Abstract
Many students require special education and programming to succeed in the classroom. This study analyzed international and national assessment teacher survey data regarding inclusive education to better characterize student classroom needs and teacher preparedness to support them. Most teachers indicated that they relied on teacher-based accommodations and some teachers did not have access to external resources. While many teachers did not indicate receiving adequate teacher training courses and professional development (PD) on inclusive education, results indicate students from classrooms in which teachers took inclusive education PD statistically significantly outperform their peers (F[1, 5.2] = 526.60, p < .05). As school psychologists support teachers in their classrooms to meet the needs of all their students, it is important for school psychologists to consider the minimal training and lack of PD attended by these teachers coupled with their relaxed attitude toward attending PD on teaching students with special needs.
Keywords
Disability rates in Canada have increased significantly since 2001 (Statistics Canada, 2006). The most recent statistics suggest that nearly four million, or 13.7% of Canadians report having a disability (Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC], 2017). Identification of children with disabilities can be difficult as diagnoses are often not apparent until children enter the school system (Statistics Canada, 2006). Among the most common diagnoses in children are chronic health conditions (e.g., asthma) and neurodevelopmental disabilities (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; Statistics Canada, 2006). More than any other disability in school-aged children; however, it is learning disorders, commonly referred to as learning disabilities, which have shown the most increase. Furthermore, it is common for these school-aged children to have disabilities. Specifically, half of school-aged children with one learning disability have at least one additional disability and nearly half of all school-aged children with learning disabilities in Canada are classified as severe or very severe (Statistics Canada, 2006).
One study indicated that 64% of Canadian students with disabilities attend school in inclusive classrooms across the country (Kohen et al., 2004). There is a general movement in Canada, and in Alberta specifically, for inclusive classrooms to use an inclusive approach in which students with disabilities are integrated with their peers who do not exhibit signs of disabilities. Considering the prevalence of learning disabilities in students, and that students spend approximately 7 hr a day in their classrooms, it is imperative to understand whether and how students with disabilities are supported in the inclusive classroom.
Inclusive Education in Alberta
The enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) put forth the concept of inclusion across Canada, but with education being a provincial/territorial matter, each province and territory implemented their own policy surrounding inclusion. In Alberta, the implementation of the School Act in 1988 mandated equal protection of individuals with disabilities, while still allowing alternative educational arrangements to be made if the regular classroom was not productive or detrimental to student success (Alberta Teachers’ Association [ATA], 2002). In the past 5 years, Alberta Education held discussions through minister’s forums, which led to the development of a new policy that would lead to more formalized inclusion (ATA, 2002). In an effort to promote inclusivity and work against stereotypes, the new policy required the regular classroom to be the first choice of placement options for students with disabilities, leading to fewer exceptions to full inclusion (ATA, 2002).
Until recently, Alberta Education provided per student funding based on Alberta Education coding criteria that sought to provide more monetary supports to students who presented with severe learning needs (Alberta Education, 2009). A review of the funding provided to students with severe disabilities in 2007 uncovered “province-wide inconsistencies in the ways that students with disabilities are coded, assessed, and provided the required supports and services; the way policy is being interpreted and the ways in which students’ administrative files are managed” (Alberta Education, 2009, p. 3). To address these inconsistencies across the province, Alberta Education appointed a steering committee to consult with Albertans to determine the future of inclusive education (Alberta Education, 2009). Through these consultations changes were made to the funding structure, from an approach that was focused on funding individual students with severe diagnoses (often referred to as a “diagnosis for dollars” approach), toward a more inclusive funding structure that provides base funding to support all students with disabilities (Williamson & Gilham, 2017). This new funding structure is more supportive of an inclusive classroom through which students, irrespective of severity of needs, have the opportunity to obtain supports in the inclusive classrooms.
Alberta Education defines inclusive education as “a way of thinking and acting that demonstrates universal acceptance and promotes a sense of belonging for all learners” (Alberta Education, 2018a, p. 1). Alberta Education has been and continues to be guided by a valuing of inclusivity in its mandates as outlined in their teaching quality standards which lists six guiding principles to inform decision-making in inclusive learning environments (Alberta Education, 2018a). Alberta Education (2013) also offers Indicators of Inclusive Schools, which is intended to support the implementation of inclusive education.
