Urban Elementary General Education Teachers' Perceptions of The

Urban Elementary General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of the Inclusion of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities

by Chunita Simms-Pilgrim

B.A. in English, May 2000, The George Washington University M.Ed. in Master Teacher Program, August 2003, Regent University

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

May 19, 2019

Dissertation directed by

Elisabeth K. Rice Associate Professor of Special Education and Disability Studies

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certifies that Chunita Simms-Pilgrim has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Education as of February 12, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

Urban Elementary General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of the Inclusion of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities

Chunita Simms-Pilgrim

Dissertation Research Committee:

Elizabeth K. Rice, Associate Professor of Special Education and Disability Studies, Dissertation Director

Lionel C. Howard, Associate Professor of Education Research, Committee Member

Karen H. Ihrig, Assistant Professor of Special Education and Disability Studies, Committee Member

iii

Dedication

This is for my children: Sally, Charlie, and Lucy my parents, my siblings, my dearest

Michelle Dickey, my best friend LaKeisha Johnson, my beloved Arie Harrington and

Jacqueline Williams, and My Lord and Savior who makes all things possible.

Acknowledgements

This dissertation has been a journey and would not have reached its destination without the guidance and direction of Dr. Rice. Thank you very much for your guidance, patience, and belief in the possibilities and potential of this body of work. I sincerely appreciate your confidence in me and the support you have provided throughout this entire process. From the bottom of my heart, thank you Dr. Rice. Thank you Dr. Ihrig for your motivation and support. Our encounters were always filled with motivation and encouragement. Thank you so much for your support. Dr. Howard, thank you very much for taking the time to provide me with honest and accurate feedback. Thank you for pushing me to reach my potential and not accepting anything less than my best effort.

Thank you! I would also like to thank my readers Dr. Gresham and Dr. Drakeford.

Richmond, you have supported me since the start! Dr. Drakeford, I truly appreciate your support and dedication to this field.

Returning to The George Washington University after completing my undergraduate work here has been an amazing experience. I have been faced with many challenges and obstacles as I navigated this journey of completing my dissertation. What

I know for sure is that I have found a deeper connection with my Lord and Savior and truly understand the purpose and direction of my life. It is my hope that with this degree,

I will be able to reveal to others that all things are possible. It is my hope that I will be able to continue in this work to build bridges between communities and schools.

Speaking of communities, it took a lot of people to support me in this journey.

Reina, your support and guidance throughout this entire process has been invaluable. I would not have been able to complete this work without you. Spring break 2015 marked

v the beginning of our true journey! Thank you. Allison Gunther, we were able to create a stronger relationship towards the end of this journey and I really appreciate your partnership and support. Cynetria Holman, thank you very much for being consistent.

The message was loud and clear-submit and resist. You have kept me grounded throughout this entire process. I appreciate your encouragement, your connection and your timely texts. Thank you so much!! Penny Smith, thank you so much for constantly checking in and asking how to support. You have supported me more than you will probably ever know.

Thank you to my study participants. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and to support me in this work. These rich conversations revealed a greater need and

I am so grateful to have a chance to join this conversation.

Thank you to my entire family. Thank you for understanding and supporting me throughout this entire process. I stand on the shoulders of the ones before me who have sacrificed so much so that I may be able to have a seat at the table and for that I am eternally grateful.

With my sincerest appreciation, Chunita

Abstract of Dissertation

Urban Elementary General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of the Inclusion of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities

The rate of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms are increasing across the nation. The perceptions of general education teachers on this inclusion have limited revelation within research. More specifically, the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities is limited. Three significant problems contributed to the need of this dissertation research. The first problem is the limited research used to explore this concept. Most of the literature include methods that have been quantitative studies, which provides a range of responses with little depth to understand the perceptions of teachers. The second problem is the samples that are included in such studies. Samples often include teachers without differentiating between what kinds of teachers (high school, middle school, elementary school, etc.). These samples would provide little depth to understand the perceptions of how participants really feel about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. The third problem is the targeted population of teachers that are included in studies. Urban, rural and suburban school districts all have different needs and issues.

There is limited research that differentiate between the areas of schools and its impact on the perceptions of teachers in these school districts.

The results of a basic qualitative study surrounding the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities is presented. Twenty urban elementary general education teachers of students

vii with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom setting from one school district in the mid-Atlantic region were interviewed to evaluate the perceptions of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom with their non-disabled peers.

The purposes of this study were to be able: 1) to investigate urban general education teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms with their non-disabled peers; 2) to give these teachers an opportunity to share their perceptions on the supports received to meet the demands and challenges of their profession; and 3) to provide recommendations for policies and practices for the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms that can contribute to the preparation and professional development for general education teachers.

The results of the interviews with study participants are outlined in this study.

Themes answering three research questions were: described, defined, and supported using quotations from study participants to ensure that themes were grounded in the data. Eight themes emerged from the data that answered three research questions. These themes are:

1) “It was a disservice;” 2) being “set up” for failure both academically and socially; 3) impact of behavior; 4) issues of being stranded; 5) feeling inadequate; 6) reluctant acceptance; 7) flaws in identifying students who need help; and 8) issues of support.

Two additional themes emerged from the data that did not answer a research question, but became salient across all participants. These theme addressed the issues and influence of race and socioeconomic status and its influence on perceptions. These two themes are 9) impact of socioeconomic status and privilege, and 10) impact of race.

viii

Findings are revealed and discussed. Recommendations for practice, policy, and future research are provided.

Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v Abstract of Dissertation ...... vii List of Tables ...... xiv Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 Overview ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 4 Research Purpose and Questions ...... 8 Statement of Potential Significance ...... 9 Conceptual Framework ...... 10 Summary of the Methodology ...... 14 Subjectivity Statement ...... 17 Delimitations and Limitations...... 21 Definition of Key Terms ...... 25 Overview of Dissertation ...... 30 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...... 32 Overview ...... 32 Conceptual Framework ...... 32 Systematic Literature Review ...... 42 Teacher Perceptions of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities ...... 48 Supports for Inclusion ...... 54 Inferences for this Dissertation ...... 56 Summary of Chapter Two ...... 57 Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 58 Overview ...... 58 Methodological Approach ...... 61 Research Questions ...... 61 Participant and Site Selection ...... 63 Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 64 Development of Interview Protocol ...... 66 Data Management ...... 68 Data Analysis ...... 69

Essential Considerations ...... 72 Reflexivity...... 72 Trustworthiness ...... 72 Ethics...... 73 Summary of Chapter Three ...... 74 Chapter Four: Results ...... 75 Overview ...... 75 Sample Description ...... 76 Description of the Process and Analysis of Participant Interviews ...... 84 Thematic Analysis ...... 85 Findings to Research Question 1 ...... 86 Theme One: “It was a disservice” ...... 87 Theme 2: Being “Set Up” for Failure Both Academically and Socially ...... 92 Theme 3: Impact of Behavior ...... 96 Summary of Findings to Research Question 1 ...... 99 Findings to Research Question 2 ...... 100 Theme 4: Issues of Being Stranded ...... 101 Theme 5: Feeling inadequate ...... 105 Theme 6: Reluctant Acceptance ...... 112 Summary to Findings for Research Question 2 ...... 115 Findings to Research Question 3 ...... 116 Theme 7: Flaws in Identifying Students Who Need Help ...... 116 Theme 8: Issues of Support ...... 120 Summary to Research Question 3 ...... 126 Other Emerging Themes ...... 127 Theme 9: Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Privilege ...... 127 Theme 10: Impact of Race ...... 131 Summary of Additional Findings...... 135 Summary of Chapter Four ...... 135 Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations...... 140 Overview ...... 140 Discussion and Findings ...... 140 Recommendations ...... 153 Summary of Chapter Five ...... 160

Conclusion ...... 160 References ...... 163 Appendix A: Informed Consent ...... 180 Appendix B: Demographic Data Collection Questionnaire ...... 182 Appendix C: Interview Protocol ...... 183 Appendix D: Matrix for Questions in the Interview Protocol ...... 186 Appendix E: Research Question Matrix Summary ...... 190

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework on Urban Elementary General Education Teachers ……………………………………………………………10

Figure 2. Systematic Literature Review Process for this Dissertation …………………………………………………………… 47

Figure 3. Updated Conceptual Framework on The Perceptions of Urban General Education Teachers ……………………………….144

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1. Target Search Terms ...... 45

Table 2. Research and Interview Questions Matrix ...... 67

Table 3. Demographics by Participant ...... 78

Table 4. Disabilities Taught by Participants ...... 80

Table 5. Teaching Demographics ...... 82

Table 6. Overall Demographics of Participants ...... 83

Table 7. Section, Elementary Schools, and Average Income of Families ...... 84

Table 8. Thematic Findings and Their Relationship to Research Questions ...... 86

Table 9. Findings and Their Relationship to the Thematic Findings ...... 142

Table 10. Summary of Recommendations in Practice, Policy, and Research ...... 154

xiv

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Over the past twenty years, the demand for high-quality teachers has increased nationwide. Additionally, the roles and responsibilities of general education teachers have evolved to a more complex and demanding profession, with performance- based incentives, high-stakes exams, and the need to differentiate lessons to meet the needs of all learners (Berry, 2006; 2011; Evans, Weiss, & Cullinan, 2012; Kurth, Gross, Lovinger,

& Catalano, 2012; Nusbaum, 2013; Shady, Luther, & Richman, 2013). In the United

States of America, approximately 6.4 million children and youth ages 3-21 receive special education services or about 13% of all public school students (US Dept. of Ed,

2014). With high stakes testing and expectations surrounding standards based achievement at an all-time high, the responsibility of developing and implementing lessons to reach all learners through differentiation have become a central focus of measurements used to determine teacher effectiveness. As the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom becomes increasingly common, the access to resources of instructional strategies used by teachers need to match the needs of students in their classes. This includes a strong commitment to create more inclusive classrooms and schools across the nation.

The general education classroom has become increasingly diverse (Hodge, et al.,

2004; Jackson, & Campbell, 2008; Luckner, & Ayontoye, 2013). In part, this is due to policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA, 2004) that have stipulated what and where students with

Individualized Education Programs (IEP) that receive special education services should be educated. With 61% of students with high-incidence disabilities being taught in general education classrooms spending 80% or more of their time in the general education setting, (NCES, 2015), general education teachers are required to change their approach to teaching students. The least restricted environment as outlined in IDEA recommends that students with disabilities are to be included in classrooms with their peers to the greatest extent possible. This means that general education teachers along with special education teachers are charged with providing appropriate accommodations and modifications for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). In some cases, this was a role that was played only by the special education teacher. However, to service students with IEPs has now become a shared responsibility that is not just left to the special education teacher alone.

The responsibilities of who can and should provide these services to these identified students have also caused some level of concern across differences and disabilities (Cameron, & Cook, 2013). Now more than ever, general education teachers are working daily with students with disabilities, especially with students with high- incidence disabilities. With the expectations of student placement that is outlined in

IDEA, general education teachers are becoming more responsible for accommodating these students in their classrooms (Conley, Marchant, & Caldrarella, 2004; Evans, Weiss,

& Cullinan, 2012). However, general education teachers do not often feel that they are the best and most qualified to provide instruction to these specific students (Abernathy &

Taylor, 2009). General education teachers often feel that they are the least capable of providing appropriate support and accommodations for these students (Berry, 2011 &

Griffin, Jones & Kilgore, 2007). Diminished support surrounding consultation with other educators and administrators have been cited as an area of growing concern. This results in general education teachers often feeling that they have nurtured the idea of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is the idea that the teacher feels inadequate in providing adequate services for these students (Gotshall & Stefanou, 2011). The idea of learned helplessness causes general education teachers to seek special educators as the only source that could adequately teach students with disabilities. Thus, teachers often feel that they lack the confidence and support to successfully teach students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms.

Additionally, teachers are required to provide a safe and nurturing environment for all students regardless of their ability status. This causes additional increased levels of anxiety for teachers as they attempt to equally balance discipline and academic instruction for all students. Teachers may feel that they have limited control over what happens in the classroom as it relates to the discipline of students with high-incidence disabilities especially students with emotional behavior disorders (Bon, Faircloth &

LeTendre, 2006). In a qualitative study conducted by Bon, Faircloth & LeTendre (2006) focus groups with 25 general education teachers from rural and urban school districts reported that teachers felt challenged in classroom management. They often feel that they cannot provide a safe environment for all students and that laws are in place to protect students with disabilities at the risk of harming everyone else in the classroom

(Bon, Faircloth & LeTendre, 2006). Participants in this study expressed that they felt unprotected because the policies that are in place to protect students with disabilities, but there are none for teachers and non-disabled students. Additionally, study participants

3 felt that they had to preserve the goals of the IEP at the expense of causing harm to other peers or themselves (Bon, Faircloth & LeTendre, 2006). The concern for safety in classrooms grows as incidents with students with disabilities increases, (Bon, Faircloth &

LeTendre, 2006). Not only do general education teachers feel that they lack preparation in teaching students with disabilities, they also feel that they lack the support to address discipline or behavioral concerns when it comes to students with disabilities, (Bon,

Faircloth & LeTendre, 2006). This is the impetus for this study.

This chapter includes: statement of the problem, research purpose and questions, statement of potential significance, conceptual framework, summary of the methodology, study delimitations and limitations, definition of key terms and an overview of the dissertation.

Statement of the Problem

There are three problems that this dissertation addressed. These problems are: 1) the gaps in literature, 2) the samples that are included in current research and 3) the targeted population of teachers that are included. The urgency of these problems requires new research, including but not limited to this dissertation, to build knowledge and awareness about these issues.

Key Problem 1: Gaps in Literature

The first problem is the gaps in literature that examines general education teachers’ perceptions are mostly quantitative in nature. These studies, mostly surveys, usually include large samples of a variety of teachers of different grade levels, years of experience, and subject areas. While quantitative studies allow a different understanding of this topic, there is little revelation of how teachers of this specific population feel about

4 the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities. The evolution of the general education teacher has long changed since the one room schoolhouse (Fuchs, 2009).

Teachers are now responsible for differentiating lessons to increase accessibility for all learners, no matter the ability levels of students. This change may cause a level of increased anxiety, frustration and dismissal of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom (Berry, 2011; Cameron & Cook, 2013; Fuchs, 2009;

Griffin, Jones, & Kilgore, 2007). Yet, while some research, suggests that general education teachers need more support in order to successfully implement an effective inclusion program (Idol, 2006 & Berry, 2011), research on how urban elementary general education teachers perceive their roles in inclusion settings with students with high- incidence disabilities is very limited (Watnick & Sacks, 2006; Cramer, 2006).

Key Problem 2: Research Gaps with Targeted Sample of General Education

Elementary Teachers, Disability Category and Definition of Inclusion

The second problem addressed is the limited studies specific to elementary general education teachers as samples on the perceptions of inclusion. The samples in most of the literature are mostly clusters of teachers across grade levels and content areas.

There are not many studies that are targeted to only general education elementary school teachers as the sample (Berry, 2011; Cameron & Cook, 2013; Fuchs, 2009; Griffin,

Jones, & Kilgore, 2007). Research conducted mostly includes a broad definition of general education teachers. Some of the samples included content specific teachers in addition to general education teachers, which may have caused some of the interpreted data not to be as specific to just general education elementary school teachers. For instance, some samples include: physical education, science, librarians, art and music

5 teachers. However, these teachers were all classified as general education teachers.

While these teachers may teach in an elementary school setting, these teachers are content specific and often teach a specific content area only to students throughout the school day. Additionally, the time students spend with these content specific teachers is often less frequent than with the general education teacher as they teach the same group of students throughout the school day.

General education elementary school teachers are the specific target population for this sample, because these teachers spend majority of the school day with these students. These teachers are also responsible for teaching multiple subject areas and use multiple strategies throughout the day. The increased time that teachers spend with students will likely yield stronger perceptions of how these teachers feel about students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. This population is different from middle and high school teachers as these schools mostly operate on a bell schedule that usually lasts about forty-five minutes to an hour. In some cases operating on a bell schedule can mean that classroom teachers see the students for a period of time daily or every other day depending on how the schedule is set up. These teachers spend a limited amount of time with students, on average they spend anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, which varies differently from elementary school teachers.

There is also a need to distinguish between high-incidence disabilities and low- incidence disabilities. In many of the reviewed studies, the term disability is broadly defined and is not specific. There is a need to establish common language in research so that there may be consistent reports and findings within the education community. There are also inconsistent definitions of terms used within existing research on inclusion (Idol,

2006 & Berry, 2013). Some studies define inclusion as the placement of students within local schools. This definition does not necessarily mean that students are included in the general education classroom. These students often attend their local school, but are taught in separate classrooms away from their non-disabled peers. The term inclusion fluctuates from attending local schools to placement in general education classrooms.

Key Problem 3: Research Gaps with Targeted Sample in Urban Settings

Finally, published research that includes the specific setting of urban education related to the perceptions of general education teachers’ of students with high-incidence disabilities is very limited, (Berry, 2006, Bridwell, 2012;Cramer, 2006; DaMore &

Murray, 2009; Watnick & Sacks, 2006; Nusbaum, 2013; Voltz, 2006; Zindler, 2009). In most of the reviewed studies, the sample would often include clusters of teachers from a range of environments including urban, suburban, and rural. There needs to be more data that is specific to urban population as these schools are often more diverse and complex when dealing with students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education setting.

Cramer’s (2009) study included a sample of twenty elementary teachers from 10 culturally diverse schools in one large school district in the southeast area of the United

States. Her study included teachers’ perceptions of the referral process of students to special education services. Semi-structured interviews and referral records were used to complete this study. She concluded that teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of students influenced teachers’ ability to refer students to receive special education services

(Cramer, 2006). She found that the behavior of the student largely influenced those decisions made by teachers, (Cramer, 2006).

Damore and Murray (2009) analyzed urban elementary school teachers’ perceptions regarding collaborative teaching practices to enhance learning opportunities for students with disabilities. In this quantitative study, 118 teachers were surveyed from

20 urban elementary schools. This sample also included general education and special education teachers. The findings suggested that special education teachers had more positive experiences than general education teachers regarding the implementation of inclusive practices in their classrooms (Damore & Murray, 2009). Participating general education teachers recognized that they were familiar with strategies, but implementation was a struggle (Damore & Murray, 2009).

The results of an ethnographic study conducted by Nusbaum (2013) revealed that while the school site where the research was conducted suggested that the school was indeed an inclusive school environment, the interpretation, implementation of inclusive practices and acceptance of students with disabilities were elastic and not concretely defined; thus acceptance and tolerance of students with disabilities were negative.

Teachers needed more support in teaching and including students with disabilities.

Teachers held negative attitudes about the inclusion of students with disabilities and felt that the responsibility to teach these specific students should fall on the special education teacher and not on them.

Research Purpose and Questions

The purpose of this exploratory study, then, was to investigate urban general education elementary teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Basic qualitative research was used as the method to fulfill the purposes of this study (Merriam, 2009). In order to help urban

8 elementary general education teachers meet the needs of their increasingly diverse students, there is a need to better understand teachers’ perceptions. The following research questions were used to guide this study:

1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic

abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their

classrooms?

2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their

competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they

making meaning and how do they feel about themselves?

3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the supports for

inclusion within the school and within the classroom?

Statement of Potential Significance

The perceptions of teachers have been represented in most empirical studies through quantitative methods primarily through surveys, which provides a very limited and narrow view of how teachers feel about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms (Cook & Cameron, 2010; Cameron, Cook & Tankersley,

2012; Damore & Murray, 2009; Evans, Weiss, & Cullinan, 2012). The samples of most of these studies provide a blanket of information that covers a range of responses, but provides little depth. By exploring these questions in depth, the intent of this study is to inform potential policy as well as teacher professional development, and in-service training that districts should consider when including students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education setting and what supports teachers may need to maximize instructional outcomes for all students. Conducting new research on this topic

9 has been recommended by current researchers on the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities in the general education classroom (Berry, 2006; Bridwell, 2012;

Cramer, 2006; DaMore & Murray, 2009; Watnick & Sacks, 2006; Nusbaum, 2013;

Voltz, 2006; Zindler, 2009). This dissertation serves as a response to this recommendation and is designed to contribute to the emerging body of research focused on the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom.

Conceptual Framework

Three theories will be used to guide this study: self-efficacy theory, normalization theory/ableism, and social constructivist learning theory. The researcher will explain briefly before laying out how they are combined to inform the study’s design and methods. A graphic is included to show the relationship of each and how it supports the research. (See Figure 1).

