueza, Granada, and Pomés (2013}) point out that in this vein it is possible to analyze teachers’ experiences in two ways: on the one hand, in terms of the number of years a teacher has worked, and on the other, in terms of previous experiences associated with inclusive practices. In the first case, more years of teaching does not favor inclusive education, whereas specific experience with inclusive education does positively impact attitude. It is worth mentioning that it is not just contact or previous work with people with disabilities alone, but experience in inclusive settings. ^{Avramidis y Norwich (2002}) affirm that there is no significant relationship between contact with people with disabilities and a positive attitude towards inclusion, and that addressing the needs of learners with disabilities in normal classrooms can cause stress which negatively affects teachers’ support of inclusion.

There are two factors that are considered essential in relation to context. One of these is the possibility of having the time, space, and opportunity to plan, coordinate, and collaborate on putting different diversity-serving pedagogical actions into practice. In this regard, Sanhueza et al., (2011) establish that material resources and time continue to be seen by teachers as an obstacle to developing inclusive practices.

Another context-related factor that influences teachers’ attitudes within the framework of inclusive education is access to support resources. Support serves as the means by which institutions strive to address diversity in the classroom. There are two types of support: human resources (professionals, assistants, colleagues, and family) and material resources (inclusive practices). Seventy-seven percent of educators believe that the best option for educating learners with SEN is through general education with sufficient teaching assistants to work with each learner who needs support (^{Idol, 2006}).

Material resources include adapted curricula and inclusive teaching and learning strategies (collaborative work, co-teaching, or multilevel activities, among others). There is evidence that educational institutions that employ diverse forms of support and varied teaching strategies can be effective in catering to diversity, and achieve good academic results (^{Jordan, Glenn & McGhie-Richmond, 2010}). In previous studies in the U.S. and Canada relating to material resources, teachers signal the need to reduce the number of learners per class (^{Horne & Timmons, 2009}).

^{Curone and Di Segni (2014}) carried out a pilot study on how teachers at two private schools in Montevideo perceive and conceive of including learners with special educational needs, and the strategies used in teaching. Although the results are not conclusive because of the small sample size, the study indicates that the perceptions and attitudes of the teachers towards inclusion were moderately positive, and teacher-related variables do not appear to be determining factors for attitude, which leaves the door open for a new line of research on context-related variables (available support, among others).

Taking into account developments in inclusive education since the late 1990’s, and the lack of research on the topic in this country’s context, the current study has the following aim: to determine the attitudes of preschool and elementary school teachers in a private school in Montevideo towards inclusive education. To do so, the first objective of the study will be to describe the attitudes that preschool and elementary school teachers in this institution have towards inclusion. The second aim will be to analyze whether these attitudes vary by teacher-related variables (teacher’s position, academic background, previous teaching experience with people with disabilities, educational stage, and years of professional experience), and lastly, to investigate which types of inclusive practices teachers favor implementing in their classrooms.

Participants

By means of convenience, non-probability sampling, the voluntary survey was applied to all English and Spanish language teachers of preschool and elementary education of a private school in Montevideo. A total of 44 participants were gathered. Table 1 shows frequencies and percentages of socio-demographic variables.

Table 1: Presentation of the demographic variables 

Characteristics of the educational institution

The institution is a bilingual school located in a residential neighborhood of Montevideo. In recent years, they have begun to consider diversity in their classrooms by implementing different types of support: in the classroom, outside the classroom, after school coaching, curricular adaptations, learning tutors, and even from 2016, an “Aula Estable” support method was implemented (Sola, 2013). Under this method, during part of the day, learners in this group receive individual intervention in the areas of greatest difficulty and carry out a program that contemplates their interests and needs in a resources classroom, and during the other part of the day, they are in the regular classroom with the appropriate adjustments, if necessary. They have approximately seven hundred learners, considering preschool and elementary education. There is a total of 54 teachers (n = 54) among substitute, area-specific, and regular teachers. At the end of elementary school, learners may optionally take an international examination in English as their mother tongue, in the areas of language, natural sciences and mathematics.