Teacher’s Role, Preparedness, and Perceived Competency in Inclusive Education
There is consensus in the literature that general education teachers, irrespective of training, education, and confidence, are responsible for the implementation of inclusive education in schools (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2018; Paju et al., 2016). Most teachers are supportive of the concept of inclusive education. However, there are many situational factors that impact teachers’ preparedness to implement inclusive education. Specifically, inadequate training, lack of supports and resources, and the increase of student mental health and behavioral concerns in the classroom are often cited as challenges to inclusive education (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2018).
Inadequate Training
Teachers often feel inadequately prepared to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms (Forlin, 2001). While in the past, teacher education programs have provided little information about inclusive education; in many teacher preparation programs today, courses in inclusive education are optional if they are offered at all (McCrimmon, 2015; Smith & Smith, 2000; Sokal & Katz, 2015). Following their preparation programs, teachers may seek out information about inclusive education through professional development (PD); however, the research is unclear regarding whether these PD opportunities lead to effectiveness in supporting inclusive education in the classroom (Ely, 2013; Idol, 2006; Sokal & Katz, 2015; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). These PD opportunities cannot replace the duration, content, and evaluation components that are emulated in a teacher preparation course. While inclusive classrooms are the norm in Alberta, teachers lack the education to teach within these classrooms. This lack of education has been found to be a contributor to teacher’s negative attitudes and experiences in inclusive education, as well as contribute to feelings of isolation and powerlessness in these classrooms (Ely, 2013).
Lack of Supports and Resources
When training is lacking, teachers require more resources and supports to assist them in teaching inclusive classrooms; however, these resources and supports are also deficient in these classrooms (Besic et al., 2017; Carrington et al., 2016). In particular, limited access to personnel resources including specialized consultants and teaching aides as well as lack of adequate planning time has been identified as barriers to supporting students in inclusive classrooms (Besic et al., 2017; Ely, 2013).
Student Mental Health and Behavioral Concerns
An inclusive classroom inherently has students who have varying abilities as well as students who have internalizing or externalizing concerns. Often, teachers only have an understanding of how to teach students who present as “typical” and have difficulties managing internalizing mental health and externalizing disruptive behavior challenges within the regular classroom (Carrington et al., 2016; Smith & Smith, 2000; Sokal & Katz, 2015). Internalizing and externalizing behaviors present teachers with different challenges. Internalizing mental health concerns are often difficult to support in the classroom as they are experienced internally by the student and difficult to overtly observe (Sokal & Katz, 2015). On the contrary, externalizing behaviors can be more concerning to teachers because they may distract the whole class from learning (Smith & Smith, 2000). As the awareness of mental health and behavioral concerns increases, teachers may be supported in teaching such students through additional training and resources such as personnel support (Ely, 2013).
Objective
This study describes inclusive education in Alberta, Canada, and explore those teachers’ views of their preparedness to meet students’ needs. The research questions guiding this study are
Method
Research Design
This study used self-reported teacher survey data from four international and national survey and assessments that Alberta teachers participated in: Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013, Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) 2013, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015, and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016. All items from the teacher surveys related to inclusive education were selected and grouped into general themes. Three themes emerged from the items: characteristics of inclusive classrooms, teachers’ preparedness to provide needed supports, and PD needs.
Participants
Alberta teachers who completed the teacher survey portion of the TALIS 2013 (n = 1,773, Grades 7–8 teachers), PCAP 2013 (n = 153, Grade 8 science teachers), TIMSS 2015 (n = 302, Grade 4 teachers), and PIRLS 2016 (n = 143, Grade 4 teachers) were included as participants in this study. Alberta teachers were targeted for this study because Alberta Education was the only ministry of education within Canada that administered all four of these surveys.
