230 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007/PP. 230–238 Inclusive Teachers’ Attitudinal Ratings of Their Students With Disabilities Bryan G. Cook University of Hawaii David L. Cameron Agder University College Melody Tankersley Kent State University 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 north- east Ohio schools rated all of their students with disabilities (N= 156) and 4 students without disabil- ities 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) aver- age 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 Haager,& Lee,1993). Studies of teachers’attitudes toward in- educated alongside their nondisabled peers in general educa- clusion are a frequently explored means for examining in- tion classrooms has increased considerably in recent years, clusive reforms. In general,teachers have expressed positive affecting virtually every aspect of contemporary schooling. feelings toward the general concept of inclusion, but have The 24th Annual Report to Congress(U.S. Department of Ed- been less optimistic about the degree to which they are ade- ucation,2002) reported that 47.3% of students with disabili- quately prepared to successfully implement inclusion (see ties were included (spent 79% or more of their school day in Scruggs & Mastropieri,1996,for a review of this literature). general education classrooms) in the 1999–2000 school year. However,an assumption upon which this body of research is This proportion is almost twice as high as 15 years previous based,that teachers’attitudes toward the concept of inclusion (U.S. Department of Education,2001). Marked increases in in- correspond with effective inclusive instruction and outcomes, clusive placements have occurred both for students with mild has not been empirically confirmed. It is possible that some disabilities (e.g.,the proportion of students with learning dis- teachers who support the idea of inclusion do not engage in abilities who were included rose from 20.7% in 1984–1985 to instructional interactions that engender desired outcomes for 45.3% in 1999–2000) and for students with severe disabilities their included students. Alternatively,it is plausible that a num- (e.g., the proportion of included students with autism has in- ber of teachers who are philosophically opposed to inclusion creased from 4.7% to 20.6% in the same time frame). are very effective at it. Despite the increasing popularity of inclusion reforms, Before the advent of inclusive reforms,Silberman’s (1969) their impact remains unclear. Whereas advocates point to many analysis of teachers’ descriptions of their pupils identified potential benefits of including students with disabilities (e.g., four attitudes held by educators toward their students:attach- Stainback,Stainback,& Ayers,1996),researchers have docu- ment,concern,indifference,and rejection. A series of obser- mented that general education teachers do not traditionally pro- vational studies established that teacher–student interactions vide the adaptations and accommodations that many students consistently differed on the basis of these attitudes (Evertson, with disabilities need to succeed in inclusive environments Brophy, & Good, 1973; Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, (e.g.,Baker & Zigmond,1995; McIntosh,Vaughn,Schumm, 1969). For instance,students nominated by their teachers in the Address: Bryan G. Cook, University of Hawaii, 206 Wist Hall, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96822. Phone: 808-956-3475; E-mail: [email protected] THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 231 attachment category typically received more teacher praise, instructional efforts. Many students with disabilities do not less criticism, and higher quality process questions than did provide the teacher with sufficient recompense (in the form other students (Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969). In of student achievement) for the instructional effort invested. contrast, the concern category reflected teachers’strong de- Furthermore,the problematic behavior that is characteristic of sires to support children experiencing academic difficulties in many students with disabilities seems to trigger teacher re- their classrooms (Good & Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, jection and limit attachment. Indeed,in accordance with tenets 1971; Willis & Brophy, 1974). Not surprisingly, concern- of attribution theory (Brophy, 1986; Weiner, 1979), teachers category students frequently interacted with teachers per- may be most apt to reject students whom they perceive as taining to academic issues and received high levels of teacher being able,yet unwilling,to control undesired behavior (see praise, process feedback, and response opportunities (Evert- Cook,2004). In contrast,we predicted that teachers develop son et al.; Good & Brophy; Silberman,1969). concern for their included students who are struggling but are Teachers were generally disinterested and uninvolved believed to be capable of making appropriate academic with students nominated in the indifference category (Good gains—particularly when they are not engaged in undesirable & Brophy,1972; Silberman,1969). As one might expect,these behaviors, such as teacher defiance (see Brophy, 1986). We students interacted infrequently with teachers and received lit- initially believed that the manifest learning and behavioral tle positive evaluation (Evertson et al.,1973; Good & Brophy, characteristics of students with disabilities made it unlikely 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971). Conversely, students nomi- for teachers to not notice or think about them,which has tra- nated in the rejection category were regularly engaged in in- ditionally been reported in regard to students nominated in the teractions with