Urban Elementary General Education Teacher

Normalization: Social View of Constructivist Self-efficacy: Learning Confidence to students with disabilities; Theory: manage, teach, social and Lesson and include academic planning and students with responsibilities classroom environment; disabilities supports for inclusion

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework on Urban Elementary General Education Teachers Self-efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory developed by Albert Bandura (1986) is:

Bandura (1986) posits that self-efficacy theory rejects the crude functionalist view that behavior is regulated solely by external rewards and punishments. In actuality, people display considerable self-direction in the face of competing influences. After people adopt personal standards, they regulate their behavior by their self-satisfaction and a sense of pride and self-worth and refrain from behaving in ways that give rise to self- dissatisfaction, self-devaluation, and self-censure. (p. 22). Bandura (1986) adds, “self- efficacy theory distinguishes degrees of controllability by personal means.

Controllability affects the extent to which efficacy beliefs shape outcomes expectancies and how much outcome expectations add incrementally to prediction to performance”

(p.23).

When individuals feel confident in their abilities to complete or perform a task, they are likely to persevere through the task even if they become unsuccessful (Bandura,

1986). Thus, teachers cannot be successful unless they feel they are prepared. This is the impetus for using this scholarship in this study. This study will evaluate the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities in their classes. This study will examine teachers’ perceptions when teaching students with high-incidence disabilities even when at times they may feel unsuccessful.

Normalization Theory/Ableism

The theory of normalization is defined by Bronston (1973) as a set of value-based principles where devalued people will be treated and perceived as human beings.

Bronston (1973) presented four ways in which the theory of normalization can be best

11 understood. Bronston (1973) described them as, 1) to raise consciousness and awareness of one’s own biases about a group of people that may be viewed as less than. 2) viewed as an organizing tool that can determine strengths in human services in how groups that are often devalued are provided proper care and attention. 3) a tool that can be used to integrate technology in support of underserviced groups: and 4) serve as a guide in efforts to right a wrong with how people who are viewed as insubordinate can be integrated and included with social norms. This study aims to include this theory as a fundamental component of how teachers view students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms and how they view these students in particular.

Ableism is defined by Raushcher and McClintok (1997) as a:

Pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses people who have mental, emotional, and physical disabilities. Deeply rooted beliefs about health, productivity, beauty, and the value of human life, perpetuated by the public and private media, combine to create an environment that is often hostile to those with physical, mental, cognitive and sensory abilities. (p. 198)

Individuals who fall outside of dominant norms of bodily appearance and performance face oppression, discrimination, and exclusion. There remains a strong precipitation of discrimination, oppression and exclusion in public schools. Stereotypes have hindered progress of full immersion into academic expectations as well as social acceptance. As

Heir (2002) notes:

The devaluation of disability results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled children than with other disabled children. In short, in the eyes of many educators and society, it is preferable for disabled students to do things the same way as their nondisabled peers. (p. 22)

Society set standards of what normal is and anything outside of that is dismissed or considered an outcast. There is a need then, to accept that individuals learn, act, think and respond differently; what should be considered is the ways to make learning more inclusive and socially accepting.

Likewise the concept of normal has been a hindrance and a stumbling block that impeded access and realistic expectations for students who are disabled. Normal as defined by Goffman (1963) is based on the assumption that: ‘There is only one complete unblushing male in America: a young, married, white fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports’ (p. 128) In other words, to be normal is to belong to the mainstream culture and economy.

Social Constructivist Learning Theory

Driscoll (1994), describes constructivists as knowledge, “constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences. Learners, therefore, are not empty vessels waiting to be filled, but rather active organisms seeking meaning” (p. 387).

Using this theory will assist the researcher explore rationale of the experiences that general education teachers share and how these experiences shape their perceptions of the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classroom. Social constructivist learning theory is founded from the work of a number of theorists such as: Dewey, Piaget, and

Vygotsky in which the learner makes meaning from their environment and how they involve themselves and participate in their environment. This theory will allow the researcher to explore how the interactions of teachers in their environment with their students shape their perceptions of students with disabilities. Merriam (2014) describes this theory as a process of learning that is situation specific. Learning occurs through the

13 factors of influence like classroom dynamics, experiences, and school culture and climate.

Social constructivist learning theory is applied in this study through the use of open-ended questions. Participants in this study will have the chance to unrestrictedly share their own experiences of their perceptions of teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. The role of the researcher; therefore, is to carefully listen to the views of the participants and interpret the findings based on their background and experiences (Creswell, 2013). The interpretations of their experiences will allow the researcher to present new findings in this study and possibly inform future professional development recommendations in local school districts and considerations for pre-service training for teachers.

Summary of the Methodology

Very little is known about the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers in working with children who bring diverse backgrounds and abilities into the classroom. In particular, this is a problem in urban settings, which are among the most diverse in the United States of America. Since the goal of this dissertation is to garner insight into teachers’ perceptions, an interpretive methodology is most appropriate.

Interpretivist research traditions itself as the practice of making the world more visible by allowing researchers to study things in their natural settings and interpret the meanings that people bring (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p.3). This is especially important in an age in which large scale research is ascendant and teachers are often marginalized. More research is needed that allows their voices to be heard.

Semi-structured interviews were used as the primary source of data collection for this study. The researcher used purposeful sampling and “snowball” or chain sampling

(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28), to gather participants for this study. The researcher started with an established network of teachers that were already connected and employed within the school district of the researcher and; therefore, used convenience sampling as well. At the conclusion of the first set of semi-structured interviews and gathering data from participants from the target population, the researcher asked participants for referrals of other possible participants for this study. To answer the three research questions a sample of 20 participants were used to guide this study. These study participants were urban elementary general education teachers in the mid-Atlantic region.

All of the study participants were general education teachers who taught students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms, which were combined with their non- disabled peers.

Each participant in this study met the criteria for participation which included: 1) a valid teacher license based on their district’s requirements, 2) at least three years of teaching experience, and 3) at least one year experience of teaching students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Additionally, study participants were all classified as a general education teacher as this study was specific to urban elementary general education teachers in public school settings only. According to Berry (2011),

“after five years of teaching, teachers should have gained a strong command of what is expected,” (p. 632). However, according to IDEA after three years of teaching a teacher is no longer considered novice, (IDEA, 2012). The researcher used questions that were developed and constructed prior to conducting interviews with teachers in the form of an

15 interview protocol. The purpose of using an interview protocol was to gather data to answer the established research questions. Each question was specifically designed to yield maximum data from teachers. The researcher made every effort to ask questions and probes that were predetermined in order to maintain consistency with all participants in this study. The data from this study was collected using an audio voice recorder, transcribed, and analyzed.

Reflective and analytic memos as well as field notes were used throughout this study. Reflective memos allowed the researcher to capture reflections and thinking processes about the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Field notes were used and allowed the researcher to capture observed body language and other wonderings during each participant interview. Analytic memos were used and allowed the researcher to capture raw thoughts on reflections after each participant interview and while analyzing data. Codes were assigned during data analysis and were used to interpret and assign meaning to the data. Themes from the qualitative data collected from the interviews with participants will be coded with the use of Dedoose, a qualitative data analysis software package. Data was organized so that trends were identified and themes were analyzed on the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers’ on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities (Maxwell, 2005; Merriam, 2009). To increase validity of the data, participants had a chance to read and review the transcription and analysis otherwise known as member checking (Merriam, 2009). This process provided the researcher the opportunity to decrease chances of misrepresentation of the data and allowed participants an opportunity to offer feedback in efforts to fine-tune collected data

(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). This process also ensured accuracy and precision of recorded data.

Subjectivity Statement

Humans conduct social science research, and issues of subjectivity are ever present. My own experiences, beliefs, and perceptions color what I can see and hear. In the tradition of much interpretivist work, then, I offer a statement concerning my own subjectivity. My approach to this statement uses Peshkin’s (1998) trope of one’s “I’s.”

Peshkin (1998) presented his subjectivity through a series of six separate I’s that described his view of subjectivity as it evolved around his research. As for me, I have identified my subjectivity in five separate I’s. They are a) the Family-Oriented I; b) the

Novice Teacher I; c) the Advocate I; d) the Evaluative I; and e) the Bridge Builder I. The

I’s are interrelated and co-dependent and therefore, do not stand-alone. However, for the purposes of this study, only two will be presented as these are more likely to manifest within my engagement, interpretation, and data analysis.

The Advocate I Entering the world of special education, I encountered a whole new set of challenges, challenges that I experienced as a first year general education teacher and throughout my eight years of teaching. As a first year teacher, I was going to meetings to discuss curriculum and behavior with lawyers, doctors and advocates. I did not know what I was doing at these meetings at all. I remember signing papers (that I thought was just to acknowledge my presence at the meeting). I could have been signing my life away and did not even bother to realize it or read the fine print. As an English major at

The George Washington University, my only teacher preparation consisted of a

17 children’s literature course! I knew nothing about what IEPs were, differentiating instruction or modifications and adaptations.

Then I met Jerry.1 Jerry was a small- framed, gentle six year old who had Fetal

Alcohol Syndrome. He had multiple disorders as a result of this disease. His skills in math, reading, and writing were significantly lacking. To make matters worse, his mom was high on drugs during his delivery and misspelled his name on the birth certificate.

Not only did I have to teach him how to write his name—I had to teach him how to write it incorrectly. As a general education teacher, I did not have the skillset I thought I needed to address his deficits. I did not know how to reach him.

He was the reason why I leapt into special education. He was such a special boy to me and I took such great interest into how he was learning. I remember paying to go to a 3-day conference at the University of Virginia’s Law School. I was in a conference filled with advocates, and attorneys who were dissecting the newly passed IDEA, 2004 parts A and B. They investigated and presented what the law had to say about students with special needs.

It was there that I learned that what I signed at those meetings was an IEP, and that it was a legal document. I learned that by signing, I was agreeing to implement the established goals in conjunction with the special education teacher. What? I had had no idea. My attitude and awareness of students with special education services consisted of knowing that they were going to be pulled from my class from time to time. That was it.

When they were in my room, I was told, “Just have them on the computer, or at the listening center, or have them color.” Without asking questions, I did what I was told.

1 All names are pseudonyms. 18

My interest grew and grew. My appetite to understand special education laws prompted me to have uncomfortable—but necessary—conversations with all stakeholders, including family members, special education teachers, and principals. It was important to me to invite all stakeholders to the conversation to raise awareness and accountability. These conversations were personal and professional, and I took them very seriously. I wanted to hold each and every person accountable for Jerry’s academic, social and behavior achievement. My passion for accountability and for meeting the needs of hundreds of children like Jerry has only intensified over the years.

I am passionate about equality and social justice issues concerning students with disabilities. I want neither my body language nor tone to change if, in the moment, a participant responds with answers that may not be accepting of students with disabilities.

Memoing will allow me to monitor hot and cold spots during the interviews and will assist me as I plan to explore why I may have responded or reacted in such a way.

The Evaluator I

After eight years of teaching and two years of being an instructional coach and IB coordinator, I became a master educator for DC Public Schools. In this role, I evaluated general and special education teachers all over the city. As part of my duties, I dropped in unannounced on a teacher, observed the teacher and students for thirty minutes, and used evidence—along with a rubric—to support a numerical rating of what I observed.

Before the observation started, I would introduce myself to the teacher and then move to the back of the classroom in the hopes of not causing too much of a distraction. During the observation, I walked around to students (if the class setting permitted me to) and asked them to share with me what they were working on and why it was important. I also

19 observed students’ work (if available) and students’ and teacher’s interactions. After the observation, within 15 calendar days, the teacher and I would schedule a time to meet to debrief the lesson and discuss my detailed written report and ratings.

I knew my observations were relatively high-stakes for the teachers that I observed. It was for this reason that I was very aware of how serious my role was and how important my feedback, resources and suggestions for improvement were and needed to be. This position afforded me the opportunity to observe best practices across the city and the opportunity to identify trends and gaps in education ranging from the wealthiest parts of the city to our most vulnerable populations.

As a master educator, I often felt caught between two worlds: The world of accountability and the world of teaching. I was a teacher, and I have also seen the power that accountability can have in protecting students like Jerry. As a master educator, I was also a practiced observer and interviewer. As I conducted interviews for this research, those skills came in handy, as I was able to use them when speaking with teachers. But the context of presenting them with evaluation results and having a conversation designed to elicit what teachers really think are fundamentally different. In an evaluation, teachers want to please—after all, they need a good score to keep their jobs. For this research, I wanted to learn from their unfiltered experiences.

After seven years of being a master educator, I transitioned into the role of an assistant principal. In this role, I not only evaluate teachers, I also support teachers through offering professional development opportunities and through informal observations with hopes to improve practice. My role as an administrator affords me the opportunity to support and develop teachers on a consistent basis. As a master educator,

I focused on the range of teachers’ effectiveness from all parts of the school district. As an administrator, I am able to focus on the depth of teachers’ effectiveness and practice, which has a greater impact.

Knowing that I am in a position of authority, I want to be clear that honesty is the goal for all interviews. I care about teachers’ raw feelings of students with high-incidence disabilities and where they see themselves on the spectrum of comfort to discomfort when it comes to servicing students with high-incidence disabilities. This is what matters most to me. In this study, I don’t want them to tell me what they think I want to hear: I want them to tell me what they really think, even if what they think may not be

“politically correct,” comfortable, or “right.”

Delimitations and Limitations

Study Delimitations

This study will only include practicing urban elementary general education teachers with at least three years of teaching experience and will analyze their perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Excluded from this study are principals, parents, early childhood teachers, special education teachers, pre-service teachers, paraprofessionals and school counselors. It should also be noted that teachers with fewer than three years of teaching experience, have been excluded because experience was a factor used in this study.

The researcher also excluded school psychologists and content area teachers (art, music, physical education teachers, etc.) from this study. While they all may participate to some degree with the development of the IEPs of students who are disabled, they are purposely omitted from this study because literature describes the lack of evidence from

21 this specific population. Additionally, suburban and rural teachers have been excluded from this study, as these populations were not the focus.

This study also excluded research conducted prior to 2001. This year signifies the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which directly impacts who teaches students with disabilities and where these students are placed.2 This year officially launched reform campaigns on how, when, and where students with disabilities should be taught. NCLB dictated the educational placement of students with disabilities, as well as the content students with disabilities are exposed to, and deeply impacted education across the nation by consequence. No longer would students with disabilities be excluded from testing and other state accountability measures to ensure academic growth. Under NCLB, students with disabilities would be included in their state’s assessments and their data would be included in the overall assessment of their local school’s performance. The impact and influence of their scores added to the total population caused an increased level of anxiety for schools as well.

This study exclusively focuses on urban elementary general education teachers’ perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities and will include a small sample.

While the findings from this study may contribute to the limited body of research on this topic and may assist in the development of future professional development, policies and pre-service training of future educators, these findings will be specific in nature to this specific sample; they will not be generalizable. However, the value of this study is not limited to its specificity. As Merriam (2009) states, “If one thinks of what can be learned

2 At the time of this original dissertation NCLB was the law in effect. However, to date, NCLB has been repealed and replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 22 from in-depth analysis of a particular situation or incident and how that knowledge can be transferred to another situation, generalizability research can become possible” (p. 28).

It should also be noted that this study only includes high-incidence disabilities.

While the population of students who are labeled under the ‘other health impairment’ category as identified by IDEA, 2004 is growing at a rapid pace (Gage, Lierheimer &

Goran, 2012), students who have high-functioning autism, as well as attention-deficit hyperactivity and speech and language impairment are purposely omitted from this study

(Gage, Lierheimer & Goran, 2012). For the purposes of this study, definitions of high- incidence will be consistent with IDEA, 2004, and will include only the following categories: learning disabilities, emotionally/ behaviorally disturbance, and (mild) intellectual disabilities. These are the only specific categories of disabilities included in this study because they are classified as high-incidence disabilities and are more likely to be included in the general education classroom.

Study Limitations

Limitations of this study include the population that was used for data collection.

Purposeful sampling allows for in-depth analysis of the perceptions of a group (Merriam,

1998). This study also employed convenience sampling; the researchers’ professional colleagues comprised the participant pool. In qualitative research, “the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis” (Merriam, 2009). It is for this reason that the researcher must caution the possible insertion of researcher biases that may skew, invade or taint the data. To monitor possible invasion, the researcher will include a subjectivity statement that will be used to “identify and monitor them [subjectivities] as to how they may be shaping the data” (Merriam, 2002, p.5).

This study was further limited by the nature of qualitative research in which data collected represents perceptions and beliefs of only the participants, and cannot be generalized beyond the scope of the study. The goal of qualitative research is not generalizability; rather, transferability. The researcher aimed to collect data and report findings that may be able to be transferred to a similar sample and setting. The researcher allowed for member checking and peer review before, during and after the coding process to decrease potential of misrepresentation, misinterpretation or misdirection of the data, and also to prevent researcher bias. Time constraints were also a limitation in this study. The researcher conducted only one semi-structured interview with each participant, and referred back to participants only after transcription and analysis. Participants self-reported during the semi-structured interviews. The researcher did not have the opportunity to observe participants in settings with their students. The researcher relied solely on the data provided by participants through interviews, field notes, and analytic memos.

In contrast to quantitative studies, which may include a survey or questionnaire with limited human contact, qualitative studies allow the researcher to have more time to observe body language and other gestures that can be used to analyze perceptions of the participants. Questions used in this study were specific to teachers’ perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities and did not include questions about typical developing students because this is not the focus of this study. The researcher wants to know about how teachers feel about students with high-incidence disabilities.

Additionally, this study only included teachers that teach in urban settings.

Another limitation of this study is the teacher training received by participants and the rigor of professional development received by participants. Although all participants had been teaching in general education classrooms for at least three years at the time of the interviews, the researcher has no way of knowing to what level or extent participants were able to engage in professional development opportunities, and the rigor of such programs.

Definition of Key Terms

The terms defined below are used throughout this dissertation. Researchers of prior work may have used alternate terminology. However, for consistency and clarity, the italicized terms are used throughout this dissertation and are clearly defined for this study.

Accommodations: A change in the instructional method used based on the needs of the

students without diminishing the content or conceptual level (Taylor, Smiley &

Richards, 2015).

Children with Disabilities (CWD) or Students with Disabilities (SWD): A child with

intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or

language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious or

emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury,

other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and who, by reason

thereof, needs special education and related services (IDEA’s Definition of

Disabilities, 2012). Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance

with Sec. 300.304 through 300.311 as having mental retardation, a hearing

impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual

impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in

this part as "emotional disturbance"), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic

brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-

blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special

education and related services. (IDEA 2012)

Collaboration: The direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily

engaged in a shared and meaningful decision-making process as they work

towards a common goal (Friend, 2006).

Co-teaching: Occurs in a single physical space and is the active partnership of shared

teaching between general education and special education teachers with the goal

to accommodate and modify instruction to a diverse or blended group of students

in a classroom (Hallahan, Kaufman &Pullen, 2012).

Elementary school: For the purposes of this dissertation and because of the included

sample of teachers in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, elementary school

will be defined by the ages. Compulsory education for Washington, DC,

Maryland and Virginia begins at the age of 5 and reflects kindergarten school-

aged students. Therefore, teachers of students in grades K-5 will be included in

this study.

Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, schools are required to provide a free appropriate public education

to children with learning disabilities and other educational disabilities in public

schools (Free Appropriate Public Education, 2012).

General Education Teacher: also referred to as regular education teacher, teaches grade-

specific content ranging from K-12, responsible for general education curriculum

in the regular classroom (CEC, 2012). In this study, the general education

teachers will be elementary teachers in an urban setting who has taught for at least

three years.

High-incidence Disabilities: Students with high-incidence disabilities make up 80% of

students with disabilities. These students usually have: emotional disturbance,

mild intellectual, and learning disabilities (IDEA, 2012).

Inclusion: Implies that those with disabilities are given support and instruction in age-

appropriate classrooms and within the framework of the core curriculum, while

also receiving the specialized instruction allocated in the Individualized Education

Programs (Shady, Luther & Richman, 2013, p. 170). In other words, inclusion

refers to providing special education services to students with IEPs in the general

education classroom setting. For the purposes of this study, inclusion is defined as

a student with a disability being educated in the general education setting for at

least ten hours of the school week. It is important to note that there is some

literature that refers to inclusion defined in this way as “partial inclusion” or

“mainstreaming” (Idol, 2006).

