The major assumptions behind the issue of the failure to accommodate students with disabilities in the classroom can be classified into some major groups: the lack of training and knowledge; the lack of experience; the lack of support, time and resources to meet the needs of students with disabilities; conscientious objections to the practice (Leatherman, 2007; O’Gorman & Drudy, 2010; Hong, 2015; Hernandez, Hueck, & Charley,2016).
The lack of training and knowledge comes at the forefront of most researches
dedicated to the subject of decreased academic performance in students with disabilities. Moriarty (2007) sees a correlation between the inability to deal with students with disabilities and the limited knowledge of practical strategies to be applied to the curriculum. As a result, the teachers are hesitant to make accommodations and modifications, as they do not fully understand the student’s needs and the array of tools available to them (Moriarty, 2007). In the instances when they do apply certain techniques and programs to try to help students with disabilities, these tools are used improperly. The lack of apparent results further increases the feeling of personal incompetence and hesitation, forcing the teachers to fall back upon the tools and measures they are familiar with. However, the techniques that are useful for regular students tend to discriminate against individuals with special needs. Moriarty (2007) also notes that high working loads and the lack of time for self-instruction prevents teachers from doing research on their own accord. This problem could be tied to high turnover rates and large numbers of vacancies in the education industry.
Leatherman (2007) found that even though teachers reported positive feelings about inclusion, they also expressed a need for training, needs support from administrators, and collaboration. As such, teachers expressed a need for training on curriculum, instructional modifications, supportive services, and managing behavior. So, they lack confidence and self-efficiency in teaching special education students. The root of the issue, according to O’Gorman and Drudy (2010) and Goddard & Evans (2018), lies in the limited professional pre-service training. Future teachers do not have access to professional development opportunities on types of learning disabilities and recommended instructional strategies.
Among the teachers that do have some sort of specialized training in educating disabled individuals, a good portion of them lacks the hands-on experience in the classroom. The number of students with various disabilities, as mentioned by Hong (2015), areincreasingly enrolling in schools, colleges and universities. Avramidis and Efrosini (2008) state little experience in actually applying the learned tools and strategies to real people and situations require a degree of flexibility and adjustment. In addition, various physical and mental disabilities create a discrepancy in knowledge and experience in dealing with certain types. Their findings correlate with those of Moriarty (2007), indicating that the lack of training and experiences makes it difficult to accommodate different kinds of disabilities. An individual with physical disabilities would not necessary have issues understanding the material, whereas students with mental disorders or learning inefficiencies would require a different approach. Hong (2015) provides a list of various disabilities ranging from asthma-all types of allergies to Tourette’s syndrom. This list is not an exhaustive one. As a result, many teachers are simply not prepared to deal with exceptional cases of student diagnoses, which results in exclusion and a lack of equity in studying.
The lack of time and resources play an important part in causing the object of the ethical dilemma. Westwood and Graham (2003) conducted a survey of primary teachers that found teachers were concerned with time constraints, handling the demands of consistently providing modification and additional supervision for a single student, and balancing the time spent on one special needs child with the demands of the other students in the classroom. Generalist teachers work within a limited timeframe and have a number of duties to uphold, such as teaching, controlling homework, devising lessons, filling out the paperwork for curriculum progression, handling issues with parents, self-improving, attending various seminars, and so forth. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) find a correlation between burnout and overworked schedules, which contribute to high turnover rates among educators. Handling the additional needs of certain students in many cases is something that teachers have neither time nor will for, especially with the administration being unwilling to provide support. In comparison, Hernandez, & Charley (2016) found that self-efficacy levels among special education teachers are higher than those of generalist teachers. It must be noted that special education teachers usually have smaller classes and more personalized schedules, which could be the contributing factor to higher self-efficacy levels.
The factor of support, time and resource also plays a role in collaboration process between generalist teachers and special education teachers. Fuchs (2010) claims that administrators in schools do not promote inter-professional collaboration between different educators. As a result, the teacher feels alone and lacking support from the organization. His study reveals that many educators reported a lack of resources, instructions, and help, when such were potentially available. Sharing responsibility with a special education teacher was also perceived negatively because of these attitudes.Many teachers felt that requesting council from another specialist was undermining their authority or took too much time that could have been spent dealing with class issues. As a result, generalist teachers often reject the use of administrative resources if they see doing so as unproductive. So, the negative attitudes towards teaching students with disabilities are frequently due to a lack of support from administration (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995).