teachers; however,these exchanges generally indifference category. focused on behavioral matters (Evertson et al.,1973; Good & Our previous investigations largely supported these pre- Brophy, 1972; Silberman, 1969, 1971). Rejected students— dictions. We found that,as compared to typically developing who typically exhibit social,attitudinal,and behavioral prob- children,students with disabilities were overrepresented among lems (Willis & Brophy,1974)—received limited instructional teachers’nominations in the categories of concern and rejec- feedback and were frequently criticized (as well as praised) tion (Cook, 2004; Cook et al., 2000), and underrepresented by teachers (Evertson et al.,1973; Good & Brophy,1972; Sil- with respect to attachment (Cook et al.,2000). In contrast to berman,1969,1971). our initial prediction,included students were not underrepre- In summary,although dated,multiple studies corroborate sented among teachers’ indifference nominations. In fact, the finding that teacher attitudes toward specific students cor- Cook reported that they were significantly overrepresented in respond with the quantity and quality of interactions and sup- this category. Rather than not noticing them,inclusive teach- port that teachers provide. We believe that analysis of inclusive ers’indicated that they nominated students with disabilities in educators’ attitudes toward their students with and without the indifference category because they did not feel knowl- disabilities offers meaningful insights regarding the impact of edgeable about them or responsible for their instruction (Cook inclusive reforms and have, accordingly, applied this line of et al.,2000). We also found that students with disabilities were research in inclusive classrooms (Cook, 2001, 2004; Cook, more likely nominated in (a) the concern and rejection cate- Tankersley,Cook,& Landrum,2000). In previous investiga- gories in schools located in high socioeconomic status (SES) tions,we utilized the formerly validated nomination procedure districts (Cook, 2004), (b) the concern category by teachers (e.g., Good & Brophy, 1972), in which teachers nominated with greater total teaching experience (Cook, 2004) and three of their students to prompts associated with each of the greater inclusive teaching experience (Cook et al.,2004),and four attitudinal categories. (c) the rejection category in classrooms without paraprofes- Our research on teachers’ attitudes in inclusive class- sional support (Cook,2000). rooms has been guided by a theoretical model of instructional Although these findings shed light on teachers’attitudes tolerance (Gerber, 1988). This theory posits that given finite toward students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms,using instructional resources (e.g.,time,expertise,support) and sig- the traditional nomination procedure presents a number of nificant variance in student learning characteristics, it is not limitations. In particular, although teachers nominate three possible for teachers to concurrently provide optimal instruc- students in each category,they may feel strongly about more, tion to all students. As a matter of course,some students will or less, than three of their students. Furthermore, the nomi- consistently fall outside the range of a teacher’s instructional nation procedure provides no way to differentiate teachers’at- tolerance. Considering the nature and educational impact of titudes among students who are nominated or among those not disabilities,it is logical to assume that included students with nominated. A rating scale would address these limitations by disabilities are often those who fall at the cusps or beyond the allowing teachers to express their attitudes toward any or all boundaries of a teacher’s instructional tolerance—which likely of their students. The purpose of this investigation was,there- influences teachers’attitudes toward them. fore,twofold:to (a) pilot a new rating scale measuring teach- We predicted that teachers are less likely to become at- ers’attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection of their tached to and more likely to reject students who, as a result students and (b) replicate and extend our investigations of in- of their disabilities,do not respond favorably to the teacher’s clusive teachers’attitudes toward their students. Specifically, 232 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 we sought to examine the test–retest reliability and concur- TABLE 1. Characteristics of Participating Teachers and rent validity of the new rating scale. Utilizing this rating scale, Classrooms we also tested predictions that, in comparison to students without disabilities, inclusive teachers feel greater concern, Characteristic n % M SD indifference, and rejection, but less attachment, toward their students with disabilities using the rating scale. Finally,we in- Gender vestigated the degree to which teacher experience, presence Female 46 92.0 of paraprofessionals,and school district SES predict teachers’ Male 4 8.0 attitudinal ratings of their included students. Ethnicity Caucasian 47 94.0 African American 3 6.0 Method Years of teaching 17.4 10.5 experience Participants Years of teaching experience 12.2 10.3 in inclusive classrooms Participants consisted of 50 inclusive teachers, the 156 in- cluded students with disabilities attending their classes, and Highest level of education 199 of their students without disabilities. This study was part Bachelor’s degree 1 2.0 of a larger investigation examining teachers’attitudes toward Bachelor’s + 23 46.0 their included students involving 16 elementary schools located graduate hours in northeast Ohio. Teachers in 12 of these schools participated Master’s degree 4 8.0 Master’s degree + 22 44.0 in this investigation and completed a newly developed rating