Individualized Education Program (IEP): Refers to a written education plan developed,

reviewed, and annually revised for any students with a disability receiving special

education services (IDEA, 2004).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act Amendments of 1997 required that states establish educational

program goals for special education students that are consistent with the standards

of other students. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of

2004 sought to align the provisions of IDEA with the provisions of No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001, including the incorporation of language around having high

expectations for special education students (IDEA, 1997, 2004).

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): This is a mandate that encourages students with

disabilities to be educated with nondisabled peers to the greatest extent

appropriate. They should have access to the general education curriculum,

extracurricular activities, or any other program that nondisabled peers would be

able to access. The removal of the student with disabilities from the general

education classroom should only occur if the nature or severity of the disability

requires additional supplementary aids and services that cannot be satisfactorily

achieved in the general education classroom. The student should be provided

with supplementary aids and services necessary to achieve educational goals if

placed in a setting with nondisabled peers (Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Law, 2012; Taylor, Smiley &Richards, 2015).

Mainstreaming: The selective placement of special education students in one or more

regular education classes (Rogers, 1993).

Modifications: Changes made to the curriculum that slightly impacts the conceptual level

or outcome required of the student without changing the academic content

(Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015).

Perceptions: The way you think about or understand someone or something; the ability to

understand or notice something easily; the way that you notice or understand

something using one of your senses (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

Pull out-This term refers to students with disabilities being removed from the general

education classroom to receive individualized or small group instruction. This

instruction is usually targeted to specific goals that are identified on the student’s

IEP, (Fernandez, N, & Hynes, J, 2016; Hurt, 2012).

Push in- Similarly referred to as inclusion; the act of providing educational

services to students with disabilities in the general education setting

(McCullough, 2008).

Response to Intervention (RTI)- Is an early identification multi- tier approach to identify

students who may need targeted behavior and/or academic support. In this

practice, interventions are provided to students that need additional support.

Progress monitoring is used as an indicator to determine the intensity, longevity,

and if additional services may be needed, (Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. 2006).

Self-efficacy: Refers to the beliefs one has in personal capabilities to organize and carry

out the actions required to handle probable tasks or situations. These beliefs

influence how one thinks, feels and acts, and impact one’s motivation,

perseverance and resilience (Bandura, 1995).

Special education: Specially designed instruction, as appropriate to the

needs of an eligible child which involves an instructional adaption of, content,

methodology, or delivery of instruction—to address the unique needs of the child

that result from the child's disability; and to ensure access of the child to the

general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the

jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. (IDEA, 2012)

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)- is a framework used to maximize teaching and

learning opportunities for all students. Its focus areas live in these three domains

in: engagement, representation, and action and expression, (CAST, 2018).

Urban elementary school: Classified as a city school, which is also classified by size,

population, density and location in relation to a city. The term urban becomes

more refined to an ‘urban-centric’ classification system, which is broken into four

categories used by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): city, suburb,

town or rural (NCES, 2012).

Overview of Dissertation

In this chapter, a discussion about the growing concerns of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom was presented, along with a few implications of high-stakes testing and other accountability measures that may influence the perceptions of urban general education elementary teachers. This chapter also included the purpose, the research questions that guided this study and have the potential to guide other studies in this field, and the methodology that was used to address these questions. Finally, this chapter presented a summary of the conceptual framework, delimitations and limitations, and definition of the terms that were used consistently in the study and will be referred to throughout this dissertation.

Chapter Two provides a review of the literature, and synthesis of all relevant research on the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers and the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education school setting. Chapter Three describes in detail the selected methodology of basic qualitative design. In this chapter the description of the sample, data collection process and data analysis were all presented. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the data. This chapter

30 reveals themes that were developed as a result of data analysis. Chapter Five provides the findings and implications revealed as a result of this study. Recommendations for practice and policy are also identified.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

The goal of this chapter is to provide a systematic review of empirical studies related to teacher perceptions of students with disabilities. Before presenting the conceptual framework used to guide this study, a brief history of inclusion as it frames the impact of policy on practice is presented. The impact of policies must be considered, because their implementation ultimately influences how teachers perceive students with disabilities. Specific court cases and educational policies that are related to inclusion and directly impact public education in The United States of America are identified. The conceptual framework that follows provides a description of theories that were used to guide this study. Finally, the procedures used to conduct a systematic literature review are detailed.

Conceptual Framework

Miles & Huberman (1994) defines a conceptual framework as a tool that,

“explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied—the key factors, concepts, or variables—and the presumed relationships among them” (p. 18).

The construction of the conceptual framework required the identification of three theories and exploration of how they each influence the structure of this study. This dissertation is grounded in key concepts on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. The foundational theories—Social Constructivist

Learning Theory, Self-Efficacy and Normalization—have all been identified and are all

32 related to the development of this study. A description of each theory along with the ways that each supports the study are presented in this chapter.

Maxwell (2013) identifies four main sources that serve as modules in the development of a conceptual framework. These sources are: 1) the researcher’s experiential knowledge; 2) existing theory and research; 3) the researcher’s pilot and exploratory research; and 4) thought experiments (Maxwell, 2013). For the purposes of this study, the researcher has relied on a combination of existing theory and research, as well as the researcher’s experiential knowledge to develop the conceptual framework

(See Figure 1). With the goal of elucidating urban general education elementary teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms, the researcher has designed a conceptual framework that clearly identifies theories that will guide, support and inform this study, (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). With the guidance of these theories, the researcher collected, interpreted and analyzed the data in this study.

Social Constructivist Learning Theory

Social constructivist learning theory can be described in numerous ways. Social constructivists Bruner, Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky—each of whom made major contributions to the development of this theory—would make the claim that one’s environment influences thought (Sivan, 1986). Building on their foundational work,

Maxwell (2013) defined Social Constructivist Learning Theory as a combination of prior experiences along with assumptions that influences perceptions or paradigms. The same theory has also been described as how the learner makes sense of their experiences

(Driscoll, 2005). In emphasizing the activeness of learning, Driscoll (2005) adds that

“learners are not empty vessels waiting to be filled, but rather active organisms seeking meaning” (p. 387). Merriam (2014) highlighted the context in which learners make meaning, describing the construction of knowledge as the individual interacts with his or her environment, which may include the environment itself or the interactions of others within the environment. Maxwell (2013), too, elaborates that social constructivist learning theory is how meanings and understandings grow out of and are developed through social encounters. Social constructivist learning theory, then, can be defined simply as knowledge acquired through the social interaction between the individual and its environment, which enables the individual to participate in society or within a group

(Sivan, 1986).

Applying the theory to the educational environment, Dewey (1897) claimed that the “psychological and social sides of education are organically related and that education cannot be regarded as a compromise between the two, or a superimposition of one upon the other” (p. 77). Sivan (1986) identified motivation as an influence in social constructivist learning theory. She claimed that motivation is a byproduct of the development of influences of culture and can be transmitted in how people think, feel, and act. Sivan (1986) states, “When we talk about motivation, we go under the assumption that there is a general consensus about its nature and how it is displayed. As such, it can be considered a culture norm.” This study sought to gather data on how the culture of the participant’s school and/or classroom may or may not influence deliberateness of the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. The relationship between motivation and instruction calls for a shared understanding between both the teacher and the student in regards to identifying a

34 common goal so that the student may seek the same desired outcome as the teacher

(Sivan, 1986). Therefore, lessons should be designed with the needs of the student in mind, which requires the teacher to make necessary accommodations and modifications to include the student’s ability to complete or perform a task. When considering the needs of the student, teachers should refer to the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as a way to gauge the student’s level of understanding (Vygotsky, 1978). Zone of Proximal

Development refers to tasks that students are able to do independently and tasks students may need motivation, encouragement and support to complete with guidance (Vygotsky,

1978).

Social constructivism assisted the researcher’s efforts to explain the rationale of the experiences that general education teachers shared during the course of the interviews, and how these experiences shaped their perceptions of the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms. This theory allowed the researcher the opportunity to explore how the interactions between general education teachers and their students within general education classrooms shaped those teachers’ perceptions of students with disabilities. Merriam (2014) describes this theory as a process of learning that is situation-specific: Learning occurs through the factors of influence like classroom dynamics, experiences, and school culture and climate.

Motivation to learn about one’s environment influences how one interacts with the environment, which in turn shapes their developing knowledge of the environment.

For the purposes of this study, the researcher collected data on how individual teachers define the culture of their school’s environment and supports for inclusion in the classroom. The researcher attempted to gain an understanding of how each participant

35 described their motivational levels, and sought clarity on how motivation may or may not influence how participants develop an understanding for how to best teach their students with disabilities.

Self-efficacy

This theory has been developed through the auspices of Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory can be described as the blend of psychoanalytic concepts with scientifically rigorous behavior constructs, where learning occurs through interactions between the environment and thoughts about observed behaviors (Muus,

1996). The confidence of one’s ability to learn something new or complete a task is how

Bandura (1996) defines self-efficacy. Bandura (1994) adds, “self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.1).

Muus (1996) describes self-efficacy by identifying four components: belief in one’s ability, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and realistic assessment. Studies have shown that “higher levels of perceived self-efficacy are accompanied by higher performance attainments (Bandura, 1992, p. 2). Goals are typically not set for individuals that do not believe in their ability to accomplish the goal or desired outcome

(Muus, 1996). Vicarious experiences—or the ability of observing others who are similar perform and succeed—shape self-efficacy and increase the observer’s confidence to complete the same task on their own (Muus, 1996). Verbal persuasion is the third component to self-efficacy, and identifies the influence that someone else providing support with verbal praise or expressions of belief can have on one’s ability to complete or perform a task (Muus, 1996). The fourth component of self-efficacy is the realistic assessment, in which the cognitive and physical strengths and weaknesses of the

36 individual are realistically evaluated to determine if achieving the goal is possible (Muus,

1996).

The ability that one has to change the environment by creating an atmosphere where behavior can be predicted to influence others to do what one wants them to do is another expression of self-efficacy (Muus, 1996). For participants in this study, it may include how the classroom is designed and how students with high-incidence disabilities are physically and academically included in their classrooms.

For the purposes of this study, the extent to which participants believed in their own abilities to teach students with high-incidence disabilities determined their effectiveness in inclusive classrooms. Data were gathered and analyzed to determine the influence that confidence has in their abilities to teach students with high-incidence disabilities. Their reflections through the use of semi-structured interviews on their instructional competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities were analyzed and evaluated in this study.

Normalization Theory/ Ableism

The theory of normalization is defined as a set of value-based principles where devalued people will be treated and perceived as human beings (Bronston, 1973).

Bronston (1973) presented four ways in which the theory of normalization can be best applied: 1) To raise consciousness and awareness of one’s own biases about a group of people that may be viewed as less than; 2) As an organizing tool that can determine strengths in human services in how groups that are often devalued are provided proper care and attention; 3) As a tool that can be used to integrate technology in support of underserviced groups; 4) To serve as a guide in efforts to right a wrong with how people

37 who are viewed as insubordinate can be integrated and included with social norms. This study aims to include this theory as a fundamental component of how teachers view students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms.

Tied to the process of normalization is the concept of albeism, which Raushcher and McClintok (1997) defined as a:

Pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses people who have

mental, emotional, and physical disabilities. Deeply rooted beliefs about health,

productivity, beauty, and the value of human life, perpetuated by the public and

private media, combine to create an environment that is often hostile to those with

physical, mental, cognitive and sensory abilities. (p. 198)

Individuals who fall outside of dominant norms of bodily appearance and performance face oppression, discrimination, and exclusion. There remains a strong precipitation of discrimination, oppression, and exclusion in public schools. Stereotypes have hindered progress of full immersion into academic expectations as well as social acceptance. Heir

(2002) notes:

The devaluation of disability results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert

that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read

Braille, spell independently than use spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled

children than with other disabled children. In short, in the eyes of many educators

and society, it is preferable for disabled students to do things the same way as

their nondisabled peers. (p. 22)

Likewise the concept of normal has been a hindrance and a stumbling block that has impeded access and realistic expectation for student who are disabled. Normal as defined

38 by Goffman (1963) “There is only one complete unblushing male in America: a young, married, white fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports” (p. 128) In other words, what was considered normal was to be white, male and married. Anything outside of that, would be considered abnormal and will face exclusion and opportunities to be included are diminished (Goffman, 1963).

How a teacher views the abilities of students with high-incidence disabilities are examined in this study. This discussion of normalization theory and ableism allowed the researcher the opportunity to analyze and determine the potency of biases and stereotypes of participants to invade or interfere with their ability to effectively teach students with high-incidence disabilities.

The relationship of all three

These three theories were intentionally chosen as they best reflect how the research for this study would be conducted. The model presented in Figure 1 best describes the relationship between the theories. When considered together, these three theories form the framework for understanding how the perceptions of individual teachers influence how they plan for, interact, and include students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. Components of each theory were evaluated during the data collection and analysis.

The following theories: Self-Efficacy Theory (SET), Normalization/ Ableism, and

Social Constructivist Learning Theory serve as the conceptual underlying framework, for this study and must be matched by all aspects of the methodology from design to data analysis. The model represents how each theory is distinguished in its own right, but are related in the development of perceptions. These theories equally play a part to the

39 development and view of how teachers see students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. These three theories frame how the research for this study was conducted. The researcher developed research questions and interview protocols based on research gathered by these theories.

History of Inclusion

In the United States of America, separate schools for students with disabilities were not formally introduced until 1867 with the commencement of Horace Mann School for the Deaf in Boston (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015). Prior to this, students with disabilities were often left at home or institutionalized in facilities that used the medical model approach3 to address their disabilities, and were inadequate for treatment and care.

Funding for schools remained of great concern when thinking about long-term care for students with disabilities. It was not until years later that states across the country established schools that were exclusively focused on the treatment and care of students with disabilities. Since 1931, when all states made compulsory education available for students, the role of the teacher has always evolved (Gallagher, 2006). In the years immediately following the advent of state-mandated education, the roles and responsibilities of the general education teacher maintained a level of consistency and the characteristics of students who attended schools were at a constant—students with disabilities were often placed in institutions or stayed at home while ‘regular’ students attended public schools. However, public school education demonstrably changed from

1930 to 1960. The number of students that were referred and placed in special education

3 Medical model refers to a diagnostic label and treats the individual as having a deficiency. (Manago, Davis, and Goar, 2017) 40 classes increased dramatically during these three decades. Diagnosis, treatment, and etiology research advanced, causing more students to be referred and to qualify to receive special education services. This expansion in public school special education programs also caused policies concerning students with special needs to change as well.

Until 1954, it was common practice to have children educated in segregated schools by race. The historical case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) cited that it was unconstitutional to have segregated schools (Bartlett, Etscheidt &

Weisenstein, 2007). This case primarily focused on race of students. However, some elements of the case were used to support what later became the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015).

Education for All Handicapped Children Act

This case identified both practices and designated federal and state funds that would be used to support students with disabilities. Though it has evolved since its original ruling in 1975, Education for All Handicapped Children Act is effective today, and is most commonly referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)

(Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015). Two other court cases prior to these launched the significance of Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) (Taylor, Smiley &

Richards, 2015). These two cases—Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children

(PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the

District of Columbia (1972)—identified the need to treat and place students with disabilities in the general education setting (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015). These two cases declared that free and appropriate public education is a right that all students with disabilities should have (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015).

No Child Left Behind Act

This law evolved from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and named in 2001 (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2015). Prior to No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with disabilities were omitted from taking state assessments. One of the fundamentally significant outcomes of this law was the adequate yearly progress that each state must show for all students including students with disabilities (Taylor, Smiley

& Richards, 2015).

Every Student Succeeds Act

This law reauthorized the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA), which provided equal opportunities for all students. ESSA was signed in 2015 and became in effect in 2016. ESSA transfers power from the federal government to states to determine how success will be measured according to their state’s standards

(McGuinn, 2016). This transfer of power allows states to have full authority on what success looks like for students as they become career- and college-ready. This law replaces the requirements that NCLB outlined in 2001 (McGuinn, 2016).

Systematic Literature Review

The researcher used methods following the procedures as outlined by Cote,

Cassidy, Carroll, Frank and Bombardier (2001), and Guarino, Santibanez, and Daley

(2006) for conducting systematic literature reviews. A detailed description of the methods used to conduct searches, along with search terms and procedures are outlined in this chapter. The five-step process followed for this literature review includes: 1) framing questions for review, 2) assessing studies for quality and inclusion, 3) search strategy and results, 4) summarizing the findings, and 5) interpreting how findings can be

42 applied to the present dissertation. Following an account of the procedures that were used to retrieve relevant articles for this study is a review of the findings which include: teacher perceptions on students with high-incidence disabilities, teacher perceptions on mainstreaming or inclusion, and teacher perceptions on the supports needed for inclusion.

Framing Questions for Review

The following search questions were developed to frame the literature review and guided the selection of studies to include:

1. What influences teacher perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities?

How do teachers see students with high-incidence disabilities?

2. In what ways has prior research explored the perceptions of general education

teachers who teach students with high-incidence disabilities?

3. What literature examines current practices of inclusion with elementary general

education teachers of students with high-incidence disabilities?

Assessing studies for quality and inclusion

The literature review includes only articles that were published in 2001 and after this date. This date was primarily chosen as it directly impacts the policy and influence of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This policy included benchmarks and measures with a goal that all students would either score proficiently or advance on their state’s annual assessment by 2014. This study concerns a topic whose meaning is shaped by two important policies—No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which addressed who would teach students and what will be used to measure growth, and IDEA 2004, which addressed the inclusion of students with disabilities. The following selection criteria were used to include all articles that were included in this literature review, which is

43 similarly reflected in the work of Guarino, Santibanez, and Daley (2006): relevance, scholarship, empirical in nature, and quality.

Consistent with including relevant studies, exclusionary criteria are also identified: studies that were conducted outside of the United States, studies that included pre-service teachers, studies that included novice teachers (0-2 years of experience), studies that included preschool or early childhood teachers, studies that did not include general education teachers in the sample, studies that included middle school or high school teachers, studies that included low-incidence disabilities (students with severe disabilities), studies that included special subject teachers like: music, physical education, or art were all excluded from this review. This study is restricted to empirical studies including general education elementary teacher samples in the United States with experience in teaching 3 or more years. However, some conceptual articles were included, as they identify strategies that general educators may consider for proper implementation. Additionally, conceptual articles were included in this study for the relevance of research-based educational practices that may influence practice. Studies that were included were all from peer-reviewed journals, which reflected the scholarship and quality of the included studies. All of the studies that were included were empirical studies in that researchers implemented the use of methods that were qualitative, quantitative or mixed, and provided evidence for each study.

Search Strategy and Results

Independent searches were conducted using five different electronic databases:

Academic Search Complete, ERIC- EBSCO, Education Source, PsychInfo, and

Dissertations and Theses Online. Google Scholar was also used to identify additional

44 sources and texts. Additionally, the Google search engine was also used for citation- chasing purposes. In order to identify related resources for this study, reference pages were used to locate additional studies for a thorough examination of literature. The original terms included “urban teacher perceptions of students with disabilities,”

“inclusion,” and “mainstreaming.” The results yielded no matches when ‘urban’ was the search term used, which means there is limited information on this specific population of teachers. In order to enhance the search terms to yield more results the word urban was removed from the search. A summary combining search terms is shown in Table 1. A combination of search terms were used and yielded a primary list of sources that are included in this review.

Table 1

Target Search Terms

Search Term 1 Search Term 2 Teacher perceptions Students with disabilities Teacher perceptions Inclusion or mainstreaming Self-efficacy of teachers Students with disabilities Beliefs of abilities of teachers Students with disabilities Competence or competencies of teachers Students with disabilities

An initial search generated 1,807 studies. All 1,807 studies were screened and 450 were rejected because they were duplicates. The remaining 1,357 studies were further reviewed and screened by title. From the remaining 1, 357 studies, 508 were removed because they were unrelated to the topic. The remaining 849 studies underwent several rounds of screening until 15 articles were accepted for review. The citation chase that was conducted led to eight additional studies that were included. This addition led to a final total of 23 studies that were included in this review. Figure 2 outlines the entire

45 process from the beginning of the search, which also includes the exclusionary criteria for studies that were omitted to, the final studies that were included in this review.

At the conclusion of this process, relevant research and a few conceptual articles were included in this study, and provided guidance and relativity that shaped this dissertation. The perceptions of general education teachers were grouped into three categories: students with high-incidence disabilities, inclusion or mainstreaming (self- efficacy is also included here), and supports needed for inclusion.