From early childhood education to first year, a teaching assistant accompanies the group throughout the day. There is also an Educational Guidance Team, which consists of psychologists specialized in educational psychology, learning tutors, educational psychologists, teachers specialized in learning difficulties, and psychomotor specialists. The Preschool and Elementary School Director leads a group of coordinators of English and Spanish in preschool and elementary school, physical education and sports, pastoral and educational guidance. She is part of the Faculty Board, together with the General Director, the High School Director, the Administrative Director, the General Coordinator of English Language, and the General Pastoral Coordinator.

According to the Uruguayan legislation, each educational center is responsible for coordinating non-significant and significant curricular adjustments, as well as access adjustments for learners with special educational needs. Regarding the presence of learners with disabilities in the regular classroom, the indicator used for their identification are the curricular adaptations applied. Six per cent of the preschool and elementary education learners have some kind of curricular adaptation.

Measurement instrument

The instrument used was the Inclusive Education Opinion Scale. The instrument was designed and adapted by Cardona (2013) based on other similar instruments used in previous studies (Cardona, 2006; ^{Cornoldi, Terreni, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998}). It is a multidimensional scale with very good reliability values ​​ (Cronbach’s alpha = .84) and validity (IVC = 0.95).

It consists of a first part with a socio-demographic questionnaire. Three items were included, one in reference to the attendance or not to training courses on inclusion, another to having or not having contact with people with disabilities, and the last one to having worked or not with people with disabilities. The second part is a Likert opinion scale. It consists of 23 items distributed in three sub-scales. The first sub-scale is about the “Foundations of Inclusive Education” and aims at identifying the attitudes of teachers towards the fundamental principles of the concept of inclusion. The second sub-scale, called “Conditions for Inclusive Education”, is about the scope of available supports, human resources, materials, training, and education. The last one is called “Measures to Address Diversity”, which aims at identifying the degree of agreement with institutional practices and measures, whether of a technical or administrative nature, which favor inclusion.

Rating of each item ranges from “strongly disagrees” (MD = 1), “disagrees” (ED = 2), “agrees” (DA = 3), “strongly agrees” (MA = 4) and “does not know or does not respond” (DK / NR = 5). Scores are arranged positively, that is, the higher the score, the more favorable is the teacher’s attitude.

Table 2 shows the results of the analysis of internal consistency coefficients of the instrument for this study, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Table 2: Reliability study of the Inclusive Education Opinion Scale instrument 

Ethical standards and procedure

After requesting the corresponding authorizations in the educational center, we proceeded to give the school’s English and Spanish teachers informed consent. The aim of the research was explained, guaranteeing the confidentiality of the results, and it was provided by a single researcher.

The statistical package SPSS.22 was used to create the database and subsequent analysis. Regarding the description of the sample, frequencies, percentages, and averages were used. Average comparison studies were carried out with the factors of the scale, taking into account the different independent variables. For such purpose, Mann-Whitney’s U and Kruskall Wallis were used for more than two independent groups.

Analysis of comparison of averages, and its relationship with socio-demographic variables

Average comparison studies were carried out with the factors of the scale, taking into account the variable of teaching experience. The results presented in Table 4 show that there is a statistically significant difference (p ≤ .05) in the factor “Inclusive Measures and Practices”. This difference indicates higher scores of the group with more years of experience.

Table 4: Analysis of average comparison for the teacher’s experience variable 

Secondly, tests were carried out with respect to the teacher’s position variable. Table 5 shows the comparison of averages, showing a significant difference in the factor “Foundations of Inclusive Education” (p = .031). Spanish language teachers have a more favorable view towards inclusive education, regarding general principles, than English language teachers.

Tests were then performed according to the rest of the variables, but no statistically significant differences were found.

Table 5 Analysis of average comparison for the teacher’s position variable