additional graduate scale regarding their attitudes toward their students. Partici- hours pating inclusive teachers in 6 randomly selected schools re- sponded to the rating procedure twice (n = 30); teachers in College courses taken in 2.6 4.0 the other 6 schools completed both the rating scale and the inclusion/special nomination procedure utilized in previous research (n= 20). education (Teachers in the 4 remaining schools that participated in the Grade level taught larger study completed the nomination procedure twice; see Kindergarten 7 14.0 Cook,2004.) Fifty of the 84 teachers (59.0%) in the 12 par- First 10 20.0 ticipating schools who taught inclusive classrooms elected to First/second combined 2 4.0 participate in this study. See Table 1 for the demographic char- Second 8 16.0 acteristics of participating classrooms and teachers. Second/third combined 6 14.0 Third 9 18.0 Participating classrooms were attended by 1,204 total Fourth 4 8.0 students, 156 of whom were considered to be included stu- Fifth 4 8.0 dents with disabilities. Students identified as solely requiring speech or language services were not included in the sample Class size 24.1 6.3 of students with disabilities in this investigation, as this dis- Included students with 3.1 2.2 ability in isolation does not entail significant instructional or disabilities enrolled behavioral challenges; thus,it is unlikely to considerably af- Hours per week co-teaching 2.7 6.4 fect teachers’attitudes. See Table 2 for included students’dis- ability categories and the proportion of students who were Hours per week para- 8.4 10.5 fully included. On average,students with disabilities were in- professional present cluded for most of the school day (M= 84.2%,SD= 25.2). The Hours per week spent collab- 1.1 2.0 rating scale prompted teachers to provide ratings for two non- orating with special educa- disabled boys and two nondisabled girls in addition to all in- tors outside of class cluded students with disabilities in their class. Because 1 teacher provided ratings for only 3 students without disabilities,teach- Note. n= 50. ers rated a total of 199 students without disabilities. The median family incomes of the seven school districts in which participating schools were located ranged from family income level for the state of Ohio in 2000–2001 $20,630 to $41,657 (M = $30,243, SD = $7,814) in the ($29,069; Ohio Department of Education, 2003) and were 2000–2001 school year,in which data were collected. The me- therefore considered low-SES districts. Three of the low-SES dian income level in four of the districts (in which 7 of the 12 schools were located in inner-city environments. The remain- participating schools were located) fell below the average ing five schools were located in three districts with median in- THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 233 TABLE 2. Characteristics of Included Students With • I would like to keep this student for another Disabilities year for the sheer joy of it. • I would like to devote all my attention to this % of student because he/she concerns me. Characteristic n sample • I would not be prepared to talk about this stu- dent if his/her parents dropped by for a con- Categorical designation ference. Specific learning disability 60 38.5 • If my class was to be reduced,I would be re- Mental retardation 43 27.6 lieved to have this student removed. Attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder 14 9.0 Multiple disabilities 11 7.1 Teachers rated their agreement with each statement for Behavioral disorders 8 5.1 Autism 7 4.5 selected students on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all Other health impairment 5 3.2 true, 4 = extremely true). A 4-point scale was selected to Orthopedic disability 3 1.9 (a) force teachers to make a judgment as to whether each 504 plan (unspecified) 3 1.9 statement was true or not in relation to each child rated and Unreported 2 1.3 (b) allow teachers to make differentiations regarding the de- gree to which the statements were true or not true. We devel- Fully Included 63 40.4 oped the rating scale with only four items or prompts (one for each attitudinal category) so that it corresponded as closely as Note. n= 156. possible with the nomination procedure on which the rating scale was based. We were attempting to measure the same at- titudes gauged by the nomination prompts and therefore felt comes above the state average and were categorized as high- it prudent to draw on prompts as similar as possible to those SES districts. used in validating the attitudes. Furthermore,by limiting the rating prompts to four,even teachers who rated multiple stu- Instrumentation dents were able to complete the process in a timely manner, thereby minimizing the attrition rate. Teachers who completed the nomination procedure nominated three of their students in response to each of the traditional prompts corresponding to the areas of attachment, concern, Procedure indifference,and rejection,respectively: Data collection occurred during the latter half of the school • If you could keep one student another year for year at schoolwide faculty meetings. Teachers brought class rosters with them to the meetings and were asked to consec- the sheer joy of it,whom would you pick? • If you could devote all your attention to a child utively number their students on that roster. In six randomly selected schools,teachers were initially asked to complete the who concerns you a great deal,whom would nomination procedure by nominating three students,by code you pick? • If a parent were to drop by for a conference, number (to protect anonymity), to each of the nomination prompts. In the other six schools,teachers were asked to com- whose child would be least prepared to talk plete the ratings procedure by listing,by code number,the