1,807 citations were identified by literature search: Academic Search Complete-490 Dissertation and Theses Online-23 EBSCO-420 Education Source-462 PsycInfo-412

508 studies 849 articles 450 duplicate 1357 were were retained for studies were reviewed by removed; abstract removed title unrelated to review topic

Exclusionary Criteria 1. Studies conducted before 2001 2. Studies conducted outside of The United States of America 3. Studies focused on pre-service teachers or teacher preparation programs 4. Studies that included novice teachers 5. Studies that included service providers, middle school teachers, high school teachers, content specific teachers 6.

233 studies 88 removed for 26 could not be 39 duplicates exclusionary retained for retained further review were removed factors

80 studies 8 found identified for through further citation review chasing

23 studies accepted for literature review

Figure 2. Systematic literature review process for this dissertation.

Summarizing the findings

The next step in this process was to summarize the findings. After initially reading the 23 studies that were systematically selected to be included in this study, the researcher divided them into two categories: teacher perceptions of students with high- incidence disabilities and supports for inclusion. A detailed synthesis of the information found in each study is provided as it related to each of the categories. Inferences as to how the included studies reviewed in this chapter informed this dissertation follows after all three sections.

Teacher Perceptions of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities

This section explores literature that can answer three framing questions: What influences teacher perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities? How do teachers see students with high-incidence disabilities? In what ways has prior research explored the perceptions of general education teachers who teach students with high- incidence disabilities? In the reviewed studies, themes of potential influences and perceptions of teachers became salient. These themes included: race stereotypes, disability label, gender, and self-advocacy. These were separated into two categories of either positive or negative perceptions of students with disabilities. Positive experiences are presented first and negative perceptions follow.

Positive Perceptions

Hui-Michael and Garcia (2009) conducted a qualitative study using naturalistic inquiry. They found that participating teachers held positive stereotypes of Asian

American students, seeing them as hard workers and studious. These perceptions

48 influenced elementary general education teachers’ rate of referrals. With a sample of five general education elementary teachers, data were obtained for this study through the use of semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, field notes, and document reviews

(Hui-Michael & Garcia, 2009). Teachers found it hard to make referrals for students citing that their limited English could be the blame for their difficulty with content, not their willingness or ability to learn. Hui-Michael & Garcia (2009) recommended that teachers be trained in cultural awareness and responsiveness to increase their effectiveness. Consequently, Asian-Americans could be overlooked when it comes to being identified to receive special education services. In fact, Hui-Michael & Garcia

(2009) noted that the negative impact of positive stereotyping meant Asian American students with potentially high-incidence disabilities are at risk of under-identification because of teachers’ inappropriate interpretations of students’ academic underachievement and challenging behavior.

Cullinan and Kauffman (2005) conducted a quantitative study that surveyed over

769 students that had already been identified as emotionally disturbed, and asked the question, does race really matter? Teachers representing over 30 states were asked to describe characteristics of students that were already identified as emotionally disturbed.

The demographics included 687 Caucasian teachers (89%) and 82 African- American teachers (11%) and used the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (Cullinan and

Kauffman 2005). The researchers concluded that the race of the teacher does not influence the referral rate for students (Cullinan & Kauffman, 2005). This claim is highly contradictory to what nation-wide data supports.

Also, if teachers have experienced some level of success with students with high- incidence disabilities, it is possible that they would be more accepting of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. This could be due to the in-school supports that are in place, along with the student ratio. For example, a study conducted by Lohrmann & Bambara (2006) identified situation-specific support to be a way to increase teachers’ positive perceptions about the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities. Participating teachers cited that if they had the support from their administrators when handling student behavior that was inappropriate in the classroom, they were more likely to successfully implement inclusion practices (Lohrmann &

Bambara, 2006). Teachers needed to know that they had support from their administrators, and that this support would be supplied in a non-punitive fashion.

In a study conducted by Berry (2011), focus groups with 46 general education teachers were designed to compile a collection of strategies and tips to inform new teachers on the practices and strategies of including students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. Participants revealed the importance of building relationships with students with high-incidence disabilities. Nine topics were discussed. Most revealing were building self, knowing the child, communication with colleagues, training and resources and understanding inclusion (Berry, 2011).

Respondents felt positive about inclusion and encouraged new teachers not to expect less from students with disabilities. They offered strategies that might be useful in increasing accessibility of academic content for students with high-incidence disabilities (Berry,

2011).

Negative Perceptions/ Barriers

Ashby (2010) found that teachers’ perceptions of how they viewed their students with high-incidence disabilities influenced their behaviors and interactions with students.

General education teachers were more concerned about teaching students who are disabled to ‘appear’ to be normal by conformity rather than by providing students with meaningful access to content. Because appearance can temporarily mimic ability, teachers may be more likely to create an imitation of student success. This causes an imitation of life; where students appear to be a part of the class and belonging, but cannot replicate the work independently. In other words, the goal of passing is to hide the parts of yourself that fall outside the realm of ‘normal’ (Ashby 2010). Along with the physical appearance of normal, teachers may use the knowledge of a students’ disability to influence their ability to grade students, their ability to refer them to gifted and talented programs, and their ability to teach them how to self-advocate (Cho, Wehmeyer, &

Kingston, 2011; Abernathy & Taylor, 2009; Bianco & Leech, 2010; Mastergeorge &

Martinez, 2010).

In a recent study conducted by Abernathy and Taylor (2009), thirty elementary teachers were surveyed on the use and implementation of self-advocacy and self- determination. This study concluded with mixed responses from teachers of who would be responsible for teaching these skills to students that have disabilities. Some teachers felt that it was the responsibility of parents to inform and teach students how to self- advocate and be self-determined, while other teachers felt that it was the responsibility of the teacher to provide students with strategies that would assist them with their disability.

If students with high-incidence disabilities knew how to self-advocate, they would know

51 how to inform classroom teachers of what they need to be successful, and what supports they need to access content (Abernathy & Taylor, 2009).

In another survey that was conducted by Cho, Wehmeyer and Kingston (2011),

95.5% of 407 elementary teachers in the sample felt that it was their responsibility to teach students strategies to promote self-determination, but felt that they lacked the resources and time to properly implement these skills. Additionally, they also felt that some students were just too young to learn these types of skills. Some of the participants felt that it was the responsibility of parents to teach their children with disabilities to self- advocate, because they did not feel it was appropriate for them to do so (Cho, Wehmeyer

& Kingston, 2011).

Student reputation also negatively influenced teacher perceptions of students with disabilities. Lohrman & Bambara (2006) described how general education teachers may display increased levels of apprehension or anxiety when faced with students that have disabilities. Participants in this study cited if a previous teacher had concerns about the student then there was a strong possibility that this negative experience will transfer to the next grade. Additionally, if teachers had experience with a sibling of the student that had a bad reputation, participants would negatively receive the sibling in their class for another year (Lohrman & Bambara, 2006).

Bridwell (2012) investigated the lived experiences of general education teachers who taught in urban schools using narrative description through critical race theory. The sample included twelve African-American teachers from four different states who reported feeling disproportionate levels of pressure to teach low-level skills to students with high-incidence disabilities in order to pass high-stakes tests. Additionally, teachers

52 recalled feeling overwhelmed about their abilities to teach students with disabilities, but comfortable in building relationships with these students. Consequently, participating teachers felt restricted by No Child Left Behind that required many deadlines and regulations. The creative freedom to teach had been restricted and narrowed to teaching to the test which made teaching less enjoyable. Participants in this sample felt that they could not teach students to make the gains needed to pass high stakes tests within the academic year (Bridwell, 2012).

Evans, Weiss, & Cullinan (2012) surveyed twenty teachers from a rural school district using the Behavior Problems Rating Scale for Measuring Behavior Assessment.

Results revealed that general education teachers used more strategies to academically support students with emotional disturbance than special education teachers. General education teachers did not feel equally prepared to include students with emotional disturbance academically and socially. Participating general education teachers revealed that they needed more strategies to successfully include students with emotional disturbance in their classrooms (Evans, Weiss, & Cullinan, 2012).

Nusbaum (2013) conducted an ethnographic study that included urban elementary general education teachers as they transitioned and prepared for a segregated classroom dedicated for students with disabilities. Nusbaum (2013) reported that while the participating school had been recognized as a practicing inclusive school for over a decade, teachers were not particularly in favor of the changes that had been made for the upcoming school year. The participating school district decided to add segregated or

‘pull-out’ classrooms exclusively devoted to servicing students with disabilities.

Findings from this study revealed that the perceptions of the general education teachers

53 were mostly negative (Nusbaum, 2013). Participating teachers reported feeling relieved that some students with disabilities were being removed from their classes, but did not have positive views on how this new addition was implemented. While teachers reported feeling relieved about the segregated classroom, their views and definitions of inclusion were elastic. Naubaum (2013) concluded that it may have been possible that teachers at this school were not effectively implementing inclusive practices all along and may have contributed to the need for segregated classrooms.

Watnick & Sacks (2006) surveyed fifteen teachers from different schools using an open-ended questionnaire. All teachers were from the Miami-Dade County Public

Schools district, with the highest poverty rate and influx of immigrant students of any large city in the United States. This study summarized how teachers implemented full inclusion programs. Results revealed discrepant views of the interpretation and implementation of inclusion. Data analysis showed that each school had flexibility in who was involved in full inclusion and how full inclusion was executed. Consequently, the practice of inclusion will vary from school to school within the same school district.

Supports for Inclusion

This section explores literature that can answer two framing questions: What literature examines current practices of inclusion with elementary general education teachers with the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities? What are current studies about general education elementary teachers’ perceptions of students with high- incidence disabilities in the general education classroom since the passing of No Child

Left Behind Act in 2001? The studies conducted illuminated the complexities of discourse as it relates to how teachers have been supported when including students with

54 disabilities in their classrooms. From strategies that are often used, to support from administration, teachers often feel overwhelmed with the task of inclusion (Nausbaum,

2012; Berry, 2006 & Bridwell, 2012). Teachers view inclusion as one more thing to do, and may not always see the benefits of inclusion (Nausbaum, 2012; Berry, 2006 &

Bridwell, 2012).

Berry (2006) investigated strategies that general education teachers use to engage students with learning disabilities into whole group lessons. Using case study methodology, her research revealed mixed views about appropriate engagement strategies that would support and increase verbal participation of students with learning disabilities in whole class literacy lessons. This study included two general education teachers who taught the same grade in inclusive classrooms. Participating teachers revealed that they both wanted to increase lesson accessibility for students with learning disabilities through increased verbal participation during whole class instruction. Findings showed that one teacher favored the use of a structural approach as the strategy used to increase student engagement (Berry, 2006). Using this approach the teacher had to follow lessons in a sequential order and to follow a format that required students to follow directions from the teacher. This strategy includes explicit and direct instruction, and students typically work on the same stage as their peers (Berry, 2006).

The other strategy involved the use of the interactional approach. This strategy was more organic. The other teacher followed the pace of the students and responded to their needs accordingly. While students may have verbally participated more using this strategy, the completion rates of assignments were inconsistent. While both teachers felt confident in their abilities to use these strategies, the effectiveness of both were mixed.

Teachers are encouraged to use combinations of both of these strategies in order for students to fully gain the maximum support to feel confident and prepared to verbally participate in whole group class discussions.

Inferences for this Dissertation

The studies reviewed for this dissertation provided insight to the direction this study has taken, and informed the researcher of the following considerations: methodological decisions, participant selection, focus of the study and the development of the interview protocol. Findings from each of the studies reviewed demonstrated that there were both negative and positive perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. However, there was little information on the sample population that participated in this study.

Studies were separated in two categories: teacher perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities and the supports needed for inclusion. Teacher perceptions ranged from positive to negative depending on the type of students that were included in general education classrooms; class size, familiarity with IEPs, disability of student were all considered as influences to the perceptions of teachers who teach students with high- incidence disabilities.

Support for inclusion was another factor used to develop teacher perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities. Teachers would discuss how they would receive support to teach students and the lack thereof would create negative perceptions.

There is a need to conduct more studies to reveal the perceptions of urban elementary teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom with their non-disabled peers.

Summary of Chapter Two

In this chapter, the history of inclusion was presented, along with the conceptual framework that was rooted in theory brought forth by Bandura’s social cognitive theory, normalization theory and social constructivist learning theory. The systematic literature review process was outlined in detail and literature on teacher perceptions of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities was discussed. Two categories were identified: teacher perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities and supports for inclusion. The next chapter will focus on the methodology used for this dissertation.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Overview

Chapter Two provides a full description of the rationale behind the selection of the three theories of social constructivist learning theory, self-efficacy and normalization, and how they are all related to how urban general education elementary school teachers perceive teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Chapter

Two also provides the justification that this dissertation addresses significant gaps in current research on the perceptions of this specific population of teachers who teach students with high-incidence disabilities.

The purposes of this study are to be able: 1) to investigate urban elementary general education teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms with their non-disabled peers; 2) to give these teachers an opportunity to share their perceptions on the supports received to meet the demands and challenges of their profession; and 3) to provide recommendations for policies and practices for the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms that can contribute to the preparation and professional development for general education teachers. The following research questions were used to guide this study and incorporated in the development of the interview protocol:

1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic

abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their

classrooms?

2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their

competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they

making meaning and how do they feel about themselves?

3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the supports for

inclusion within the school and within the classroom?

There is currently a very limited evaluation of the perceptions of elementary school teachers in urban settings about inclusion. A qualitative approach guided by theory will allow for an inductive research process. The goal is to gain an experiential perspective of urban elementary general education teachers’ perceptions on the inclusion of students with disabilities.

This chapter outlines the methodology used for conducting research on urban elementary general education teachers’ perceptions of students with disabilities. The methodology chapter includes the following sections: research questions, overview of the methodological approach, research design, participant characteristics, recruitment, interview protocol, selection, trustworthiness, data collection, data analysis process, data management, human participants, ethics and a subjectivity statement of the researcher.

Epistemology/ Research Paradigm

The purpose of identifying an epistemology for this study is to present the philosophical position through which the work will draw on for this study (Creswell

2013). It also serves a purpose to explain and justify the decisions made during this study

(Creswell, 2013). Merriam (2002) explains, “meaning is socially constructed by individuals in interaction with their world. The world, or reality, is not fixed, single, agreed upon, or measurable phenomenon that it is assumed to be in positivist,

59 quantitative research. Instead, there are multiple constructions and interpretations of reality that are in flux and that change over time” (p. 3-4). This research, through the use of basic qualitative study, serves to fill the gap in literature by giving voice to urban elementary general education teachers.

Social constructivism will allow the researcher to rely solely on the views of the participants and will focus on specific contexts of where participants work or live to understand how these may influence the cultural and historical settings of the participants

(Creswell, 2013). Recognizing that the researcher will “position herself” in the research, acknowledgement of how this may potentially shape the interpretation of the research will assist the researcher to make sense the meanings of the participants (Creswell, 2013).

Maxwell (2013) states that, “what people perceive and believe is shaped by their assumptions and prior experiences as well as by the reality that they interact with” (p.43).

Because of this, there can be no absolute truth (Maxwell, 2013). This research, through the use of basic qualitative study, serves to fill the gap in literature by giving voice to urban elementary general education teachers.

Theoretical Perspective

Self-efficacy theory (SET), normalization, and social constructivist learning theory serve as the conceptual underlying framework, for this study and must be matched by all aspects of the methodology from design to data analysis. Chapter Two provides a full description of the rationale behind the selection of these three theories—how they each influence the way in which this study is structured and how they are all related to the perceptions that urban general education elementary teachers have developed about teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms.

Methods and Procedures

Methodological Approach

Strauss and Corbin (2008) define qualitative research as, “any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (p. 10-11). Qualitative research is a type of research that “attempts to understand the meaning of nature of experience of persons” (p.11). Merriam (1998) identified several characteristics of qualitative research. In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Qualitative inquiry usually uses inductive strategy to conduct research; fieldwork is involved and it is heavily descriptive.

This qualitative design included semi-structured, individual interviews with urban elementary general education teachers. Semi-structured one-on-one interview process was chosen for this study in order to gain greater insight into what cannot be observed through participant observation (Merriam, 1998). The semi-structure interviews contained a combination of more and less structured, open-ended questions, and the order and wording of the questions varied according to the participant (Merriam, 2002).

Research Questions

The first step in Creswell’s (2013) approach to data collection is the development of questions that will be answered in interviews. As Miles & Huberman (1994) suggest, these research questions have three vital functions: to explain the intentions of the study, to focus the study and to provide guidance on how to conduct the study (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, pp. 22-25). For this study, the researcher carefully constructed the research questions to increase her depth of understanding of the participants’ perspective.

As a result, the researcher was careful not to include closed-ended questions. However, the researcher did craft questions that would focus more on the how and why of human interactions (Agee, 2009). For the purposes of this study, the researcher wanted to focus on how urban elementary general education teachers make sense of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Questions were designed to link connections between theory and goals of the study so that the researcher can determine salient conclusions and recommendations in developing an understanding of what is going on in the study and ways to conduct the study (Maxwell, 2013).

Furthermore, these questions were designed with the specific setting of urban general education elementary classrooms in mind to protect the researcher from inappropriate generalization and to recognize diversity within the setting (Maxwell, 2013). The following research questions guided this study and the development of the interview protocol:

1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic

abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their

classrooms?

2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their

competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they

making meaning and how do they feel about themselves?

3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the supports for

inclusion within the school and within the classroom?

Participant and Site Selection

Participants in this study consisted of general elementary teachers teaching in urban public school settings in the Washington, DC metropolitan areas. To be considered for this study, participants had to meet the following criteria: 1) Hold a valid teacher license based on their state’s requirements; 2) Have at least three years experience teaching; 3) Classify as a general education teacher; 4) Teach an elementary school classroom, classified as grades 1-6 for this study because the scope of “elementary” fluctuates throughout the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Special education teachers, specialists, psychologists, counselors, related personnel, dedicated/instructional aides, administrators, physical therapists, physical education teachers, music teachers and librarians were excluded from this study.

Sampling Procedure

Purposeful sampling, convenience sampling and “snowball” or chain sampling

(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28) were used to gather participants for this study. This procedure increased the probability of targeting the specific population of teachers that fit the criteria for selection. The researcher began by soliciting participants from the District of Columbia Public Schools’ public email list of teachers. The researcher also located potential participants from the alumni list of The George Washington University’s graduate programs in Curriculum and Instruction. She also contacted professional colleagues from her years of teaching that met the aforementioned criteria. Finally, the researcher asked study participants for referrals of other possible participants, who became part of the “snowball” sample. The sample targeted 25 participants with the recognition that data saturation, achieved when there is no new information that emerges

63 during coding and is ultimately one of the goals to accomplish during axial coding, might occur prior to reaching this number (Saldana, 2013).

Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a private setting and scheduled ahead of time by the researcher. The researcher followed the interview protocol

(Appendix C) and used it as a guide for the interview process to ensure consistency across interviews. Interviews were recorded using a voice recorder. Additionally, the researcher used field notes to record body language, expressions and other observations that were not captured on the voice recorder. Following the process in this basic qualitative study, the researcher transcribed each interview and field notes and used this data to start the first round of open coding (Saldana, 2016). This transcription process was first completed by hand and then transferred to Dedoose, a computer software program, which stored all data for this study.

The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Merriam (2009) explains, “Interviewing is necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings or how people interpret the world around them. It is also necessary to interview when we are interested in past events that are impossible to replicate” (Merriam, 2009, p.88). Merriam’s focus on interior thoughts and feelings, and past events that can’t be replicated helps explain why interviewing was an appropriate method for data collection for this dissertation. Interviews allowed the researcher to ask targeted questions designed to collect data on the meaning-making process, with the idea that participants would select slices of their experiences to share (Seidman, 2013).

After gaining consent from participants to participate in the study, the researcher scheduled a time to speak with each participant either through email or by telephone to confirm a day and time to conduct individual interviews. All interviews were semi- structured face-to-face encounters that lasted on average an hour. All interviews took place in a quiet area free of distractions at a site determined by each participant. Prior to the start of the interview, each participant was asked to sign an informed consent form

(Appendix A). Each participant retained a copy of the consent form for his or her records. Also, the researcher provided each participant with a demographic questionnaire; collecting this information assisted the researcher with data analysis

(Appendix B). Prior to data collection, the researcher explained the purpose of the interview and answered any questions participants had prior to data collection. The researcher asked permission from each participant to participate in a recorded semi- structured interview. In some cases, participants asked that the recorder be turned off.

When this occurred, the researcher took handwritten notes and informed participants that handwritten notes were taken. The goal of this process was to ensure that the researcher revealed to all participants the ways in which data would be collected.

