Inclusive teachers' attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities.

The purpose of this investigation was twofold: (a) to explore the use of a new rating scale that measures teachers' attitudes toward their students and (b) to investigate the attitudes of inclusive teachers toward their students with disabilities using the rating scale. Fifty inclusive elementary teachers in 12 northeast Ohio schools rated all of their students with disabilities (N = 156) and 4 students without disabilities in each of their classrooms in the attitudinal categories of attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. Results indicated that (a) the rating procedure exhibited modest test--retest reliability and moderate concurrent validity with a previously validated nomination procedure: (b) in comparison to students without disabilities, included students with disabilities received significantly higher ratings of teacher concern, indifference, and rejection, and significantly lower attachment ratings: and (c) average teacher indifference ratings toward their included students related positively and significantly to presence of paraprofessionals, and average teacher rejection ratings of included students were inversely and significantly related to school district socioeconomic status. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

**********

The frequency with which students who have disabilities are educated alongside their nondisabled peers in general education classrooms has increased considerably in recent years, affecting virtually every aspect of contemporary schooling. The 24th Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) reported that 47.3% of students with disabilities were included (spent 79% or more of their school day in general education classrooms) in the 1999-2000 school year. This proportion is almost twice as high as 15 years previous (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Marked increases in inclusive placements have occurred both for students with mild disabilities (e.g., the proportion of students with learning disabilities who were included rose from 20.7% in 1984-1985 to 45.3% in 1999-2000) and for students with severe disabilities (e.g., the proportion of included students with autism has increased from 4.7% to 20.6% in the same time frame).

Despite the increasing popularity of inclusion reforms, their impact remains unclear. Whereas advocates point to many potential benefits of including students with disabilities (e.g., Stainback, Stainback, & Ayers, 1996), researchers have documented that general education teachers do not traditionally provide the adaptations and accommodations that many students with disabilities need to succeed in inclusive environments (e.g., Baker & Zigmond, 1995; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm. Haager, & Lee, 1993). Studies of teachers' attitudes toward inclusion are a frequently explored means for examining inclusive reforms. In general, teachers have expressed positive feelings toward the general concept of inclusion, but have been less optimistic about the degree to which they are adequately prepared to successfully implement inclusion (see Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996, for a review of this literature). However, an assumption upon which this body of research is based, that teachers' attitudes toward the concept of inclusion correspond with effective inclusive instruction and outcomes, has not been empirically confirmed. It is possible that some teachers who support the idea of inclusion do not engage in instructional interactions that engender desired outcomes for their included students. Alternatively, it is plausible that a number of teachers who are philosophically opposed to inclusion are very effective at it.

Before the advent of inclusive reforms, Silberman's (1969) analysis of teachers' descriptions of their pupils identified four attitudes held by educators toward their students: attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. A series of observational studies established that teacher--student interactions consistently differed on the basis of these attitudes (Evertson, Brophy, & Good. 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969). For instance, students nominated by their teachers in the attachment category typically received more teacher praise, less criticism, and higher quality process questions than did other students (Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969). In contrast, the concern category reflected teachers' strong desires to support children experiencing academic difficulties in their classrooms (Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971; Willis & Brophy, 1974). Not surprisingly, concern-category students frequently interacted with teachers pertaining to academic issues and received high levels of teacher praise, process feedback, and response opportunities (Evertson et al.; Good & Brophy; Silberman, 1969).

Teachers were generally disinterested and uninvolved with students nominated in the indifference category (Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969). As one might expect, these students interacted infrequently with teachers and received little positive evaluation (Evertson et al., 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971). Conversely, students nominated in the rejection category were regularly engaged in interactions with teachers; however, these exchanges generally focused on behavioral matters (Evertson et al., 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971). Rejected students--who typically exhibit social, attitudinal, and behavioral problems (Willis & Brophy, 1974)--received limited instructional feedback and were frequently criticized (as well as praised) by teachers (Evertson et al., 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971).

In summary, although dated, multiple studies corroborate the finding that teacher attitudes toward specific students correspond with the quantity and quality of interactions and support that teachers provide. We believe that analysis of inclusive educators' attitudes toward their students with and without disabilities offers meaningful insights regarding the impact of inclusive reforms and have, accordingly, applied this line of research in inclusive classrooms (Cook, 2001, 2004; Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000). In previous investigations, we utilized the formerly validated nomination procedure (e.g., Good & Brophy, 1972), in which teachers nominated three of their students to prompts associated with each of the four attitudinal categories.