first about? • If your class was to be reduced by one child, two nondisabled boys and first two nondisabled girls appear- ing on their roster,as well as all students with disabilities on whom would you be relieved to have removed? the rating form. They were then instructed to rate each child listed in response to the four rating prompts. All teachers pro- So that teachers could express multifaceted attitudes to- vided demographic information regarding (a) their included ward students, they were permitted to nominate students in students with disabilities (e.g.,disability category,proportion multiple attitudinal categories. Test–retest reliability of teach- of typical day included),(b) themselves (e.g.,gender,ethnic- ers’attitudinal nominations in inclusive classrooms has been ity, years of teaching experience), and (c) their classroom reported to be adequate (Cook,2004; Cook et al.,2000). The (e.g.,class size,presence of paraprofessionals,amount of co- validity of the nomination procedure is supported by findings teaching with a special education teacher). Teachers who did indicating that differential patterns of teacher–student inter- not complete the forms during the meeting were asked to com- actions occur for students nominated in different attitudinal plete them over the next 2 weeks and return them to a labeled categories (Brophy & Good,1974; Evertson et al.,1973; Good envelope in their school office. After an additional 2 to 3 weeks, & Brophy,1972; Silberman,1969,1971). all teachers were asked to complete the ratings procedure. In A new rating scale was developed for this study, on six schools,this was the second time teachers completed the which the four attitudinal prompts were restated to reflect the ratings (allowing us to investigate test–retest reliability); in rating format: 234 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 the remaining six schools, it was the first time teachers had dicated a statistically significant effect of disability, univari- completed the rating scale (allowing us to examine the rela- ate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were then conducted to tion between attitudinal nominations and ratings). Teachers determine in which attitudinal categories differences existed. were asked to complete these rating forms on their own within Four multiple regression equations were conducted to two weeks and return them to a labeled envelope in their determine which, if any, teacher- and classroom-level vari- school office. Written directions were provided for complet- ables predicted teachers’attachment, concern, indifference, ing the rating forms,and the first author’s contact information and rejection ratings toward their students with disabilities. was provided to participants so that he could answer any ques- As teacher was the unit of analysis for these equations,teach- tions the teachers might have. ers’average attitudinal ratings toward all of their included stu- dents with disabilities served as dependent variables. Because the assumptions of regression analysis restricts the number of Analyses independent variables involved in a particular equation as a Zero-order correlations were conducted on teachers’attitudi- function of number of subjects,a limited number of indepen- nal ratings in the four categories to examine whether the dent variables were selected on the basis of findings from prompts measured independent constructs. Test–retest relia- previous research (Cook, 2004; Cook et al., 2000). These bility of the ratings was evaluated by correlating the ratings studies reported that teachers’attitudinal nominations of their at Time 1 and Time 2,collected from 2 to 7 weeks apart. The included students with disabilities significantly differed as a subsample of students involved in this analysis consisted of function of years of total teaching experience,years of inclu- the first two nondisabled boys and girls on teachers’rosters sive teaching experience,hours of paraprofessional presence and all students with disabilities in the classrooms of teach- per week, and school district SES (as measured by median ers who completed the rating procedure twice (n= 30). family income). Zero-order correlations were conducted to To provide a preliminary exploration of the concurrent examine the independence of these variables. Of the six cor- validity of teachers’attitudinal ratings,a percentage agreement relations,only one was greater than +/− .17 (n= 50 teachers). measure was calculated based on crosstabs between teachers’ A moderate correlation of .76 (p< .001) was found between attitudinal ratings and the previously validated attitudinal years of total teaching experience and years of inclusive teach- nominations (see Brophy & Good,1974). From the classes of ing experience. Therefore,years of inclusive teaching experi- teachers who completed both the nomination and ratings pro- ence—which appears to be more directly related to teachers’ cedures (2 to 7 weeks apart),we determined the percentage of attitudes toward their included students than does total years students who were nominated in a given category and received of teaching—was retained as an independent variable. a rating as high as or higher than any of their classmates who were not nominated. These were considered instances in which the ratings and nominations agreed. Ratings and nominations disagreed when a student nominated in a given category re- Results ceived a rating lower than that of a classmate who was not nominated. The variability in teachers’rating patterns neces- As indicated in Table 3,correlations among teachers’ratings sitated using this procedure,rather than simply examining the in the four attitudinal categories were relatively low,with the proportion of students who were both nominated and received exception of the