During each interview, the researcher took field notes to capture additional thoughts and observed behavior from each participant (body language, expressions, etc.).

These observations were captured and used during data analysis (Miles, Huberman &

Saldana 2014). At the conclusion of every interview, the researcher wrote an analytic memo about the experience. This assisted the researcher in making sense of the researcher’s personal responses to research situations (Maxwell, 2013).

Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of all individuals referenced in the interviews, and to ensure confidentiality of all participants (Miles, Huberman & Saldana,

2013). Participants were informed of their right to stop the interview at any time if they were feeling uncomfortable or wished to no longer participate. Every effort was made to stick to the questions that were on the interview protocol. Probing was used to increase understanding and to provide clarity to responses that may have appeared to be unclear.

Probes were used to allow participants to expand their answers to foster thorough responses and rich data. Time was provided at the conclusion of all interviews for participants to ask any questions and to address any concerns.

Development of Interview Protocol. The researcher developed an interview protocol (Appendix C) to guide the semi-structures interviews included in this study. The purpose of this interview protocol was to understand teachers’ perceptions on their work with students with high-incidence disabilities and their perceptions of efficacy and supports offered by their schools. The questions included in the interview protocol were derived from the research questions and were predetermined by the researcher. The researcher carefully crafted and designed interview questions that generated data to increase understanding of the study (Maxwell, 2005). These interview questions were both open-ended and very specific to the purpose of this study, phrased in such a way to yield a rich description and participant engagement with the driving research questions.

Table 2 displays the three research questions used to guide this study and the questions used in the interview protocol that addressed each research question. Appendix

C shows the complete interview protocol and the probes that were used in each interview.

Table 2

Research and Interview Questions Matrix

Research Question 1: Interview Questions How do urban elementary general education • Tell me a little bit about your teaching teachers perceive the academic abilities and social background. needs of students with high-incidence disabilities • Tell me a little bit about your students in their classrooms? this year; how many students in your class have disabilities? • Tell me an example or a story about having a student with a disability in your classroom. What was it like? Describe a typical teaching day. • What is your definition of inclusion? • What do you think about students with disabilities being included in your classroom? • When you think about students with disabilities in your classroom how do you feel about support they need? • Tell me about a typical lesson with your students; what are you likely to do to keep them all engaged and on-task? • Tell me about the types of disabilities you have encountered throughout your teaching experience; what are the typical categories of students that are included in your class? • How often do you attend IEP meetings? Research Question 2: • Tell me about how prepared you feel How do urban elementary general education about teaching students in your class that teachers perceive their competence in teaching have disabilities; how prepared do you students with high-incidence disabilities? How are feel you are? they making meaning and how do they feel about • What factors influences your themselves? preparedness? • What are some of the goals you have for students with disabilities in your classroom? • How do you address performance or behavior that do not meet expectations? • How familiar are you with the identified academic and social goals that are described on the IEPs of students in your classroom that have disabilities? • Tell me about a lesson that you taught that you felt went well with students with disabilities; what did you do? Research Question 3: • How do you feel about the support you How do urban elementary general education receive in teaching students with teachers perceive their supports for inclusion disabilities? within the school and within the classroom?

In addition to the development of an interview protocol, the researcher developed a matrix that identified specific interview questions that supported more than one of the research questions. Some of the interview questions addressed multiple research questions. This matrix was completed so that the researcher could determine which questions were absolute questions that had to be asked, in the event that there were time constraints with participants during the interview (Appendix D and Appendix E).

Recognizing that she would only have one encounter with each participant, it was important for the researcher to be mindful of questions that might overlap in order to achieve maximum data coverage. While the researcher structured the interviews with the questions in the protocol, probing was used during interviews as new information developed.

The researcher implemented pilot testing with questions before formal data collection commenced. This allowed the researcher to anticipate how participants would best understand questions and to revise ambiguities as needed (Maxwell, 2013). Another benefit of pilot testing was that it allowed the researcher to become more familiar with the protocol prior to formal interviews. After the first two pilot interviews, the researcher used transcript analysis. The use of this method allowed the researcher to carefully analyze data that had been collected and determine if the responses addressed the questions posed by the researcher.

Data Management

Data was collected through semi-structured individual qualitative interviews captured on a voice recorder. All data was locked, stored, and saved on password- protected files. Following the recommendation of Miles, Huberman & Saldana (2014),

68 the researcher had multiple ways to store all information which consisted of a separate folder, a back up file, a separate flash drive and Google drive. Audio files were transcribed verbatim by the researcher on a word-processing software and later transferred to Dedoose, a password-protected qualitative analysis software package.

Audio files are locked and placed in a secured location. All interview audio files and transcriptions will be destroyed after one year of study completion. Pseudonyms were given to all participants to protect identity and to secure confidentiality.

Data Analysis

A strategy that the researcher used during the start of data analysis and throughout the data analysis process was to keep a copy of the research questions, conceptual framework and goals of the study available and frequently referred to them throughout the analysis. As a novice researcher, the researcher used this reference to stay focused on coding decisions (Auerbach & Silverstein 2003, p. 44). Additionally, the researcher used reflective questions throughout the coding process. Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2007) suggest the following reflective questions during all stages of a study. These questions include:

• What surprised me? (to track assumptions)

• What intrigued me? (to track positionality)

• What disturbed me? (to track tensions within your value, attitude, and belief

systems) (p. 106)

The researcher commenced data analysis concurrently with data collection. Miles,

Huberman, & Saladana (2014) recommend this strategy because it allows the researcher the opportunity to think continuously about strategies to generate new ways for making

69 data collection smoother. It allowed the researcher opportunities to cycle back and forth between existing data and strategies for collecting new data. One way this is achieved is through the use of transcript analysis. Transcript analysis served two purposes within this study. First, it allowed opportunities for the researcher to make comparisons between the first two interviews. The researcher was able to make necessary revisions in order to ensure that the maximum amount of data could be gained from the questions asked. The second purpose of transcript analysis was to allow the researcher to begin the process of developing codes. Recognizing codes developed from the second participant may influence the recoding of the first participant, which may subsequently influence codes for the rest of the participants in this study (Saldana, 2013).

The researcher began the process of data analysis by listening to audio files prior to transcription. During this time, the researcher took notes and wrote a memo about what she had seen and heard during the interviews in order to “develop tentative ideas about categories and relationships” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 105).

Saldana (2013) defines code in qualitative inquiry as a word or short phrase that summarizes a portion of data. The process of coding is rigorous, requiring scrutiny and careful thought. Coding is not formulaic; rather, “coding is heuristic—an exploratory problem solving technique without specific formulas or algorithms to follow” (Saldana,

2013, p. 8). The purpose of coding is to provide links between the data and ideas about the data and its meaning. Coding allows the researcher to 1) notice relevant phenomenon, 2) collect examples of those phenomena, and 3) analyze those phenomena in order to find commonalities, differences, patterns, and structures” (Seidel & Kelle,

1995, ;p. 58). This process allows the researcher a chance to “make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have of the world” (Cresswell, 2013, p. 21).

The researcher took field notes to record general observations (body language, expressions, etc.) while in the field. Field notes taken by the researcher were transcribed and coded. The researcher considered reflective questions as outlined by Emerson et al.

(2011) to code field notes. These questions shaped the study and assisted the researcher as codes were developed.

Analytic memos were used throughout the study and commenced at the start of data collection. They allowed the researcher to capture reflections, questions and thinking processes about the data after each participant interview (Miles, Huberman &

Saldana, 2014). An analytic memo allowed the researcher to begin the process of coding some emergent patterns, categories, themes, concepts and assertions (Miles, Huberman &

Saldana, 2014).

Codes were developed and used as they emerged from the collected and transcribed data in two parts—open coding and axial coding. The researcher recognizes that the process of coding is a cyclical act (Saldana, 2013)—codes were developed through several cycles to make appropriate links to data and research questions. This occurred during the open coding portion of the coding process. Also during open coding, data was organized and labeled by assigning codes to help identify themes, patterns, events and actions that are related to this dissertation’s research questions (Coffey and

Atkinson, 1996; Strauss, 1987). The second part of the coding process—axial coding— was used to identify links to research and the conceptual framework used in this

71 dissertation (Saldana, 2013). The researcher used a combination of strategies for data analysis of the participants.

In order to keep an accurate record of codes developed, the researcher developed a codebook. The use of a codebook allowed the researcher the opportunity to organize codes by compiling lists of codes and including content descriptions and brief examples for reference (Saldana, 2013). The codebook was referred to throughout the coding process and served as a living document that was revised as more codes emerged through reviewed data. Additionally, the codebook assisted the researcher in developing more categories and subcategories, which assisted in the coding process (Saldana, 2013).

Essential Considerations

Reflexivity

Because of her position within the research, the researcher referred to a subjectivity statement and was mindful of how biases may enter and possibly interfere with the data collection process. Therefore, the researcher used memoing as a way to capture hot and cool spots during the interviews to gauge bias and filter possible interruptions.

Trustworthiness

According to Lincoln and Guba (1986) the trustworthiness of a research study is important to evaluating its worth. Trustworthiness involves establishing: credibility—the truth in the findings; transferability—showing that findings can be applied in other contexts; dependability—findings are consistent and replicable; and conformability/dependability—findings are shaped by the participants and not by the researcher’s bias, motivation or interest.

The researcher adhered to recommendations established by Lincoln and Guba

(1986) to gain credibility. To increase the credibility of this study, the researcher implemented prolonged engagement, peer debriefing and member checks. Prolonged engagement allowed the participant to increase contact with participants and identify saliences. Through peer debriefing, the researcher identified a professional peer to expose the nature of the research and to assist in this process by providing feedback to the researcher that kept the process honest. Member checks were used to ensure accuracy from the participants. Each participant had a chance to confirm their answers through this process to ensure accuracy to questions and responses. The researcher had a chance to seek clarity in areas that needed further explanation.

Peer review was also used throughout the data collection process. The researcher presented information to the researcher’s dissertation committee and solicited their feedback and guidance, so that subjectivity was appropriately monitored and managed.

The researcher sought ongoing input from the committee throughout the analysis and interpretation of data.

Transferability was achieved through thick descriptive data. Dependability and conformability was achieved through the use of an external audit. The dissertation committee served as an external audit to ensure the validity, accuracy, findings and interpretations of the data. Committee members ensured the data was supported by the findings, the interpretations and conclusions.

Ethics

This study poses minimal risk to participants involved. The Institutional Review

Board (IRB) at The George Washington University ensured that necessary components

73 and guidelines are adhered to and followed to protect participants. No identifiable information was included in this study. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants.

All participants were asked to sign an informed consent to participate in this study and forms were locked and secured. This study did not include any information that would expose the identities of participants.

Summary of Chapter Three

This chapter provides an outline for the procedures that were implemented and followed in order to answer the presented research questions. Basic qualitative design was the method used to collect data for this dissertation. This chapter provides a framework of all of the steps and procedures that were followed and the protocol that was adhered to and used.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Overview

The purposes of this study were: 1) to explore how urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms; 2) to provide opportunities for these teachers to share their perceptions of their own competency in teaching these students; and 3) to provide opportunities for these teachers to share their perceptions of the supports they receive for inclusion within the classroom and within the school.

Basic qualitative research (Merriam, 2009) was utilized to address the purposes of this study. Twenty urban general education elementary school teachers participated in semi-structured interviews with the researcher. Each interview was captured with the use of a voice recorder and transcribed verbatim by the researcher. Data were coded and analyzed using Dedoose software. Themes emerged from clusters of coded data that revealed discoveries to the research questions. Perceptions of urban general education teachers were examined and from this examination, recommendations to the improvement of support for inclusion were derived. To accomplish these goals, the following research questions guided this study:

1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the

academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence

disabilities in their classrooms?

2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their

competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How

are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves?

3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the

supports for inclusion within the school and within the classroom?

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section provides a description of the sample of the twenty general education teachers that participated in this study.

Brief descriptions of the school district, demographics and types of schools are discussed.

The description of the process and analysis of participant interviews will be discussed in the second section of this chapter. In the third section, a discussion and analysis of participants’ perceptions on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms is presented. Key themes that emerged from data analysis and its relationships to the research questions and conceptual framework were also included in this section and thoroughly discussed. The fourth and final section provides a summary of this chapter.

Sample Description

The participants for this study were urban elementary general education teachers in the mid-Atlantic region. To be considered for this study, participants must have taught students with high-incidence disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers in K-5 general education classrooms. Each participant in this study met the criteria for participation which included: 1) a valid teacher’s license based on their district’s requirements, 2) at least three years of teaching experience, and 3) at least one year experience of teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms.

This study only included practicing urban elementary general education teachers with at least three years of teaching experience and measured their perceptions of teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Principals, parents, early childhood teachers, special education teachers, pre-service teachers, paraprofessionals, and school counselors were excluded from this study. Additionally, teachers with less than three years of teaching experience, content area teachers (music, art, physical education, etc.), along with school psychologists were excluded from this study. While they may all participate to some degree with the development of IEPs of students who are disabled, they were purposely omitted from this study as literature describes the lack of evidence from this specific population.

Study participants included nineteen female teachers and one male teacher. All participants were certified to teach elementary education as defined by their local state agency’s requirements, and six held multiple certifications in other content areas including administration and special education. All participants taught in the same school district. This school district, centrally located in the mid-Atlantic region, is currently under reform efforts. Recent reform efforts have revitalized neighborhoods and arguably incentivized the teaching profession in order to attract talented teachers to change the trajectory of education in this school district.

Table 3, Demographics by Participant provides additional information about each participant, including age range, ethnicity and gender. Six participants’ ages ranged from

31-40 years old. Five participants were over 50 years old. Five participants’ ages ranged from 41-50 years old. Four participants were between 23-30 years old. Ethnicities represented in this study included: Black (14 participants), White (5 participants) and

African (1 participant). All participants with the exception of one were female. The sample represents three of eight sections ranging from the poorest of the city to the third wealthiest section of the city; only six participants taught in schools that were not Title I schools.

Table 3

Demographics by Participant

Participant Age Range Race Gender Judy 31-40 B Female Betty 50+ B Female Sally 41-50 B Female Deborah 41-50 B Female Lucy 23-30 W Female Janet 31-40 B Female Ann 23-30 W Female Jody 50+ B Female Marcia 41-50 B Female Natalie 31-40 W Female Barbara 31-40 B Female Catherine 23-30 B Female Grace 41-50 A Female Helen 50+ B Female Linda 31-40 B Female Georgia 50+ W Female Larry 41-50 B Male Nancy 50+ B Female Rochelle 31-40 B Female Sasha 23-30 W Female

Participants had a range of experience teaching students with disabilities. Table 4

Disabilities Taught by Participant, displays the different types of disabilities that each participant has taught. All participants had at least one student with an IEP in their classrooms at the time of the interviews. Fourteen of the 20 participants had experience teaching students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and Emotional Disturbance

(ED)—the two most common disabilities encountered by participants in this study.

Thirteen participants had experience teaching students with Speech and Language

Impairment. None of the teachers had experience teaching students who are blind, because most of these students attend specialized or private schools. All participants had taught in public elementary schools in urban settings for at least three years and had experience teaching students with high-incidence disabilities ranging from one to as many as eight disabilities over the span of their teaching careers.

Data from 2013-14 revealed student population of 13% of total school enrollment were served under IDEA or 6.5 million students (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

This total included 35% of students identified with specific learning disability; 21% with speech and language impairment; 13% with other health impairment; 8% with autism;

7% with intellectual disabilities; 6% with development delay; and 5% with emotional disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). These percentages are much lower than the averages of that were included in this sample.

In this sample, 70% of teachers had experience teaching students with autism and emotional disturbance. Participants have cited this disability as the most common disability included in their classes. Participants also had more experience teaching students with speech and language impairment. Data revealed that 65% of the participants had experience teaching these students in their classes and 45% experience of teaching students with an intellectual disability.

Table 4

Disabilities Taught by Participant

Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Autism X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Blindness Deafness X Emotional X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Disturbance Hearing X X X X Impairment Intellectual X X X X X X X X X Disability Multiple X X X Disabilities Orthopedic X X X Impairment Other Health X X X X X X X Impairment Specific X X X X X X X Learning Disability Speech or X X X X X X X X X X X X X Language Impairment Traumatic X Brain Injury Visual X Impairment

Table 5, Teaching Demographics by Participant, details the demographics of each participant. Ranges of teaching experience spanned from three to over 20 years. Five participants held Bachelor’s degrees only while the other 15 participants held Master’s degrees. Five participants held degrees in education. Most participants held liberal arts degrees ranging from computer science to dance. With the exception of five participants, they each taught at Title I schools. Title I schools are schools that receive additional federal funds from the government due to the percentage of students that attend the school that receive free and reduced lunch. It should also be noted that all elementary schools in Section H are Title I schools, which is exclusive to only this section of this school district. Title I status also played a huge role in some of the responses, as it revealed the availability of resources for schools. This information is reflected in the

Table 5.

Class size appeared to have an impact on some of the responses and is represented in the table below. This information is reflected in the Table 5. Elementary grade levels included in this study ranged from kindergarten to fifth grade. Each grade level was represented in this study. Three of the participants were kindergarten teachers. Nine of the participants taught first grade. Three of the participants were second grade teachers.

One participant was a third grade teacher. One participant was a fourth grade teacher; and three participants were fifth grade teachers.

This school district included in this study is divided by eight different sections.

These sections serves as boundaries and determines zoning for schools and identifies neighborhoods within this school district. Further, they are divided in quadrants, NE,

NW, SE and SW. These sections are labeled by the researcher as to not disclose the actual location of this study. Eight participants taught in Section F, which was the largest section represented in this study. Sections H and D were also represented in this study with six participants from each section being represented. Section H collectively represented the most years of teaching experience and also the poorest section of the city.

Participants in Section D had the least years of teaching experience. All participants had at least 3 years of teaching experience, which was a requirement to be included in this study.

Table 5 Teaching Demographics by Participant

Participant Years Section Educational Grade Title I Class Teaching Background Level Size Judy 15-20 H Master’s 1 Yes 25 Betty 20+ H Bachelor’s 1 Yes 21 Sally 20+ H Bachelor’s 1 Yes 17 Deborah 15-20 H Master’s 2 Yes 20 Lucy 3-10 D Bachelor’s 1 Yes 17 Janet 10-15 D Master’s 5 Yes 25 Ann 3-10 D Master’s K Yes 18 Jody 20+ H Master’s 1 Yes 20 Marcia 3-10 F Master’s 1 Yes 25 Natalie 15-20 F Master’s K No 22 Barbara 10-15 F Master’s K No 22 Catherine 3-10 D Bachelor’s 5 No 23 Grace 10-15 D Master’s 4 No 15 Helen 20+ F Master’s 2 No 19 Linda 10-15 F Master’s 3 No 22 Georgia 3-10 H Bachelor’s 1 Yes 23 Larry 10-15 D Master’s 5 Yes 16 Nancy 20+ F Master’s 1 Yes 16 Rochelle 3-10 F Master’s 2 Yes 23 Sasha 3-10 F Master’s 1 Yes 17

Table 6, Overall Demographics of School District in Percentage, provides a summary of the percentages of ethnicities represented in each section of the school district. Additionally, the student population in this school district includes a 76% population of students that receive free and reduced lunch and 15% of the overall student population receives specialized instruction.

Table 6

Overall Demographics of School District in Percentage4

Section Black Hispanic Other White A 34.9 40.7 14.7 41.2 B 8.3 17.6 10.4 64.5 C 5.3 14.3 2.7 75.4 D 49.0 28.3 17.5 26.9 E 74.9 15.1 8.1 10.8 F 48.6 9.4 2.2 38.3 G 95.3 3.6 1.9 1.5 H 93.5 1.8 1.9 3.7 Total 64 18 4 13

Table 6, Section, Number of Elementary Schools and Average Income of Families with Children, identifies the number of elementary schools in each section of the city and the average incomes of families with children. Nine out of 61 public elementary schools in this school district were represented in this study, spanning across three of the eight different sections of the city. Table 7, Section, Elementary Schools and Average Income of Families with Children, describes the average incomes of families with children and the number of elementary schools in each section of the city. Section H represented the poorest section in the city with average income of families with children equating to less than poverty at $24,096. This section was the least diverse; over 90% of families with children that live in this section were black. Also represented in this study was Section F, the largest and third wealthiest section in the city with an average income of families with children at $122,500. This section of the city is very diverse with almost equal percentages of black and white families. Section F also contains the most elementary

4 It is noted that participants chose multiple categories. It is for this reason that totals exceed 100% in some categories. 83 schools. Section D was also represented in this study with average income of families with children at $93,592. This section of this school district is diverse with each ethnic group represented. White and Hispanic populations are almost equal, and the Black population is almost doubled of White and Hispanic populations in this section of the city. Some of the schools in Section D had extended day programs, year-round schools and specific programs like Montessori and International Baccalaureate programs. They are one of the most diverse sections in this school district.