The last issue revolves around conscious objections against inclusivity and the focus on disabled individuals during classroom studies. Bryant, Bryant, and Smith (2017) state that historically, the teaching community has been less than positive about working with students with special needs. There is a multitude of reasons for that. Some teachers find the concept of inclusion to be flawed, and that the purpose of a teacher is to ensure the success of the best students rather than assisting the alternatively capable. Others state that the inordinate amount of time needed to make modification to accommodate SEN (Special Education Needs) students, such as attending educational meetings, creating alternative learning programs, and spending time with other specialists, which seemed like spending an unfair amount of time, attention, and resources in comparison to the time devoted to the other students in the class (Horne & Farrell, 2009).
As it is possible to see, the majority of assumptions behind the topic of teachers’ exclusion of students with disabilities and their failure to provide encouraging learning environment and meet their need lies in the dimensions of time, experiences, knowledge, and support. All of these issues must be addressed in order to facilitate a better environment and meet the needs of all students.
Intractable Concerns of the Dilemma
While the provided solutions deal with the organizational and knowledge aspects of the issue, the intractable concerns that remain unanswered are the economic issues most schools face as well as personal beliefs towards SEN students and inclusivity (Wang, 2009). While fostering a culture of self-improvement, endorsing collaboration between teachers, and having teachers improve their self-efficacy are all valid solutions, they do not fully make up for the lack of resources available to schools. Self-improvement cannot be achieved without access to the latest practices and studies in the research fields. The use of adaptive technologies requires a computerized classroom with various electronic elements to facilitate different kinds of learning. Having special needs educators on the roster requires funding (Wang, 2009). Establishing an LRE classroom also needs finances in order to accommodate students. SEN programs require additional funding and resources, a lack of which could potentially hinder the teachers’ capacity to learn, improve, and devise alternative programs to include and encompass all of the students in the classroom (Wang, 2009). As a result, teachers decide to focus on the rest of the students, who require less resources and attention in order to succeed. Thus, they do not provide students with disabilities with a proper curriculum, one that is adaptable to every child’s educational needs (Wang, 2009).
It must be noted that some teachers do not share the views of the majority in regards to inclusivity education. Such opinions are typically found among the older teachers who got their education and training before inclusivity was largely adopted as a universal concept. The idea is that the public school system should be limited to children without any major learning disabilities, while special students are to be taught exclusively by SEN teachers. Galaterou and Antoniou (2017) report that the prevalence of such views is directly related to the amount of work-related stress. In other words, the less time a teacher has to dedicate to their students because of an overloaded schedule and an overabundance of duties, the more likely they are to adopt a less inclusive stance (Galaterou and Antoniou, 2017).
Conclusion
Educational norms and practices should be created to address the needs of the students, rather than the other way around. The children must play an important part in formulating and informing the existing curriculum (Wang, 2009). Therefore, paying less attention and ignoring students with disabilities by the teachers within the education system is a direct violation of the tenets of the IDEA act and the professional code of ethics. People involved in the students with disabilities’ learning environment, particularly the general and special education educators, and school administrators should coordinate with one another towards meet needs these students and providing them with an equal opportunity to education. This paper it provides a series of solutions that could be implemented in a school setting to solve this ethical dilemma and improve the learning experience for everyone. These proposed solutions will help improve the skills, knowledge and self-efficacy in educators, while helping school administrations to meet the needs students with disabilities in inclusive classroom.
References
Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience andprofessional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367-389.
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes toward increased mainstreaming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94.
Bryant, D., Bryant, B., & Smith, D. (2017). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. ELT Journal, 71(4), 525-528.
Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30-35.
Galaterou, J., & Antoniuo, A. S. (2017). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: The role of job stressors and demographic parameters. International Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 643-658.
Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S., & Charley, C. (2016). General education and special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 79, 93.
Hong, B. S. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209-226.
Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286.
Leatherman, J. M. (2007). “I just see children as children:” Teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594-611.
Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(3), 252-265.
O’Gorman, E., & Drudy, S. (2010). Addressing the professional development needs of teachers working in the area of special education/inclusion in mainstream schools in Ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,10, 157-167.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
Wang, H. L. (2009). Should all Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) be included in Mainstream Education Provision? A Critical Analysis. International Education Studies, 2(4), 154-161.
Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: Benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in new South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 3-15.