Sampling Procedure
The sampling procedure used by each of these survey and assessment programs is based on a two-stage stratified sampling processes designed to ensure the sample is representative of Alberta’s population of teachers or students (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC], 2014). In the first stage of the sampling procedure for these surveys and assessments, a sample of schools was identified using school size as an indicator to ensure the sample was representative of Alberta’s population. The second stage was slightly different for each survey, depending on its specific purpose. Specifically, TALIS 2013 identified teachers as participants for the survey because the survey is only administered to teachers. On the contrary, PCAP 2013, TIMSS 2015, and PIRLS 2016 identified classes of students as participants for the assessment and then invited the teachers of those classes to complete the surveys.
Measures
The teacher surveys used during this study were developed as part of a national or international survey or assessment program. These surveys were designed specifically for teachers with the objective of providing national or international indicators and policy-relevant analysis on teachers and teaching environments, for example, information regarding teachers’ academic backgrounds, PD, instructional practices, classroom resources, and attitudes toward teaching.
Data Sources
The specific data sets used in this study include the four international and national surveys or assessments that Alberta teachers participated in within the past 5 years: PCAP 2013, TALIS 2013, TIMSS 2015 and PIRLS 2016, TALIS 2013, TIMSS 2015, and PIRLS 2016 data sets were downloaded from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2014) and International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA), TIMSS and PIRLS: International Study Center (2018) websites. The PCAP 2013 data set was provided by CMEC researchers after the authors of this study submitted an application requesting access to the data (CMEC, 2013).
Results and Discussion
The results and discussion presented in this section are split into three sections to address the three research questions. The items used in this study focus on inclusive education, which encompasses many different elements such as individualized supports, accommodations, modifications, differentiated instruction, and special education. As such, the items use a variety of these terms, which are analyzed together under the theme of inclusive education. Descriptive results (i.e., frequencies and corresponding percentages) of all the items used during this study are presented in Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics of TALIS, PCAP, TIMSS, and PIRLS Teacher Survey Items Related to Inclusive Education.
Note. TALIS = Teaching and Learning International Survey; TIMSS = Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study; PIRLS = Progress in International Reading Literacy Study; PCAP = Pan-Canadian Assessment Program.
Research Question 1: Characteristics of Inclusive Classrooms
To address the first research question, characteristics of inclusive classrooms, two perspectives—student needs and teacher resources—are presented together to highlight the holistic classroom. Results presented here are split into these two perspectives.
Quantity of students who needs additional supports
The results indicate that most Grade 7 to 8 teachers (84.3%) report some students with special needs in their classes. Half of those teachers (50.1%) also indicated that students with special needs make up approximately 1% to 10% of their classes. These numbers are slightly lower when compared with the number of Canadian children with disabilities (CHRC, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2006). Teachers’ reports of lower number of students with special needs in their classrooms could be due to the fact that some students with severe disabilities (e.g., physical disabilities like cerebral palsy) may be educated outside of the inclusive classrooms in an effort to meet their needs. In addition, these numbers may not take into account internalizing mental health concerns not easily identified by teachers (Sokal & Katz, 2015). Hence, the students with disabilities who are educated in inclusive classrooms are a subset of the overall number of such students.
While disabilities often encompass both physical and mental challenges, Grade 4 science and mathematics teachers indicated that students with physical disabilities do not limit the way the class is taught (85.19%). This is very promising as it indicates that accommodations for these students are successful in terms of helping them learn in their regular classrooms. However, some of these teachers (78.52%) reported that a range of students (i.e., some to a lot) with mental, emotional, or psychological disabilities did limit the way classes were taught. This figure is consistent with the potentially negative impact upon teacher delivery of the increasingly popular Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approaches. UDL is a framework to improve and optimize student learning by developing flexible learning environments that aim to accommodate all student needs (Meyer et al., 2014). For example, in a UDL lesson, a teacher may present the information in a variety of ways (e.g., text, graphs, and verbal) and students may express their understanding with different formats (e.g., written essay, pictorial diagram, and verbal responses). As such, while the flexibility built into these lessons provides students with choice, the final lesson, while enhanced, may not represent a single vision of a lesson.