Table 7

Section, Elementary Schools and Average Incomes of Families with Children Section Elementary Schools Average Income A 6 61,196 B 4 189,324 C 7 216,193 D 5 93,592 E 1 60,351 F 14 122,500 G 12 31,273 H 12 24,096 Total 61 99,816

Description of the Process and Analysis of Participant Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a private setting and scheduled ahead of time by the researcher. The researcher followed the interview protocol

(Appendix C), using it as a guide for the interview process to ensure consistency across interviews. Interviews were recorded using a voice recorder. Additionally, the researcher used field notes to record body language, expressions and other observations that were not captured on the voice recorder. Following the process established for this basic qualitative study, the researcher transcribed each interview and set of field notes, and used this data to start the first round of open coding (Saldana, 2016). The open

84 coding stage was first completed by hand and then transferred to Dedoose, a computer software program, which stored all data for this study.

Thematic Analysis

As previously detailed, participants taught in schools across different sections in the same school district and shared similar experiences in their thoughts about the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Some responses were specific and unique to individual schools or sections of the city, while other responses revealed consistent responses across participants. Ultimately eight themes emerged from the data and are presented in discussion with the research questions that have guided this study. An additional two themes emerged from the data that did not answer a research question, but were themes expressed across study participants.

Participants were quoted verbatim to support the themes and to ensure that analysis of the findings remained grounded in the data.

Emerging themes are discussed in detail. Themes were named with words that best summarized the study participants’ collective data. Additionally, some themes were named from participants’ exact words. Quotations were used to mark all in vivo themes.

Words that are in brackets are not words stated by the participant, but were inserted by the researcher to clarify the context and content, and to make grammatical sense of the statement for the reader. Table 8 identifies the themes as they correspond to the following research questions.

Table 8 Thematic Findings and Their Relationship to Research Questions

Relationship to Research Question Themes Research Question 1: 1. “It was a disservice” How do urban elementary general 2. Being “Set Up” for Failure Both education teachers perceive the academic Academically and Socially abilities and social needs of students with 3. Impact of Behavior high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms?

Research Question 2: 4. Issues of Being Stranded How do urban elementary general 5. Feeling Inadequate education teachers perceive their 6. Reluctant Acceptance competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? Research Question 3 7. Flaws in Identifying Students Who How do urban elementary general Need Help education teachers perceive the supports 8. Issues of Support for inclusion within the school and within the classroom? Other emerging themes 9. Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Privilege 10. Impact of Race

Findings to Research Question 1

In this section, the researcher offers her interpretation and analysis to Research

Question 1 based on the interviews with study participants. Research Question 1 asked:

How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms? The data analysis process revealed three major themes that respond to this research question. They were: a) “It was a disservice,” b) Being “set up” for failure both academically and socially, and c) Impact of behavior.

Theme One: “It was a disservice”

Data derived from interviews with study participants were analyzed to reveal how participants felt about teaching students with disabilities in their general education classrooms. Participants described the process of including students with disabilities in the general education classroom as a “disservice” to these students. Participants noted that students with disabilities had the right to be in the general education classroom, as this setting has been identified as the least restricted environment. However, participants described that it was a “disservice” to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom if they are not receiving all of the support that they need to be successful.

All participants agreed that students with disabilities should be placed in the general education classroom setting. They believed that students with disabilities had a right to be in their classrooms. However, in addition to these students being able to attend their classes, study participants felt that they both needed additional support- the classroom teachers as well as the students with high-incidence disabilities. Participants recognized that placement and support go hand in hand. When asked if students with disabilities should be in the general education classroom, Judy, a first grade teacher in a

Title I school in Section H, explained that students with disabilities should be in the general education classroom as long as they are receiving the support that they need and are not hindering the learning of other students in the classroom. However, her attitude shifted when describing students who are not receiving services and support. She stated:

I think it depends on the student. As long as the student is not a presumed or is not a physical risk to other students and they are capable of sitting down without distracting or impeding the process of learning for other students, I do believe

they should be able to be in the classroom in the regular ed [education] classroom if they could get the support and if the resources are available. However, if you do not have the resources or support, they should be put back [in self-contained classrooms or separate schools].

Judy identified the need of support in her classroom. In addition, she mentioned if the student was not a distraction to others, the student should be allowed to remain in her classroom. Without the proper support, Judy feels that students should not remain in her class even if they are able to sit down quietly and not be a distraction.

To comment on the importance of supports and students, Helen, a second grade elementary school teacher from section F, described how staff and administration failed a student at her school, because she felt that he did not receive the support that he needed to be successful. In her description of this failure due to a lack of appropriate services, she shared:

Yeah. I think he was able to go in to the class he had his laptop and that was it. I would challenge the coordinator about it and it was like this is the only way that he would stay in the class. So I would go to him and he would be on the Internet doing his own thing. There were several occasions that I went just to tell the special ed [education] team. Eventually the special ed [education] team did something about it. He did not receive services at all and finally just before summer no Thanksgiving that was his last day. He went to an alternative school. We failed him. We really did.

She spoke with much conviction as she described how this student did not receive the proper services that he needed to be successful. She also expressed her concerns and frustrations with the special education team at her school. She was disappointed with the outcomes and reiterated how much she felt that “it was a disservice” having this student with disabilities not only in her class, but also in the building. She described this experience as not meeting the needs of this student in particular and felt that the school team failed him.

The majority of participants identified and recommended one-on-one support to students with disabilities as the most effective way to help them to be successful.

However, many participants felt that they could not consistently provide this support due to the other students in their class that needed rigorous and grade level-specific work.

Judy, a first grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H, was one teacher that identified that students with disabilities need one-on-one support. She reported that this kind of support would be most effective in increasing content accessibility. Judy shared:

However, given the work and time and giving them proper attention to accomplish some of the goals is difficult at times because it is so many other students. They require a different type of instruction meaning where I can do a whole group or pull a small group and get them. A lot of times it has to be one- on-one so that they can get it, which is difficult when you have 25 students in your class and you are charged to complete different skills objectives and standards and stay on schedule.

Georgia, a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, expressed her concerns with placement of students and appropriate services. When describing one student in particular, she noted that “it was a disservice” having a student that displayed these negative behaviors remain in her classroom—a “disservice” students with disabilities and to their classmates in the general education classroom. She expressed that the school let this student down by not meeting all of his needs. She repeated there was

“nothing you can do” for students with disabilities in her classroom. She stated:

I feel like what we gave [him] was a disservice to him because he did not get his needs you know. [His needs] they were not addressed and also what about the other students in the classroom. That was really (special emphasis) unfair to them. He was aggressive. He would throw things. He would throw furniture. He would jump on top of the furniture and stamp his foot and scream. Shout obscenities. It was just ridiculous. It was absolutely ridiculous. In his case, he should not have been in the classroom. Why [does] it take a year? I had a student four years ago it took them two years for him to be identified. He went through first grade and then half way through the second grade. They finally placed him in

a program. He was also emotionally disturbed; but a whole year we are talking about our babies here and it took them almost two years [for him to be identified and placed in another program]. Instruction is being interrupted and they cannot learn as fast when they are constantly being interrupted. These students and you feel sorry for the students who have this emotional disorder because there is nothing you can do. There is nothing that can really be done. When you have 23 other students and you have other students who also have special needs in your classroom what can you do?

However, Janet a fifth grade teacher at a Title I school in Section D shared a different experience about students with disabilities in her classroom. Her school utilizes a pull-out model and her satisfaction was linked to the external support that students receive from being pulled from the classroom for a period of time. She revealed:

I feel the students that need support gets the support that they need, so it ranges. It ranges. I have a few students. I have two students that are high-functioning. So in my class, I teach ELA, they don’t need as much support whereas when they go to math they need more support. So the support is in their math class. But in my class the support is not needed because they function like the rest of the students and then I have a student I guess that is in the middle of the road so he gets pull-out support, which is needed. That’s what his IEP dictates.

Her comments reveal that she may not be the one providing support to her students that need it, but some support is being offered so that students with disabilities may be able to access content. Janet was unique in her response as she shifted responsibility to other adults—namely special education teachers. She spoke of how their model of inclusion works for their students with disabilities at her school.

All participants felt that students with disabilities should not be placed in the same classrooms with their non-disabled peers if support was not consistently provided. This mostly surfaced because participants often felt that students with disabilities are not getting the appropriate services so that they can be successful in the general education setting both academically and socially.

Natalie, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, shared that she does believe that students with high-incidence disabilities should be included in the classroom. Her justification for not having students with high-incidence disabilities in her classroom is because of the lack of support that she receives. While this participant is one of the six teachers that have a degree in special education, she still felt inadequate about the support that she provides to these students in particular. She shared:

I do think they should be in the classroom. I do believe that and so that is what I know, but I do feel like I do not have enough help. Yes I have a degree in special ed [education] and I still feel at times she needs a dedicated aide and I feel that it is not fair that the other 21 kids are sitting there while I stop what I am doing and deal with these outbursts. Umm but I believe that she is benefiting and the other kids are benefiting from having her in the room.

Janet shared her experience with her special education team at her school. She claimed that it was a collaboration and a joint effort made by the team, which also made the acceptance of students with disabilities more amenable. She was the only participant that shared these experiences. She stated:

Well in the beginning of the year we sat as a team and we said ok we looked and said these are the students. Um these are the supports that we have like in terms of the staff. How can we um divide the staff how can we divide the students strategically put the students in groups and have the support staff come in to meet the needs of the students according to their IEP through you know the teachers’ needs and the students’ needs. You know we wanted to make sure that the students are getting what they need so we sat and we hashed out ok what it would look like in math what it would like in science what it would look like in social studies um that was really helpful being at the table and having an opportunity to discuss and say this is not going to work as opposed to the administration making the decisions and saying ok this is what it is now and deal with that. Um so we had an opportunity to say ok this isn’t going to work based on how we see it working. So I think, just having the opportunity to dialogue and voice our concerns you know shows a level of support you know like trusting you know opinions and you know our level of professionalism.

She spoke with a high regard of how the team at her school often collaborates to provide support for students with disabilities in her school. She recognized that it was no perfect

91 remedy for the daily battles that she faces, but was very hopeful for the amount of support and effort that was shared from her team.

Theme Summary. Collectively, participants identified students with disabilities as having the right to be included in their classrooms as long as supports are provided to ensure their success, and that they do not inhibit the learning of their non-disabled peers.

If services are neither provided nor offered, participants strongly suggested that students with disabilities should not be placed in their classrooms, as their placement without supports was a “disservice” to these students, their classmates and their teachers. There were some discussions surrounding the idea of what support looks like for the success of students with disabilities in their classrooms.

Theme 2: Being “Set Up” for Failure Both Academically and Socially

The theme of being set up for failure both academically and socially is best described as two-fold. The first component is an academic arrangement where services are not being provided to promote or increase accessibility. Accessibility is needed for academic support as well as social adjustments in the classroom. Academic “setup” affects both the student and the teacher. Participants shared that students with disabilities are being “set up” because the curriculum is too rigorous for them to access. When asked how she felt about the academic abilities of a student with disabilities, Barbara, a kindergarten teacher at an elementary school in Section F, shared that she feels that whatever she does is not enough, and that students with disabilities need more than what her school had to offer. About her experiences with one student, she explained:

The sad truth about that [having the one-on-one time with the teacher] is while he is making some significant gains by the end of the school year; he will still not be where he needs to be to move on.

Sally, a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, shared similar responses. She believed that the academic “setup” stems from content that is too rigorous, and that students with high-incidence disabilities are often lacking in basic skills and need to master those skills before being exposed to more rigorous content. She stated:

I feel that they are umm that the curriculum is too advanced for those children [students with disabilities]. They are not given any assistance where they would be able to excel and be able to move forward. They are not going to learn because they [Central Office officials] need to get back to the basics and help these children get the basics and the foundation. We are implementing all of these programs because they are not grasping. They [curriculum expectations] are moving at a umm much faster pace and these children with disabilities [will need assistance] gonna have to be able to assist them and support them where they are.

These experiences revealed some of the unintended consequences of integration of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, namely lack of additional support needed to increase access of the content.

Betty, a first grade teacher at a Title I elementary school in Section H, described how students with disabilities were being academically “set up” by not being able to access grade level content. Betty describes her experiences with students with disabilities as being unfair. She thinks that students should be tested on the grade level they are performing and not the grade level they are currently enrolled. She shared:

I have tried to explain to you we have a child who might be in third grade whose reading level might be at the end of the first grade so when you give standardized tests like PARCC or whatever tests you take for the middle of the year and end of the year, you are still testing that child on their grade level regardless of their reading level. The reading level is mostly the level F, so actually you are not placing that child in a position to be successful because you are still giving that child a third grade exam. Even if they have special situations where the teacher may be able to read the text to them, but if your reading level is on an F, that is also where your comprehension level is so you will not be able to comprehend even if they read the text to you. So I just have a problem with us, and how it does not look very educated and professional when we do things that way. It does not sound professional to me as an educator that you would set a child up for failure. That’s basically what we do and we use those scores in with the children

who do not have special needs, and they bring our total and scores down. So we have to try to figure out a way we could do that differently as well because the children need to feel that they can be successful as well.

Betty insisted that even with accommodations, such as a read aloud, students with disabilities would remain unsuccessful at showing mastery with grade level content. She expressed the need for students with disabilities to feel that they have made some progress and should have some positive affirmations that they are making strides. She added:

Because they need to be successful and if all school year you tell me you doing much better you doing much better. You are bringing their hopes up and then and then they fail again. How are you helping them feel good about themselves? What do you do when you are continuously behind?

Betty, like most participants, believed that students with disabilities should feel some successes. However, participants shared the reality that the success of students with disabilities obtained will be short-lived. They will be outperformed by their non-disabled peers each and every time. Other participants shared this same viewpoint as Betty.

Linda, a 3rd grade teacher in Section F, similarly claimed that students with disabilities should be assessed on the reading level that they are able to access. Linda posits that mastery of the level of performance would be the requirement to move on to the next level. She emphasized:

I am a firm believer in [assessments should be given on the performance level of the student] because we have some students that are in fifth grade and they are reading on a third grade level. I am a firm believer of if you are reading and performing on that grade level than why would we test you on that level. If you progress, you test on the next level.

Deborah, a second grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H revealed her frustration with the special education system. She believed that this “setup” is targeted to

94 students with disabilities who attend school in Section H. She made a direct connection to location of school to services received. She passionately stated:

I don’t know. I feel as though children here especially in [Section H]—someone is setting them up for failure and to remain failed…. You are not doing our children a good service. So you cannot say that you want them to succeed. We are feeding them crumbs. We are feeding them the tiniest specks of crumbs and we expect them to be you know we supposed to make them feel like that crumb is actually a whole pie, but it is not.

Grace, a fourth grade teacher at a school in Section D revealed how sorry that she feels for a student that have an emotional disability. She reported feeling a sense of hopelessness and stated, “there is nothing you can do” for students with disabilities. She shared:

Instruction is being interrupted and they [students with disabilities] cannot learn as fast when they are constantly being interrupted. [The students that have emotional disorders] you feel sorry [for these students] who have emotional disorder because there is nothing you can do. There is nothing that can really be done. When you have 23 other students and you have other students that have special needs in your classroom what can you do?

Betty described how there were many variables that contributed to the overall perception of students with high- incidence disabilities in her classroom. Most participants in her section of the city shared similar findings. She added:

I have found, especially this year, that my children have emotional struggles and challenges and there are multiple reasons and I do know that. However, that does not help a teacher in the classroom if you do not have the resources we need for the children. Their situations are emotional and academic at the same time. There are so many variables we work with as an educator and we have to deal with that because with the children that is a huge factor, and then you have to deal with the disabilities and then you have to deal with the system and all of the programs that they implement.

Theme Summary. In this theme, participants from each section of this school district reported that students with disabilities were being “set up” for failure both

95 academically and socially. Participants described this “set up” as the result of inconsistently provided services that make failure inevitable.

Theme 3: Impact of Behavior

The frustration that participants expressed about students with disabilities in their classroom often stemmed from students’ behaviors. Several of the participants described what a typical day was like for them and their interactions with the students with disabilities in their classrooms. All participants shared difficulties and challenges they have experienced with students with disabilities.

Judy, who teaches first grade at a Title I school in Section H, described the difficulties she experienced with a student without receiving his medication. As she vividly described behaviors, she expressed her frustration with not knowing what to do when these behaviors emerged. According to Judy,

In regards to their progress in class, the developmentally delayed student is trying. He has a special ed [education] teacher that pushes in and does inclusion and sometimes she does pull out. However, sometimes the autistic student that also has the Asperger’s he presents challenges everyday. He is on medication. However, the medication is not always given to him on a daily basis. He frequently disrupts the class, throws things. It is like a roller coaster with him. Some days he is ok. Some days he has something to contribute or he is off-task for the whole day. He has bouts with students where he can get aggressive. He has scratched other students.

The frustration Judy shared stemmed primarily from the inconsistencies she has observed from the medication that this student receives; her descriptions of these disruptive and sometimes violent behaviors were mostly observed when the student did not take his medication. Judy continued by sharing how this impacts other adults in the building who are trained to support her when students with disabilities exhibit these behaviors and how they potentially impact instruction:

The SPED [special education] teacher, he [the student with disabilities] hit her— closed hand and myself he scratched. He can become verbally aggressive with other students calling them names and umm kicking furniture over and he is very territorial. So if someone else comes in he doesn’t want them on the computer. He doesn’t want them at my desk. He doesn’t want them to touch me. It presents challenges because I have a class of 25 students. I do get a lot of support from our mental health team that work very closely with my class. They come in and do observations and pull him out when he has these meltdowns. He also receives counseling from our counselor in house. In regards to his mom, I believe that she does her best, but she does not know what to do with him. She needs to be more consistent with giving him medication at all.

The lack of consistent medication yields a domino effect on the outcome of the day and presented daily challenges for Judy. Judy continued to share how this student has “free will” to do what he wants to do and that she has trained her students to stay away from him when he has outbursts because she does not know what else to do and does not want others to get hurt. She shared that it was too much even with support. In Judy’s classroom it appears to revolve on the axis of a single student both physically (seating arrangements and Judy’s own attention. She shared:

So what I do to sort of kind of co-exist in this class with him; is one, I have to change everything—not just the work, but the classroom setting. So to zone in when he is having tantrums I have trained my students so that they know to stay away from him so that nothing physical happens to either party. His seating arrangements—his seat can be at my desk. It could be under my desk any desk in the classroom. He has free will to sit where he wants. Computer time is open for him. Small things for example writing with a pencil he may choose not to write with a pencil. I have adapted and allowed him to write with an ink pen. He is allowed to take breaks. He has fidget docs. He has bags with objects like Play- Doh where he can use those items to help him to stay focus and on task or to get out some type of stressor. In regards to how he adapts in the classroom with work he has a group that he comes back to in the morning. He is one of the ones that receives support from our special ed [education] teacher. When you receive support from me after the special ed [education] teacher is gone he is with my assistant to help him stay focused and not bother others. He is allowed to use the classroom’s personal iPad. No other student is allowed to do that. But he uses the iPad to access educational games that he could play on Lexia Core and ST Math.

Judy keeps this student in mind at the expense of the students in her class. She has adapted her instruction and time to address the need of this one student. She feels that without doing so the other students in her class will not receive the education that they need.

When asked about students in her classroom this school year that have disabilities, Natalie, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, described how the support of the special education teacher is needed. She, like Judy, felt that when her student that has

Autism Spectrum Disorder displayed behaviors such as meltdowns and tantrums, she neither knew what to do nor how to handle the student with disabilities. She shared how these outbursts were unpredictable and hard to manage. According to Natalie,

I have one student with autism and two that are diagnosed with ADHD this year. Diagnosed anyway (she starts laughing) because you know at that age. Our special ed [education] teacher is wonderful. I taught her son years ago. The child with autism is a big challenge behaviorally and umm she’s supposed to have five hours a week of special ed [education] instruction and the special ed [education] teacher pushes in usually. She typically comes in Monday and Wednesday mornings, and then for the last hour of the five hours she pulls her and a few other children but most of it is push in, and you know I feel that she is high-functioning academically so I don’t think that the planning is hard; but, the behavioral and social is what is the issue. Whenever she is in a small group [she] turns tables and plays games and things like that are difficult and if the special education teacher is not there and she is in a group it is pretty hard to manage that—the meltdowns and the outbursts are [too much]. [They—the outburts] don’t seem to have any rhyme or reason to them.