moderate, negative correlation between at- the highest rating. For example, many teachers rated all of tachment and rejection,which is consistent with the meaning their students with a 1 or 2 in the concern and indifference cat- of these categories. To gauge test–rest reliability of the rat- egories. The number of students who were both rated and nom- ings, 25 of the 30 teachers (83.3%) who had completed the inated varied by attitudinal category, ranging from 19 to 22, original ratings in these schools rated the same students a sec- because the extent to which teachers happened to nominate ond time 2 to 7 weeks later. Two separate ratings were attained (teachers could nominate any three of their students in each for 158 students in these classrooms—93 students without dis- category) the same students whom they rated (i.e., their in- abilities and 65 students with disabilities (teachers did not rate cluded students with disabilities and the first two nondisabled 6 students without disabilities, and 8 included students with boys and girls on their roster) differed between categories. For disabilities in their second ratings,probably due to withdrawal example,a teacher could have nominated two of the students from the school or oversight; the teacher who rated only 3 stu- he or she rated in the indifference category, but nominated dents without disabilities was also included in this subsample). only one of the rated students in the concern category. Pearson correlations for the attachment, concern, indiffer- A MANOVA was conducted to determine if teachers’ ence,and rejection ratings were .77,.70,.71,and .74 (all p< ratings differed toward their students with and without dis- .001), respectively (the correlation for rejection ratings is abilities across attitudinal categories. This analysis involved based on 157 pairs of ratings; 1 teacher who rated all of her all participating teachers’ratings (the initial ratings of teach- students in the other attitudinal categories did not rate 1 non- ers who completed the procedure twice). If the MANOVA in- disabled student in rejection on the second rating procedure). THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 235 To investigate the relation between the newly developed teachers (95.2%) who initially completed the nomination pro- rating procedure and the previously validated nomination cedure subsequently completed the rating procedure on 149 method, we identified agreements (i.e., students who were of their students. Crosstabs are presented in Table 4. Agree- nominated in a given category and received a rating as high ment rates for the attachment, concern, indifference, and re- as or higher than any unnominated classmates) and disagree- jection categories,respectively,were 95% (20 of the 21 students ments (i.e.,students who were nominated but who received a who were nominated and rated),77% (17 of 22 students),74% lower rating than a classmate who was not nominated),using (14 of 19 students) and 89% (17 of 19 students). It should be the subsample of teachers in the six schools who completed noted that,unlike the other attitudinal categories in which all both the nomination and rating procedures. Twenty of the 21 or the vast majority of nominated students received high rat- ings,teachers provided a rating of 1 or 2 to almost half of the students they nominated in the indifference category. TABLE 3. Zero-Order Correlations Between Four Means and standard deviations for teachers’ratings of Categories of Teachers’ Attitudinal Ratings as a students with and without disabilities are presented in Table 5. Function of Nomination Status (n = 355 students) The MANOVA was interpreted to indicate that teachers’rat- ings differed across attitudinal categories as a function of dis- Attachment Concern Indifference ability, F(4, 350) = 35.71, p < .001, η2 = .29. Univariate ANOVAS were interpreted to indicate that included students Concern −.24*** with disabilities received significantly higher ratings from Indifference −.12* .03 their teachers than did students without disabilities in the cat- Rejection −.74*** .20*** .16** egories of concern,F(1,353) = 106.37,p< .001,η2= .23; in- difference,F(1,353) = 6.80,p= .01,η2= .02; and rejection, *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001. F(1,353) = 35.11,p< .001,η2= .09; and significantly lower TABLE 4. Comparison of Teachers’ Attitudinal Ratings as a Function of Nomination Status Ratings Attitudinal category Nomination status 1 2 3 4 Attachmenta Not nominated 29 37 35 27 Nominated 0 0 1 20 Concernb Not nominated 52 18 24 33 Nominated 0 2 7 13 Indifferencec Not nominated 106 16 4 4 Nominated 6 3 9 1 Rejectionc Not nominated 76 40 9 5 Nominated 0 2 3 14 an= 21 nominated students, n= 128 not nominated. bn= 22 nominated students,n= 127 not nominated. cn= 19 nominated students, TABLE 5. Comparison of Teachers’ Attitudinal Ratings of Students With Disabili- ties and Nondisabled Students Students with disabilities Nondisabled students Attitudinal category M SD M SD Attachment 2.36 1.03 3.04 0.99 Concern 2.97 1.01 1.85 1.03 Indifference 1.33 0.70 1.17 0.46 Rejection 2.03 1.07 1.44 0.81 Note.Students with disabilities:n = 156; nondisabled students:n = 199. 