Teacher resources
In addition to the impact on teaching of students who require special needs, some teachers also reported the types of remediation and resources required by these students. Specifically, Grade 4 language arts teachers indicated they had approximately 4.50 students in each of their classes who needed remedial instruction in reading, but only 3.38 of these students received the needed remediation. This disconnect between the number of students who need remedial instruction and those who receive it may be explained by a lack of resources (e.g., specialized professionals and teacher aids). Many teachers reported that a specialized professional (71.94%) and teacher aids (63.04%) are only sometimes available to students with need. Hence, only about half of these teachers reported having their students work with specialized professionals (53.96%) and enroll in special reading programs (46.43%). These values are consistent with provincial cuts to education funding which are often used to pay for these supports (Ferguson, 2019).
As Albertan teachers reported receiving fewer resources in their classrooms, many of them take on the task of addressing student needs on their own. For example, the same Grade 4 language arts teachers indicated that many of them (94.29%) spend more time reading with individual students. Similarly, Grade 8 science teachers indicate they use a variety of teacher-led, in-class accommodations or modifications to help meet student needs: program modifications (87.8%), more time to accomplish tasks (100%), adapted teaching methods (98%), and assistive technologies (66.9%). Similar to the Grade 4 language arts teachers, Grade 8 science teachers indicate use of external resources such as special assistance with speaking, listening, reading, or writing (77.6%) or an education assistant (59.5%). These principles of using in-class accommodations and modifications are consistent with Alberta Education’s mandate of inclusive classrooms (Alberta Education, 2013, 2018b). Promising findings indicative of the benefits of these inclusive measures are Grade 8 science teachers’ report of not withdrawing student from science class (73.6%) and using differentiated instruction/resources to adapt to students’ learning more than a little to a lot (80.7%).
A look at these two focal points—student needs and teacher resources—suggests that there are a good number of students with special needs in each Alberta classroom, which is consistent across Canada (Statistics Canada, 2006) and, further, that lack of resources and supports for teachers leaves them, potentially, in a compromised position in terms of successful delivery. Consider, for instance, that there is a lack of funding to support external resources (e.g., specialized professionals and teacher aids) to help meet Grade 4 students’ needs (Ferguson, 2019). Many of these Grade 4 teachers (94.29%) also indicated spending more time working with students individually; this is consistent with Grade 10 teachers reporting frequent usage of teacher-led accommodations and modifications in science classrooms (Alberta Education, 2013, 2018b) These results highlight the lack of resources available to help teachers address the various student needs which then require teachers to take on the task of meeting those needs.
Research Question 2: Preparedness to Provide the Supports Needed
As the task of meeting diverse student needs in an inclusive classrooms falls on teachers, additional and specific training is required so that they may properly address the diversity among their students. This leads to the second research question, preparedness to provide the supports needed.
Teacher education training
Results indicate that most teachers (83.33%) received no or only an overview/introduction of special education during their teacher training program. These results are consistent with previous studies, which indicated many teacher education programs provide minimal training in inclusive education (McCrimmon, 2015; Smith & Smith, 2000).
Teachers’ PD
In terms of PD, most Grade 8 science teachers (99.3%) participated in PD sessions. However, most of these teachers (85.7%) reported the PD having some and a lot of effect on differentiating instruction/resources to adapt to students’ needs. Similarly, some Grade 7 and 8 teachers reported attending PD that focused on approaches to individualized learning (64.6%) and teaching students with students’ needs (40.9%); again, only half of these teachers (64.9% and 63.3%, respectively) reported these PDs as having a moderate to large positive impact on their teaching. Furthermore, only some of the Grade 8 math and science teachers (48.1%) indicated participating in PD that focused on addressing individual student needs. This lack of attendance at PD focused on inclusive education is surprising considering the emphasis that Alberta Education places on helping teachers meet diverse student needs (Alberta Education, 2013).