Natalie described the student as high-functioning and able to access content. However, the behaviors displayed appeared to be the most challenging for her as a general education teacher.

Similar to Natalie, Ann, a kindergarten teacher in a Title I teacher in Section D, described her “biggest challenge” this year and in doing so expressed her frustration of the behaviors that a student with disabilities exhibits in her classroom. According to Ann,

I have one little boy in my class this year who is probably my biggest challenge as a teacher because he has developmental delays, and I think up until first grade all IEPs are categorized as developmental delay and behavior so he tends to be really aggressive. He will bite. He will hit. He will spit. He will punch. And he also has an incredibly short attention span. It’s almost like he needs a dedicated aide, but that resource is not available right now for whatever reason. It could be that it is not on his IEP or that the school doesn’t have the money for it but umm he just needs constant redirection and it is really hard. It is challenging for me on how to meet his academic needs because he is very bright but I feel like every five seconds I have to tell him “Don’t touch other people.” I feel like it is a constant “Don’t do this, Don’t do this.” And I feel like my relationship with him is so negative and I hate it, but I don’t know how to change it.

While Ann has taught for three years, she shared similar frustrations as other participants in her same section of the city that have taught for longer. She recognized the student with disabilities as being a student who is capable of completing the work, but the constant disruptions of the behaviors inhibit his opportunities of finding success in her classroom.

Theme Summary. As compared to those discussed in this section, participants in other sections of the city primarily described challenges stemming from student behavior.

The description of the behaviors of students with disabilities appeared to be consistent across this school district and the responses from each participant were the same as they each described limited options for support and often unsure of what to do. Some participants shared how they have “trained their students” to ignore the behavior of students that are being disruptive, while other participants shared their own feeling of helplessness and how the behavior of students with disabilities usually brings their instruction to a halt.

Summary of Findings to Research Question 1

Research Question 1 asked: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with disabilities in their

99 classrooms? The researcher offered her interpretation and analysis based on the interviews of study participants which revealed three themes. These themes were: 1) “It was a disservice,” 2) Being “Set Up” Both Academically and Socially, and 3) Impact of

Behavior. Some of the themes shared common responses from participants across this school district and some themes were exclusive to one section of the city, Section H.

Student behaviors have been described in detail and most participants expressed an idea of being helpless when outbursts or tantrums were observed. Except for one participant, participants described their experiences with students with disabilities as negative as they had no choice or input as to which student or how many students with disabilities would be included in their classrooms. Participants often shared that students with disabilities could not keep up with the academic rigor or demands of the curriculum even when provided with accommodations and modifications.

Findings to Research Question 2

In this section, findings related to research question two will be discussed in detail. Research question 2 is: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? The researcher offers her interpretation and analysis based on the interviews with study participants. The data analysis process revealed three major themes for this research question. They are: 4)

Issues of being alone, 5) Feeling inadequate, and 6) Reluctant acceptance.

100

Theme 4: Issues of Being Stranded

Data were analyzed from study participants, whose responses addressed two separate experiences. The first is the issue of isolation or feeling stranded. With the exception of one participant, participants discussed how lonely they each felt being in the classroom by themselves with students that have disabilities. They reported along the lines of “it’s just me in there,” as a way of portraying the feeling of isolation and feeling stranded. Participants reported loneliness in a classroom of students with disabilities and non-disabled peers with tones of defeat. They felt that they were charged to teach students with no support. They felt like they all knew the goal was student achievement, but did not have a guide or a road map to determine how they were going to reach that goal. As a result, they felt stranded and alone.

Sally, a first grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H, shared her concerns of being in a class by herself with students that exhibit challenging behavior. She explained:

You know when you come to the first grade you don’t have the assistance and you can see the behavior progress. You know you don’t have any assistance to help with the disabilities—with these outbursts. You know these hypertension I mean hyperactivity and so that you have to work alone and try to manage and control all of these disabilities and behaviors in your classroom.

The feeling of being stranded was not exclusive to participants in Section H. Indeed, the feeling of being stranded was shared amongst all participants. Ann, a kindergarten teacher at a Title I elementary school in Section D, described her experiences with loneliness as being unsuccessful. She stated:

I do find it very challenging um at times to not have the kids in my classroom, but to meet the needs. I think that those are very two different things that I have had to learn—the child’s IEP and then the child’s needs, and umm I find that if it is

101

just me in the room and my TA [Teaching Assistant] is at lunch and I do not have any push-in support either with ESL [English as a Second Language] teacher or the SPED [Special Education] teachers it’s almost impossible for me to differentiate by myself ummm and meet the needs of my kids with IEPs and also the needs of the kids that don’t have IEPs. Umm I think teaching would be a lot easier if every child learned the same, but they don’t and that is why you need to differentiate and that’s when you have the product, the content and the environment and all of those things need to be different for every child.

She revealed a sense of guilt as she reported about the support that she had been provided and admits that she is unable to provide her full attention to meeting the needs of her students. She added:

Yeah so when it is just me so this afternoon it was just me and I had no help umm I kind of my go to is the whole group setting because when I send my kids to independent small group and there is no one there to regulate it is like just—it is a catastrophe. It blows up in my face. I do have a really really mature and independent group, but I do have about 4 or 5 kids who could be in a group like that umm regulating that group and the whole group I feel like I am taking away from each group it is just impossible to give my full attention to one group. For example, today I was doing a whole group math lesson on shapes and I had my kids sitting on the carpet and I had only 17 kids today and to me that is a small class. And I had them all building shapes with popsicle sticks. So there is kinesthetic you know there is manipulatives and an anchor chart on the board. I am trying to meet multiple modalities. I am scooting around you know working with kids and it is like the second I work with one or two kids for literally one minute, I turn around and it is like the popsicle sticks are in an ear or up a nose and it is like by myself it is so hard and I do have these 5 kids with IEPs and umm designated math goals and umm I don’t even know if this specific lesson or this specific content is explicitly meeting their math goals. I mean when it is just me like I said there is but so much that I can do and it is hard and really frustrating and I find myself snapping at my kids and when I realize what I am doing I hate it. Ann continued:

I think that ideally and in a perfect world that the student teacher ratio would be I mean I don’t know one teacher to six or seven kids or eight kids, but when there is one teacher to 18 kids, five of which have IEPs I mean huh oh my gosh I can give as many visual cues or like today I tried to give my kids ABC charts and phonics charts and umm they could trace the letters in sand, I mean different ways to access the content, but again it is like it is just me and I feel really overwhelmed a lot of the time.

102

All participants—even those that hold degrees in special education—disclosed that they did not have the proper skills to service students with disabilities in their classrooms. Judy admitted that she does not have the skillset to have students with disabilities in her first grade class at a Title I school in Section H. She shared:

I feel like it is very difficult to have them in the class, because I do not feel like I get to the skills that they need assistance in. I feel like I cannot service them the way that they need to be served, not because I do not want to because I am just one person and I have 25 people [other students] in my class.

Ann was not the only participant who noted mingled feelings of guilt and frustration about students with disabilities in their classrooms. With the exception of one, participants who had access to the current IEPs of students with disabilities admitted that they could not properly address goals that have been identified on the IEPs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classes. Many participants recognized that when left in the classroom without the support of a special education teacher, they become uncertain of what to do and how to support students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. When asked about implementation of IEP goals for students in her class, Betty, a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, shared:

Ms. Fulbright is our special ed [education] teacher that works with us. Whatever the hours of choice they are supposed to be rendered, she keeps them pretty much on task. However, that has nothing necessarily to do with the meltdowns that they have in the classroom. Because when you are there, you are alone. [You] are there by yourself to deal with those meltdowns. You are continuously taking attention away from the children who are there waiting to learn and you are constantly losing them and have to get them back because of the children who have these severe meltdowns constantly.

Betty expressed very strongly the risks of being the only adult in a classroom with students that have meltdown and outbursts that are unpredictable and uncontrolled. She

103 expressed her own theory on why general education teachers should not teach students with disabilities. Betty claimed:

It is my belief no regular ed [education] teacher should be in an inclusion classroom alone with her inclusion students his or her students. No general ed [education] teacher should be in there alone. Here is why. We are general ed [education] teachers and we did not go to school to master special education. So I feel like that is one of the main reasons we should not be in the classroom alone as an inclusion class without a SPED [special education] teacher.

Larry, a fifth grade teacher in a Title I school in Section D discussed job security in detail and how it impacts his ability to share what he feels he needs to share. Unlike most participants, Larry was one of six participants that had a background in special education and felt that he was more than qualified to share his professional recommendations when it came to placement of students. However, he admitted that job security often keeps him quiet and therefore, he does not share what he feels that he should to parents concerning students with disabilities in his classroom. He feels that he would get penalized for sharing that information to a parent and would often keep silent.

He shared that his school was doing all that they could for a student and have hit a wall when it came to services. This would often mean that a parent would have to get a lawyer to possibly sue the school district. He is the only participant that shared that he wanted to get a parent involved by finding another school for the student, but remained silent about his decision to carry his recommendation forward out of fear of being penalized. He stated:

So yes I am a teacher, but I am an educational advocate. I can say I should be able to say your child needs the least restrictive environment and these are the strategies that we have done here. This is what we can do in this school, but these things are what you need and this school is not applying that and don’t have it. That’s the truth serum that needs to happen. The undercurrent is my job is on the line.

104

He continued:

Job security plays into it because we are in a punitive system here in [this school district]. Everything is around that ladder and if you don’t do as I say and follow these expectations, then we [will] get another young yuppie who wants to do it. So they could move forward. And I am not a microwave teacher. I went through a program. I did not go through you know, the workshop and came here and said, “Hey I am going to change the world.”

He spoke specifically about job security and how it keeps him silent when it comes to making some decisions. He expressed a conviction of what he knows to be ethically sound to the fear that he holds with the decision to remain silent. He expressed being torn between what is right and the fear of what may happen if he actually would speak up and tell the truth.

Theme Summary. In this theme data revealed participants’ experiences of being alone and feeling stranded in a classroom mixed with students with disabilities and non- disabled peers. Participants across this school district expressed the same concerns of having to stop instruction to address behaviors which was “not fair” to the other students in the classroom. Participants shared that assistance is consistently needed for students with disabilities daily in order for instructional time to be maximized. No participants expressed positive interactions of this feeling of being stranded and isolated. They described this feeling of being stranded in a negative albeit unintentional, way.

Theme 5: Feeling inadequate

In their interviews, participants also participants discussed the challenges of trying to balance instruction and behavior while addressing the individual goals for students with disabilities in terms of being “too much” to handle. Additionally, participants expressed that planning for students with disabilities required too much time and they were not always capable of fully executing lessons to engage all learners. When

105 describing the planning time that is required for students with disabilities, most participants felt that it was just “too much” time. When describing the amount of planning time dedicated to meet the needs of students with disabilities in her classroom,

Jody, a first grade teacher at a Title I school. in Section H shared:

So what I am planning for is umm I try to group the kids by their abilities, but even though I said the kids have developmental delays some of the kids developmental delays may result from them not being able to sit still listen the maturity part of it and not so much of all of the academic parts of it, so some of their developmental delays stem from them not being able to listen. So when I am at the table teaching a lesson and I have a kid that doesn’t understand that I am here to do work and they are still in the playing stages and they want to sit in my lap. They want to stroke my hair. They want to walk around the classroom. Planning requires a lot because I need to do something different to get that student’s attention so that he could come to the table and so I can remind them of “We are here to learn today. Ok I need you to sit down. Let’s just concentrate on this right here.” They are not really at that point yet where they are thinking about that. They are more in a developmental delayed stage where they are 2 or 3 years behind their peers and probably need like you know more social interactions with their learning process rather than having traditional type of learning.

Most participants shared her same findings about students with disabilities. Jody was the only participant with over twenty years of experience who shared these sentiments. She expressed how planning requires a lot for her. She has to address students in all ranges (high, middle, and low). She added:

So when it comes to my ratings in my classroom so the idea of saying that everyone is included in my [data] and has the same expectations and the same goals when they have an IEP that says that their learning requires something else has made me have to redesign to see how I can get their goals to match up with students that are actually on grade level or close to grade level so that they won’t be out of the learning process. So the effect that it has is tremendous because it makes me have to plan for not only top, middle and low students and then I have to also plan for each individual student with an IEP. It’s just too much!

Lucy, a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section D, believes that planning requires a lot, but feels that students can be successful if the teacher believes they can be.

106

She believes that if she spends enough time planning lessons to meet the needs of all students, that students with disabilities will have greater chances of being successful. She believes that students can be successful if teachers believe they can be. Lucy was the only participant who made a direct connection between how the teacher feels about the student and the success of that student, especially if that student has disabilities. She declared:

I think that kind of stems from the teacher’s beliefs. I think that whether or not they are distracted or why they may not be completing their work, it kind if depends on how the teacher kind of sets up the classroom or how the environment is. Are they working with groups? Are they reminding them to complete the work? If the teacher believes that they can do it, I believe what the teacher believes is huge and I think a lot of times, I don’t necessarily feel like we have the environment or that our expectations are not as high. I know we keep our expectations really high for all students and I think we get the results that we want from our special needs students and obviously there’s gonna be a few that gen ed, special ed, English language learners that are not performing at the expectations but that’s life. [She laughs.]

Marcia, a first grade teacher in Section F, described planning for her students.

She expressed that she had to do a lot of work on her own to gather resources to meet the needs of students in her class. Because there is a lack of resources readily available for her, she has taken her own initiative to seek resources that may be helpful for her students with disabilities. She shared:

I am going to say as far as resources—on my own. You know, not actually given to me—that I have developed on my own, doing my own research and things of that nature. Spending a lot of time thinking about them and how to bring them up or help them to become fluent with whatever they are struggling with so yeah, I do my own you know. This one kid, two kids I am thinking of in particular—I know they struggle with reading, like makings sure when we are playing a game making sure that they have vocab and are able to play that game and like really, really getting them to help them you know understand and recognize high frequency words. Those are things that I have done on my own.

107

While Barbara, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, described a student that has a disorder, she discussed her position as this student’s teacher, and of what she does to plan for this student. She shared:

For my student with the ODD [Operational Defiance Disorder], my planning for him doesn’t look any different because he can function on the same level as everybody else. In fact he is higher than some of my other students, which is fortunate for all of them. Unfortunately for my other student, I have to write a completely different plan for him because he is not where they are in any sense. The only thing that we do the same for him is in our read aloud and our questions. Even with how he answers the questions and how he connects with the book is different than everybody else. So I have to do a completely different plan for him. We may be working on storybook elements as a whole and he would be off at the guided reading table and working on forming letters so he could write his name.

For Barbara and others, it can be a challenging experience ensure that all of her students are receiving the same caliber of instruction when they cannot participate in variations of the same activity.

Grace, a fourth grade teacher in Section D, compared planning for students with disabilities to students without disabilities. She shared that planning was much easier for students without disabilities than for students with disabilities. She credits that to her background in education and that her teaching background was for students in the general population. She states:

The students that I have for one hour the gen ed [education] students are much easier to plan for. Primarily I was trained as a general education teacher. [In] my opinion, a teacher is a teacher; so you teach everybody. They need a special education teacher for real, but that is not what my education is in. The special education student that I work with for three hours requires a lot of planning because the student does not speak. The student really does not have a long attention span. So the student walks [around] majority of the time. I have to plan like Montessori almost, and I have to set up little center stations all around the area that the student will walk in so that if he walks in this area he will have an activity. So we just kind of work wherever we end up, but I have a plan. It is a lot of planning, which is much more difficult than the general education students.

108

Catherine, a fifth grade teacher in Section D, discussed how the program that her school has adopted is very rigorous. While she believes that students with disabilities are doing a better job in accessing materials than those students from previous years, she still believes that these students are far behind and need more support to “catch up.” She shared:

It is hard because we hit a lot of the IB work for exhibition during our ELA time so they are not with us so the things that we do—like the research and reading— we are like building them up for that throughout the year. So then what happens is they are doing some of it with their SPED teachers but the natural build up with the projects at the end gets a little hard for them. But what we try to do for them is to be mindful—like group them with kids so that they could get the support that they need. Last year was my first experience having to do exhibition and it was interesting because as much as the students saw my class and their SPED teacher’s class in isolation, when it came time to do the paper and the research for the work as long as they had a guide they were fine so like we may not have had something—the quality might not have been the same as someone else’s—but they were able to be like ok so this is the topic and this is the research that is on that topic should I underline this is this about the topic that I was trying to do and I was like yes. As long as they have a guide, like this is your intro, this is your body paragraph, this body paragraph has to be about one topic and another topic and pull from this information and organize it. It was all about giving them that guide and last year it was hard. They did not have that same build up. This year I am having a little more of an opportunity to do a build up with them through the curriculum and having them in there for that stuff. Catherine also shared her frustrations with trying to get the same students with disabilities to complete tasks. She shared how most of her students with disabilities are pulled out of her class and have lessons with the special education teacher. She expressed how sometimes students feel that they may not have to complete the work since they completed work with their special education teacher. She added:

So umm Common Core it would be the SPED [special education] teacher, but when it is like the cornerstones and we are an IB school so they have their exhibition projects and it all falls on us as the general ed [education] teacher. So it kind of gets a little hard because especially when that relationship hasn’t been built with the student, when they feel like they do not have to do the work when they come in here. Like they feel like they do not have to do the work. But I think that this year, like I was just talking to the people outside like the science

109

stuff requires them to do so much and they knew that they had to do so much so it is like the mentality of the kids this year is like I have to do this work versus what it was like last year. They have had to do so much with me. So it is not like foreign that they have to do so much work with me like versus in the past they would do the bulk of it with the SPED [special education] teacher and that is it.

Georgia, a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, described her planning for students with disabilities as being very difficult. She describes how complex planning can be from lesson planning to seating arrangements for students. She describes the challenges in keeping students engaged and also trying to motivate students who may appear to be less motivated to engage in content. She stated:

Well it is very challenging! I have to try and come up with activities to do with the students. And I am very, very careful with how I approach them and the words that I use. I try to seat them in areas where I know they will get along with the student next to them. I try to be very encouraging. Some of the students who are reading below grade level, I will have them move up to the front of the room so that they could see better; but we are talking about six children that have special needs and they are not being serviced or getting any of the services that they need.

Many participants felt incapable or less confident in their abilities to teach students with disabilities as they did not “go to school” for this type of teaching that students with high-incidence disabilities required. Study participants felt that because their background in special education was limited, they were incapable of successfully implementing goals and adjusting instruction to meet the needs that students with high- incidence disabilities required. Participants’ frustrations stemmed from two areas. The first was their own educational background; many participants shared that their educational background did not include training in special education. The second frustration stemmed from the school district in which they worked. All participants acknowledged the need for additional training from the school district should be offered, and felt that training should reflect the ever-changing needs of the classrooms.

110

When participants were asked about their overall competence in teaching students with disabilities, many teachers felt that they were not “properly trained” to work with students with disabilities and that they need more training in order to be successful with students with disabilities. According to Judy, the first grade teacher at a Title I school in

Section H, she felt that both the special education teachers and general education teachers need more training. She stated:

I think that general education teachers need to be properly trained. Courses need to be offered on best practices on how to serve these students with diagnosis or challenges that the children may have that we have never heard of before and we are expected to teach them. Umm we don’t know triggers. For example umm color—a certain color might be a trigger and I am wearing that color or music or noise. So it would be nice to include us on professional developments that would help us to better serve our students both general and special ed [education].

Barbara, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, shared her consideration to go back to school. She believes that if she gets another degree she would be better able to meet the needs of her students. She shared:

I do have student and he is not diagnosed with anything per se but he has a human growth deficiency. He is not going to be very tall when he gets older and he is delayed in everything because of it. I have not really seen anything coming from central office that would support him. I can always reach out to the special education teacher which we only have one in our building, and she has to manage all of the sped [special education] in our building. We can certainly use a whole lot more support. In terms of Common Core, the standards are what the standards are. We could always advocate with a 504 plan to make things more [accessible] or to give more time or whatever the accommodation needs to be, we can do. The sad truth about that is while he is making some significant gains by the end of the school year he will still not be where he needs to be to move on. I am not even sure what support I should even ask for in that regard. So that is just me, maybe I need to go back and get a degree in special education. I am definitely open to that. I certainly need more support.