236 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 ratings in the attachment category,F(1,353) = 39.35,p< .001, teachers’attitudinal ratings in this study is very similar to that η2= .10. reported for sociometric ratings, on which classmates rate Four separate multiple regression equations were used to their feelings toward one another. For example, in a meta- assess whether school district SES, inclusive teaching expe- analysis of the reliability of sociometric measures, Jian and rience,and presence of paraprofessionals predicted teachers’ Cillessen (2005) reported that the mean test–retest correlation mean ratings of their included students in the four attitudinal for acceptance ratings was .72 (across 30 samples) and .70 for categories. Bivariate correlations between teachers’average rejection ratings (across 11 samples). Attitudinal measures attitudes toward their included students and these three pre- tend to exhibit lower reliability than do achievement tests dictor variables are presented in Table 6. The combination of (Wiersma,1991),which may explain why both teachers’and independent variables did not explain a significant amount of classmates’ratings of their feelings toward students are not variance in teachers’mean attachment, F(3, 46) = 0.92, p > more consistent. It appears, then, that teachers’attitudes to- .05, r2 = .06; concern, F(3, 46) = 0.32, p > .05, r2 = .02; in- ward their students exhibit some fluctuation, but do not difference, F(3, 46) = 01.53, p > .05, r2 = .09; or rejection, change radically across short periods of time. For example, F(3,46) = 1.50,p> .05,r2= .09,ratings of their included stu- only 28 of 631 [4.4%] of teachers’attitudinal ratings differed dents with disabilities. However, with all the other variables by more than one response option from Time 1 to Time 2. held constant,presence of paraprofessionals did significantly These findings appear consistent with reports that teacher im- predict teachers’average indifference ratings of their included pressions are formed early in the school year and remain rel- students. Each hour of paraprofessional presence per week was atively steady over time (Patrick,Turner,Meyer,& Midgley, associated with a .014 increase in teachers’average indiffer- 2003). ence ratings toward their included students with disabilities, The agreement rate, indicating that a student who was t(46) = 2.09,p< .05,β= .30. That is,average indifference rat- nominated in an attitudinal category received a rating as high ings of included students rose by one point for every 71 hr of as or higher than all of their unnominated classmates,was high additional paraprofessional presence per week. School district (≥89%) in the attachment and rejection categories,but more SES also explained a significant amount of unique variance in moderate for the concern and indifference categories. It ap- average teacher rejection ratings,in an inverse direction. Hold- pears,then,that inclusive teachers’attitudinal ratings are as- ing the other variables constant, rejection ratings decreased sociated with the formerly validated attitudinal nominations, by .00003 for every additional dollar of average school dis- especially in the attachment and rejection categories. It is pos- trict annual income,t(46) = −2.05,p< .05,β= −.29. In other sible that the agreement rates in the indifference and concern words,average teacher rejection ratings decreased by one for categories were negatively affected by the modest reliability every additional $32,258 of average income. of teachers’attitudinal ratings. The correspondence between indifference ratings and nominations appears most tenuous due to a strong “floor effect”; the vast majority of teachers’ Discussion indifference ratings were 1’s,which likely contributed to the modest agreement rating between ratings and nominations in Rating Scale Integrity this category. The finding that 6 students nominated in the in- difference category received the lowest indifference rating Test–retest correlations for teachers’attitudinal ratings ranged raises serious questions about the validity of ratings in this from .70 to .77. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggested that category and warrants caution when interpreting indifference a .70 correlation indicates modest reliability. Reliability of ratings. TABLE 6. Zero-Order Correlations Between Teachers’ Average Attitudinal Ratings Toward Included Students With Disabilities and Independent Variables in Multiple Regression Analyses Independent variable Attitudinal District socio- Inclusive teaching Presence of category economic status experience paraprofessionals Attachment .23 .02 .01 Concern .06 .11 .05 Indifference −.04 −.03 .29* Rejection −.28* −.00 −.08 *p< .05. THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 237 Teachers’ Attitudinal Ratings paraprofessionals are primarily responsible for educating in- cluded students with disabilities (see Giangreco, Edelman, Teachers’ratings differed in all four attitudinal categories as Broer,& Doyle,2001; Marks,Schrader,& Levine,1999) and a function of disability status in the predicted directions,cor- (b) the relation between specific resources and instructional roborating the findings of Cook (2004) and Cook et al. (2000). conditions found in higher SES schools (see Darling-Ham- We conjecture that the learning and behavioral problems mond, n.d.; Education Week, 2003) and teacher rejection of exhibited by students with disabilities that led to their iden- included students. tification as disabled also engendered inclusive teachers’rel- atively high rejection and low attachment ratings. Perhaps Implications and Recommendations participating teachers tended to develop concern for those in- cluded students with disabilities who (a) had instructional needs The rating scale allows for efficient measurement of teachers’ that the teachers could reasonably address and (b) did not ex- attitudes of attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection hibit the behaviors (e.g., teacher defiance) that elicit teacher toward any and all of their students. The ratings exhibited mod- rejection. Previous research in noninclusive classrooms found est test–retest reliability and corresponded with previously that students nominated in the indifference category did not validated attitudinal nominations. Future validation of the rat- stand out to their teachers. However,teacher indifference to- ing scale