In addition to receiving PD on inclusive education, teachers also receive feedback from other educators (e.g., administrators and colleagues) regarding nurturing inclusivity within their classrooms. Teachers’ responses to peer feedback of teaching practices for students with special needs were mostly considered with moderate importance (42.3%) and had only a small change (36.2%) at their schools. These results indicate that while there is a mandate to teach students with diverse needs in inclusive classrooms, the culture of open dialogue and positive change from feedback is not practiced frequently. While the literature focuses on the importance of using feedback to improve classroom practice, this lack of emphasis on school-level feedback provided to teachers to improve inclusive education is also problematic in terms of the minimal change it may have on teaching practices (Shute, 2008).
Research Question 3: PD Needs
While it is useful to consider teachers remarks about lack of training and PD opportunities focused on inclusive education, it is also important to examine whether teachers believe there is a need for such PD. Results that address the third research question, what resources would best support teachers, indicated that Grade 4 math and science students taught by teachers who completed PD related to teaching students with special needs performed significantly better statistically than their peers who were taught by teachers who did not completed the related PD (F[1, 4.7] = 784.5; p < .05; effect size: eta2 = 0.001156, eta = 0.034; Cohen’s d = 0.06812). Despite this finding, most teachers indicated they were at a low level of need for PD that addresses approaches to individualized learning (43.8%) and teaching students with special needs (39.0%). This is an interesting finding as PD has historically been touted as a meaningful way to provide continuing education to teachers, which in turn benefit students (Avalos, 2011). However, this finding suggests that the results could be mixed in terms of student achievement benefits from PD and teachers’ feelings of unnecessary PD. When teachers are not engaged with the PD sessions, the PD may make less of an impact on their teaching practices.
The results of this study are in line with previous research which suggests that (a) there are a large number of students with disabilities being educated in inclusive classrooms, (b) there are limited resources (e.g., specialized professionals and teacher aids) available to help meet these student needs, and (c) there are teachers practicing inclusive education approaches (Alberta Education, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2006). An interesting finding from this study is that while teachers are expected to meet individual student needs within their inclusive classrooms, many have reported receiving minimal training and PD in this area. This is alarming because Alberta Education has mandated inclusive education as a part of their Teacher Quality Standards which indicate teachers are expected to establish inclusive learning environments where diversity is embraced and every student may optimize their learning (Alberta Education, 2018b). Hence, there seems to be a disconnect between the standards mandated by Alberta Education and the training and PD that support teachers to meet these standards.
Furthermore, while teachers report the lack of training and PD focused on inclusive classroom practices, they also indicate that they do not prioritize these PDs or feedback related to inclusive education. In fact, they indicated that these PD sessions and feedback do not have a large effect on their teaching practices. This indicates that there is a culture of minimizing the importance of continually learning about and enhancing teaching practices related to inclusive education.
Relevance to the Practice of School Psychology
As school psychologists support teachers in their classrooms to meet the needs of all their students, it is important for school psychologists to consider the minimal training and lack of PD attended by these teachers coupled with their relaxed attitude toward attending PD on teaching students with special needs. School psychologists often support teachers by recommending strategies to support students with diverse needs (e.g., in a psychoeducational report), but with teachers’ relaxed attitude about making impactful change to their practice, perhaps the focus of the recommendations should be more specific and directive. It may be helpful to demonstrate to teachers not only how the recommendation may support the individual student, but also how the recommendation can be implemented in the classroom and how it could support other students. Specific and directive recommendations may be more compelling for a teacher to implement because it does not require additional PD sessions for the teachers. In addition, for the school psychologists who are interested in developing PD sessions related to inclusive education, they may want to design them with specific take home messages that are designed to maximize the impact in teachers’ classrooms so that their views of the PD sessions’ impact may be higher.
Scholarly Significance
There is an expectation of Alberta teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms and provide a variety of resources to meet the different needs of their students (Alberta Education, 2018a, 2018b); it is imperative to understand whether and how students with disabilities are supported in the inclusive classroom. This study identified the current characteristics of and teacher preparedness for inclusive classrooms, but also adds to the literature by identifying some of the areas that teachers need to better support students’ needs. This study highlights the need for more support (e.g., teacher aide and targeted PD) for teachers in inclusive classrooms to adequately address students’ diverse needs.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Ethics was not required for this project because publicly available data were used for the analyses needed for this project.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