is critical and should involve direct observations of ward included students with disabilities may be qualitatively teacher–student interactions. Upon further validation of the different from the indifference described by Good and Brophy rating scale’s psychometric integrity,we believe that it can be (1972) in noninclusive classes. General educators’perceived a valuable tool for researchers to investigate the attitudes that lack of experience, knowledge, or responsibility regarding teachers hold toward various groups of students (e.g.,English the instruction of students with disabilities (see Cook et al., language learners,gifted,low-achieving). Future researchers 2000), rather than teacher disregard, may explain the higher may wish to explore the reliability and validity of a modified indifference toward included students with disabilities. indifference rating prompt that is reworded to yield greater It is important to note that although teacher ratings dif- variance in teacher ratings. fered by disability status,the majority of included students with To the degree that the patterns of teacher–student inter- disabilities did receive low indifference (e.g.,90% received a actions associated with teachers’attitudinal nominations (see rating of 1 or 2) and rejection (e.g.,71% received a rating of Good & Brophy,1972) apply to teachers’ratings,findings that 1 or 2) ratings. In addition,although teachers’mean ratings in included students with disabilities were rated significantly attachment were below a theoretical neutral rating of 2.5,64 higher than were their nondisabled classmates in concern,in- included students with disabilities (41.0%) received ratings difference, and rejection suggest both positive and negative of 3 of 4. Teachers’feelings of attachment, concern, and re- implications. For example,many included students appear to jection toward their included students with disabilities appear receive levels of teacher concern and instructional support not to vary, likely in correspondence with differences in student typically provided to their nondisabled classmates. Whether characteristics. In contrast,teachers’indifference ratings were heightened teacher concern results in included students with fairly uniform,79% of students with disabilities and 87% of disabilities achieving appropriate outcomes requires additional students without disabilities received ratings of 1 in this cat- empirical investigation. Alternatively, findings regarding egory. It appears that teachers do not feel that they are unpre- teachers’ rejection ratings portend negative teacher–student pared to talk with the parents of the vast majority of students interactions for a disproportionate number of included stu- with or without disabilities, or do not feel comfortable ex- dents. The student behaviors that often trigger teacher rejec- pressing their lack of preparedness in a rating format. tion,such as hostility and defiance (see Brophy,1986; Brophy The regression equations indicated that (a) paraprofes- & Evertson, 1981), tend to be stable or increase over time sional presence positively predicted teachers’average indiffer- (Achenbach,Howell,McConaughy,& Stranger,1995). Thus, ence ratings of their included students,and (b) school district reducing teacher rejection appears to necessitate proactive in- SES predicted teachers’average rejection ratings. Although tervention. Training and support in implementing behavior statistically significant,the practical significance of these rela- management techniques may enable teachers to better under- tionships is questionable and difficult to interpret. Averaging stand and change inappropriate behavior,rather than allowing teachers’ attitudes toward all included students; measuring it to engender rejection. Teachers’higher indifference ratings SES at the district,rather than school or classroom,level; and of their included students may appear worrisome—since stu- the floor effects of teachers’ratings in these two attitudinal dents with disabilities typically require more,not less,teacher categories, particularly in indifference, may have obscured interaction. However, further research is needed to defini- stronger relations among these variables. Further research tively determine the implications of teacher indifference rat- measuring a wider range of variables is needed to investigate ings of included students that (a) although higher than those and clarify the nature of these relations. For example,future of students without disabilities,are still very low and (b) may research could examine (a) if teacher indifference toward their reflect teacher indifference that is dissimilar in nature to that included students is associated with teachers perceiving that previously investigated in noninclusive classrooms. 238 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 40/NO. 4/2007 Limitations Brophy,J. E.,& Good,T. L.(1974). Teacher–student relationships:Causes and consequences. New York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston. One primary limitation of this study is that all participants Cook,B. G.(2001). A comparison of teachers’attitudes towards their in- were located in northeast Ohio. Generalizing findings to other cluded students with mild and severe disabilities.The Journal of Spe- cial Education,34,203–213. locations may not be warranted. Another significant limitation Cook,B. G.(2004). Inclusive teachers’attitudes toward their students with is that the test–retest reliability of teachers’attitudinal ratings disabilities:A replication and extension.The Elementary School Jour- was modest; accordingly,caution should be used in interpreting nal,104,307–320. the results. Making changes to the rating scale and its admin- Cook,B. G.,Tankersley,M.,Cook,L.,& Landrum,T. J.(2000). Teachers’ istration (e.g.,increasing the number of items,directly super- attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,67,115–135. vising each administration) to increase its reliability should Darling-Hammond, L. (n.d.). Access to quality teaching: An analysis of be explored. Future research might also monitor teachers’at- inequality in California’s public schools.Retrieved November 1,2004, titudes toward students across the school year or examine the from http://www.mofo.com/decentschools/expert_reports/darling- impact of particular events or behaviors (e.g.,a student’s ver- hammond_report.pdf bal outburst) on teachers’attitudes. Perhaps the most impor- Education Week.(2003,January). Quality counts 2003:If I can’t learn from you. . . Bethesda,MD:Author. tant limitation to this study is that although teachers’ Evertson,C.,Brophy,J.,& Good,T.(1973). Communication of teacher ex- attitudinal ratings of their students did relate to students’nom- pectations:Second grade. (Report 92). The University of Texas at Austin, ination status—which research conducted 30 to 35 years ago in Austin:Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. non–inclusive classes related to important patterns of student– Gerber,M. M.(1988). Tolerance and technology of instruction:Implications teacher interactions—this constitutes only the most initial and for special education reform.Exceptional Children,54,309–314. Giangreco,M.,Edelman,S.,Broer,S.,& Doyle,M.(2001). Paraprofessional tentative evidence regarding the validity of teachers’ratings. support of students with disabilities:Literature from the past decade. The validity of the indifference ratings, which exhibited a Exceptional Children,68,45–63. strong floor effect, seems to be particularly problematic and Good,T. L.,& Brophy,J. E.(1972). Behavioral expression of teacher atti- should be interpreted cautiously. Contemporary research con- tudes.Journal of Educational Psychology,63,617–624. cretely validating teachers’attitudinal ratings is needed. Jian,X. L.,& Cillessen,A. H. N.(2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status:A meta-analysis.Developmental Review,25,1–25. Marks,S. U.,Schrader,C.,& Levine,M.(1999). Paraeducator experiences Conclusion in inclusive settings:Helping,hovering,or holding their own?Excep- tional Children,65,315–328. We have described the initial administration of a new rating McIntosh,R.,Vaughn,S.,Schumm,J.,Haager,D.,& Lee,O.(1993). Observa- procedure for measuring teachers’attitudes toward their stu- tions of students with learning disabilities in general education class- dents that (a) exhibits modest reliability and corresponds with rooms.Exceptional Children,60,249–261. a previously validated nomination procedure,(b) allows teach- Nunnally,J. C.,& Bernstein,I. H.(1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. ers to express attitudes toward all of their students,and (c) is Ohio Department of Education. (2003). Interactive local report card. Re- efficient (i.e., can be completed quickly and anonymously). trieved April,25,2003,from http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/ Silberman (1969) proposed that teachers often make decisions Patrick,H.,Turner,J. C.,Meyer,D. K.,& Midgley,C.(2003). How teachers by relying on their feelings toward students,rather than logi- establish psychological environments during the first days of school:As- cally analyzing different potential courses of action. As such, sociations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105,1521–1558. findings that teachers rated themselves as significantly more Scruggs,T. E.,& Mastropieri,M. A.(1996). Teacher perceptions of main- concerned, indifferent, and rejecting toward their included streaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional students with disabilities,as compared to their students with- Children,63,59–74. out disabilities,have important implications for inclusive pol- Silberman,M. L.(1969). Behavioral expression of teachers’attitudes toward el- icy and practice. ementary school students.Journal of Educational Psychology,60,402–407. Silberman,M. L.(1971). Teachers attitudes and actions toward their students. In M. L. Silberman (Ed.),The experience of schooling (pp. 86–96). New AUTHORS’ NOTE York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston. This article was supported by Grant H324N990020 from the U.S. Stainback,S.,Stainback,W.,& Ayers,B.(1996). Schools as inclusive com- Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs. munities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.),Controversial issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives (2nd ed.,pp. 31– 43). Boston:Allyn & Bacon. REFERENCES U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Con- Achenbach,T.,Howell,C.,McConaughy,S. H.,& Stranger,C.(1995). Six- gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa- year predictors of problems in a national sample:1. Cross-informant tion Act.Washington,DC:Author. syndromes.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Con- Psychiatry,34,336–347. gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa- Baker,J.,& Zigmond,N.(1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for tion Act. Washington,DC:Author. students with learning disabilities:Themes and implications from five Weiner,B.(1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. cases.The Journal of Special Education,29,163–180. Journal of Educational Psychology,71,421–431. Brophy,J. E.(1986). Teacher influences on student achievement.The Amer- Wiersma,W.(1991). Research methods in education(5th ed.). Boston:Allyn ican Psychologist,41,1069–1077. & Bacon. Brophy,J. E.,& Evertson,C. M.(1981). Student characteristics and teach- Willis,S.,& Brophy,J.(1974). Origins of teachers’attitudes toward young ing.New York:Longman. children.Journal of Educational Psychology,66,520–529.