Participants ultimately expressed the need to have additional training in this area in order to support their students with disabilities to the degree that those students require and

111 deserve. They felt that coursework should be offered. Some even ventured the need to go back to school to be able to assist students.

Theme Summary. All participants expressed the need to have additional training in special education. Participants felt that they were not qualified to properly service students with disabilities in their classrooms. This belief is contrary to participants’ initial feelings about the placements of students. Participants felt that students with high- incidence disabilities should be placed in their classrooms, but in this theme further data reveals that participants feel that they are incapable of meeting the needs of students with disabilities.

Theme 6: Reluctant Acceptance

Participants shared emotional responses when they explained their perceptions of the academic and social abilities of students with disabilities. One emerging theme was a sense of reluctant acceptance. With the exception of one participant, participants noted they had no choice on the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms and had no choice but to accept these students into their classrooms. Participants further shared how omitting their input on student selection increased their anger and frustration towards students with disabilities.

Jody, the first grade teacher at a Title I elementary school in Section H, shared how she felt the weight of these behavioral challenges with students with disabilities first started with the school district’s decision to place all students back into the general education classroom without receiving input from classroom teachers about how this decision might impact instruction for all students, including non-disabled students. She felt that this decision was solely made from a financial stance, with no regard on how it

112 might academically, socially and educationally impact other students and teachers. She shared:

I think that the biggest part when the new reform came in in 2009 is whatever they [Central Office] said that there is no such thing as special education. Every kid should be treated the same, but I think that all stemmed from money. How do we realm [bring] our special education students back into the city? Let’s coin a new phrase and say that everybody is gonna be the same and they [Central Office] are ignoring the fact that everyone is not the same and it is not our world. I do understand the situation about special education. I want you in my room because I know that there is no such thing as special education in the world outside. There is no such thing as a special education bank. There is no such thing as a special education grocery store. You still have to function in the general population, but I think that from Central Office point of view, that wasn’t the point of view that they were taking. They were taking the point of view of we are gonna save money. We are gonna put these kids back in the classroom. We don’t want to hear what teachers have to say just teach these kids.

Jody, like many other participants, felt the decision from Central Office to bring students with disabilities back to local schools and no longer pay for private education was a decision solely made to save this school district money. She strongly felt that this move was strategic for money purposes and not for the best interests of the students with disabilities. She also did not feel that teachers were prepared to receive students once they returned to local schools. She cited lack of training and support as reasons why local schools were not ready to receive students with disabilities.

Jody, continued by sharing her experiences of accepting students in her class without her thoughts on who should be included on her class roster. She shared:

Ok on average this year I have 4 special ed [education] students. Because I teach first grade all of them were labeled uh DD which is Developmental Delayed and out of the 4 only one of them had a specific one ID, which is intellectually delayed and the way that it affects my classroom is because the delays I did not really understand what their developmental delays were. We are only supposed to get snapshots of the kids’ disabilities and we get a chance to see their IEPs but building from that was not enough for me to decide what I needed to do with these students. They are grouped into the regular population, which means that their test data is in the same as all other test data.

113

She described the absence of an invitation for her input and the lack of information about the students with disabilities included in her class as causing her levels of frustration to increase. She not only admits that her voice was omitted; she also felt that there was more information needed about each of the four students with disabilities that she neither had nor knew where to find to better educate herself and better serve these students.

Deborah, a second grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, described the inclusion model used at her school for students with disabilities. She shared how frustrated she has been with the implementation of this model at her school. In her description, reluctant acceptance had mainly to do with the staff turnover at her school.

She shared:

I feel that they [Central Office] are more wanting everyone to be in the classroom and to push in. Last year we had a SPED [special education] team, where they [special education teachers] pulled kids out for two hours according to their hours. Some kids had ten hours a week. Some had 15 hours a week and they [special education teachers] would pull them out and they [students with high-incidence disabilities] worked with the SPED teacher in another classroom with other kids on their same level. This year everyone is in the classroom. Everything is push in. I don’t think it works. I think they [her school administration] are doing this mostly because they mostly don’t know what to do because all of the SPED teachers quit last year. So everyone is new and the principal does not know how to get the help that they [students with high incidence disabilities] need.

Deborah revealed that her school does not have appropriate staff to provide the support needed to ensure the success of students with disabilities in her classroom and in her school. All participants shared that students with disabilities could not help themselves and that participants had to just ‘deal’ with their behaviors and academic concerns.

Because laws have changed assigning students with high incidence disabilities to be in

114 the least restricted environment, participants shared that they have no choice or say of who enters their classrooms.

Theme Summary. This theme emerged from participants voicing that they have no choice or say about who can enter their classrooms and who they have to teach. With the exception of one participant, all the teachers that participated in this study expressed that their hands were tied of who they could teach and how they would teach students with disabilities. Participants shared that lack of support, misinformation, lack of appropriate staff, and district mandates have all added to this idea of reluctant acceptance of the responsibility of teaching students at vastly different levels of mental, social, behavioral and physical development in their classrooms.

Summary to Findings for Research Question 2

Research Question 2 raised the following issues: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their competence in teaching students with high- incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? The researcher offered her interpretation and analysis based on the interviews of study participants which revealed three themes. These themes were: 4) issues of being alone, 5) feeling inadequate, and 6) reluctant acceptance. Data revealed consistencies across participants about their perceived inabilities to teach students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms to a satisfactory degree. All participants felt that more training is needed from their school district, and many shared that if given the opportunity, they would pursue another degree in special education to support the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. All participants expressed the need to have an additional teacher, preferably a special education teacher, in the

115 classroom with them throughout the day to support all students and to create a better balance of instruction for both students with disabilities and their non-disabled students.

Findings to Research Question 3

In this section, findings related to Research Question 3 will be discussed in detail.

Research Question 3 is: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their supports for inclusion within the school and within the classroom? The data analysis process revealed two major themes for this research question: flaws in identifying students who need help and a variety of issues with support. The researcher offers her interpretation and analysis based on the interviews with study participants.

Theme 7: Flaws in Identifying Students Who Need Help

All participants shared that there are a number of students that need to be identified to receive special education services and are not being identified accurately or in a timely manner. All participants also revealed that the number of students that are not being identified is causing an even larger gap in achievement and also diminishes the support that may be necessary to educate students with disabilities. Nineteen participants shared how these flaws present competing challenges for students that already receive services. The process to identify students was a major concern for participants who taught in Section H. Participants in this section described in detail how they would often receive pushback from either administration or the special education team at their schools to determine eligibility of services for students who needed this support.

Betty, a first grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H shared her frustration with the decision-making system. She noted that she believes that the needs of students are much greater than what a single teacher can provide. She revealed:

116

The problem is that we are a one-man band, and when you have as many as four children that are identified and then you may have seen who are not and those seven who are not identified are coming from kindergarten. One reason why I say this is because….they [Central Office], make it so difficult to identify children who have special needs and one of the other problems with being in this school is that it is not staffed budget-wise enough to see what you can get and the resources that you truly need to work with the needs of the children.

Similarly, Sally, a first grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H shared her disappointment with support for students that exhibit challenges in behavioral and academic areas. She shared how her administration team has discouraged her from making referrals for students to receive services even when there is a great need. She revealed:

There is no support. The administration [doesn’t] want you to per se test the children. They say there are too many children with IEPs—too many disabilities, but they are trying to do away with servicing children with disabilities at this particular time. I do not know why and so it is making it very difficult for the teacher to, you know, do instructions because there are so many disabilities that are gone unnoticed because they do not want you to write them up or have IEPs or service them because they feel that there are too many children that they would have to, you know, test and they don’t want to do that. They don’t want to show that they have a large group that they have a large population of children with IEPs so they don’t want to do that.

Sally explained how the discouragement from her school’s administration team tremendously impacts the total outcome of the academic achievement in her class and creates even greater challenges later. Deborah, a second grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H, shared how students are so far behind academically that referring students to special education is the only way that they could receive the support that they need.

She added:

Yes. The kids in my classroom are on PC [Print Concepts—a reading level at the end of pre-kindergarten]. They really don’t know anything. They don’t know letter sounds. You know letter sounds, blends, nothing, but if they can tap out things, but when you ask them to say it they say something totally different. So there is no way. There is so many of them that are not just in the classroom, but

117

throughout the school, that are not identified and mainly because we were told at the beginning of the year that teachers over-exaggerate the issues of our students cause in this school there are only nine SPED [special education] students in the whole school.

Deborah shared similar responses from participants that taught in Section H. While

Section H has been identified as the poorest section of this city, it also appeared that this section of the city had the greatest need for support.

Georgia, a first grade teacher at another Title I school in Section H shared her frustration in the process to identify students. She believes that there is a growing population of students that are not being identified because they have developmental issues that are not as noticeable as behavioral concerns. She shared:

A lot of students are not being identified, especially the ones who do not have behavioral issues. The kids who get identified are the students with the behavior issues and then there are lots of kids who really you just know that they are not making adequate progress so why aren’t they being tested? They just let those students slide.

Georgia was the only participant to voice the observation that students who do not display disruptive behavior can still be extremely behind academically. These students whose visible traits bely their learning disabilities often do not receive a referral for services. Because the behaviors of these students do not negatively impact instruction, most of these students will not receive a referral for services until much later, if it all.

While the process to identify has been challenging, Georgia has seen some improvement with the process at her school. Georgia added:

I will say that it has improved since when I started with [this school district] ten years ago there was virtually no support. Special ed [education] teachers never came into our classrooms and a lot of those teachers well I am getting well not that much support this year, but I am able to manage the classroom pretty well. But uhmm, I think it has improved because there seems to be a little bit more support with the administration as far as there is a process and a procedure that we have to go through, so eventually like I said with the students who have emotional

118

disabilities, if you have done a lot of documenting they will receive those supports and they will test him.

She continued by discussing the process as being very slow to identify students, which creates another barrier. Georgia described this process as a tug of war. She would identify a need of the student and get resistance from the team for testing. She continued:

…But the process is just so slow and I feel like there is a lot of push back where I am seeing some students who I know should be identified and should be tested and they are not. They are not. They [the administration] will push back and say we have too much on our plate. We have too much on our agenda. We can’t include any more kids. So there is pushback and really I had a student last year maybe it was the year before, he had a speech impediment and in addition to that he was reading below grade level about a year and a half to two years below grade level and I had asked would you please assist him because I have worked with him. I have worked with him one on one and he is not showing the progress that I think he should be. And he was already identified as speech as having difficulties with speech and um speech impediment and they said no (she starts laughing) but I was like he is already in your system. Can’t you just provide this and they said there is no reason. There is always this pushback.

When asked if additional testing should be completed to determine additional services for students, Georgia stated:

I think they should. I honestly think they should because a lot of students are not being identified especially the students who do not have the behavioral issues. The kids who get identified are the students with the behavior issues and then there are lots of kids who really, you just know that they are not making adequate progress so why aren’t they being tested. They just let those students slide. Just like I said with the student with the speech impediment. You already know he is in your system, why wouldn’t you do that. (Starts to laugh). I don’t know what the communication is between the special ed [education] coordinator and [Central Office] and administration. I don’t know. But that’s all I’ve heard. No you have too many. I don’t know what is going on. I just know what is happening when I provide the documentation and I will provide a lot of documentation. I spend my weekends writing and writing and writing and documenting everything because I want the students to get the services that they need. I just know from my perspective there is a lot of pushback.

119

Georgia, like all of the participants in Section H described the process of identifying students as a barrier to meeting their learning needs, which in turn creates an even wider achievement gap for students.

Theme Summary. This theme emerged exclusively from interviews with participants in Section H, who were extremely vocal about the challenges they have faced when requesting a referral to receive special education services for their students with disabilities. They described in detail roadblocks to obtaining these requests from administration, Central Office and their special education team at their school.

Theme 8: Issues of Support

Most participants shared that there is a lack of school-wide support and that this lack causes them to be frustrated. Participants identified four sources of their frustration:

1) school-level support with special education teacher, 2) school-level support with administration, 3) parents, and 4) Central Office support. Deborah, a second grade teacher at a Title I school in Section H, shared the lack of support she receives for the students with disabilities in her classroom. She shared:

It is just tough and then when you talk about general ed [education] if the general is not getting what they want then you know SPED [special education] is not getting what they want, you know the students with disabilities are not getting what they want. You know that as a fact. So I’m like how is it [like] that but it always boils down to it’s the teachers’ fault. If you question their [administrators’] motives, if you question their [administrators’] actions then you’re wrong. You are out to get them [administrators] so they are going to get you first, but no one thinks about these kids. When a child is allowed to come to school everyday and curse a teacher all day long, and teacher is calling security and the security is calling for help because it is way too much and the principal never comes out of her office, never shows her face, how does that help our kids and the kids know already, “Aww she not going to do nothing” [she shrugged her head and hand acting as if she was a kid.] they know. So how you helping them [students with high-incidence disabilities]. You just adding to society’s I guess thoughts and how society views them [students with high-incidence disabilities].

120

You helping society keep them [students with high-incidence disabilities] down by not standing up for them [students with high-incidence disabilities].

Participants shared that they were “burned out” and did not want to remain in this profession because of the lack of support they have received. This expression of burnout primarily reflected the attitude of teachers in Section H. With the exception of one participant in Section H, most of the participants in this section of the city had over 15 years of teaching experience. Participants in Section H collectively had the most teaching experience in this study. However, they were the participants who shared the greatest concern of burnout or the need to retire. Deborah added:

How can you fix it where teachers want to come to work? We get sick. Like we plan [to call] out. Ok I am tired. I am gonna take this day. We get a calendar out and plan out our time. Ok when is your time? And then it got to the point where they [were] trying to put restrictions on our time. No, because you are not in the trenches. Maybe I would have—maybe you would know how we felt if you were down here digging in the trenches with us instead of sitting on your throne dictating. Because that is bad management when the only thing you can do is dictate. You know the morale in here is broken. I mean teachers, if we don’t stick together we won’t make it everyday. We won’t make it. Because I was ready to leave [resign from her position] in October and that was only a month after school started. But you have a system that thinks this is ok. Kids’ behavior and this is ok. And then you have a principal who talks about implementing certain things like PBIS [Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports] and we are not doing it right. I am from New York. I know PBIS. It works when you do it right. Because you didn’t want to pay for the program, you want to knick pick certain stuff out of the program and thinking that you can implement certain pieces of the program.

Most participants—especially participants in this section of this school district— described the support they receive from administration as negative. Most participants shared the lack of consistent follow-through by administration when it came to implementation of programs that were designed to target and support behaviors of students with disabilities. Deborah added:

121

It [teaching students with disabilities] is like taking pieces of the puzzle. First of all if you take different parts of a puzzle and put them together it is not a puzzle and the pieces are not going to fit so you can’t do things like that and say that you are looking out for our students that you are looking out for our kids. That’s impossible. That’s definitely impossible. And I say it every day. I used to pray that God would just take the caring for these kids out of my heart. So that way I could just do what I got to do and just leave. Because if you are mad you are passionate. If you can come up in here and this does not phase you then you are cold-hearted. You could tell the teachers in here who actually care and those who don’t. There’s no way you can come up here and not feel something. But we have a principal that comes up in here and feels nothing. This stuff that we go through in the classroom does not phase her at all. To her it is just apart of the job. So we will never get what they could do for [our] elementary school. What they need to do is close it down and turn it into two charter schools.

Ann, a kindergarten teacher at a Title I elementary school in Section D spoke of how she felt that she wishes she could fix students with disabilities. When describing strategies she has received from the special education teacher, she revealed:

Well, in the beginning of the year, quite a bit. I would work with the special education teacher that was designated to my room and also other special education teachers who have had children on their caseload, like this child. They gave me some great pointers and ideas and resources. I think that that is where most of my frustration stems is because I feel like it is not working. I feel that it is a very dangerous mindset to be in that I am very fixated because I don’t think that is how you teach. You don’t teach with the goal of fixing a child, but at the same time, I wish, I wish so much that I could find something that works.

Ann shared that support was provided, but it was ineffective and it ultimately makes her feel that she is incapable of teaching students with disabilities.

Larry, a fifth grade teacher in a Title I school in Section D explained his frustration with a specific school that he once worked at. He felt that he had to implement things that were written on paper that were not particularly committed to practice. He stated,

I have been in those situations. So, I have been under these restraints that I felt as a professional—an educational professional—I was in corners in the public school system. I was mandated by schools, that we were facilitating certain things under the special ed [education] requirements and knowing that those were not truths.

122

Larry added:

And then so you have not just teacher burn out you have students that don’t feel like to coming to school. You have situations that you know and they put a blind eye to it and sweep it under the rug and they say, “You know they are special ed [education students]. We can’t suspend,” and you know. They blame it on the child and say, “It is their disability. We can’t suspend,” and you know we have to have certain things and they force you know, the teachers to feel [bad], you know it is a beaten you know [beats his hands]. It comes to you know. I know the tape does not get all of that. [Starts laughing.]

Larry was describing how his experience has been with administrators concerning students with disabilities. He shared how he becomes frustrated with not just his school, but with this school district as a whole. He, like most participants, felt that the decision to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom was a decision that was not well-developed and did not consider the potential impacts and ripple effects it would have not just on classroom teachers, but on the school system at large.

Most participants, especially participants in Section H, felt that if they took matters into their own hands concerning the discipline of students with disabilities in their classrooms, it would be more punitive than rewarding for these participants. For instance, Jody a first grade teacher in a Title I school in Section H shared how the administration at her school provides her with little support when it comes to the discipline of students with disabilities in her classroom. She gave an example of a behavioral management strategy involving a system of rewards for good behavior that would be incongruous with the school’s line of thinking:

Because if you have a kid that has a special need and they don’t have that time where they can say a self-gratification about I am waiting for the end of the day to get mine that doesn’t work for them so you might want to say, “Hey, I gave you five coins today, here’s your coins and they are just lined up on your desk. Your job is to keep these five coins.” And the way you [the teacher] can do it is you go over to them and say, “These are the expectations for keeping the coins. If you have one of the coins at the end of the day you can still make it to the treasure

123

box.” So they start with five coins. Administration would say, “No, that is punitive because what if the student does not get those coins. That’s not right Mrs. Teacher because we want all of the kids to get a gift and we don’t want the kids not to get a gift.” So I am like, what is the discipline, what is the management here?

Her strategy for maintaining discipline and order in her classroom used to be that she would be able to keep students who did not complete the work during instructional time in for recess. She was the only participant who shared these views on discipline in her class and felt that if she could not keep students in for recess that her administration did not provide her with any other alternatives for disciplining student with disabilities in her classroom. She stated:

So I really do not know how for sure our discipline policy is because if the Chancellor says that we cannot make them stay in [to] finish the work that they refuse to do during class time, but then they are outside playing. “No you can’t do that.” Remember how teachers used to say, “Oh you played during class time” so now it is their time to play and the teacher can say, “No you will finish this work,” even though that kid isn’t really being punished. That kid is receiving additional support. You are getting one-on-one with me to get some work done. You really need to get the work done that you really need to do instead of going outside and punching on a couple of kids. They said no. It could cost you your job.

Janet a fifth grade teacher at a Title I school in Section D described the support that she receives from parents as passive. She feels that she is the one that is being proactive about the class assignments and other information concerning success in the classroom, and that parents are not reciprocating the efforts has made. She stated:

I definitely have been in communication with parents of my SPED [special education] students. In years past, I definitely felt as though they were more involved. Um I think this year the involvement is a bit passive in a way um so um, I mean and in my opinion I think that as a parent if I had a student that was, you know, that needed a little bit more attention I think that, you know, and I get it parents work—I work and I can not always be at my child’s school—that I would just try to be a little more involved and stay on top of it like, where is the homework coming to parent teacher conference and in my class. I email so if you

124

cannot be in the school you can still be involved. Like I have a class Facebook page so I post the homework everyday to the class Facebook page.

Janet was the only teacher to discuss in great detail about her efforts to ensure that parents were aware of deficits like missing assignments and steps she takes to ensure that parents have an update of how their students with disabilities are performing her class.

However, she voiced what most participants identified as an area that lacked appropriate support—that is, with the parents of students with disabilities. She stated:

But it took me to reach out [to parents], you know what I mean, and so I just feel like, you know, if my child was a SPED [special education] student, I am not going to wait until there’s a deficit, that he is lacking something before, you know, I am doing something in my opinion. And I feel as though, you know, that is how most of my students with SPED [services] cases are this year in comparison to last year and the year before that.

She reiterated that parents seem less interested in the academic needs of students with disabilities than her non-disabled students. This was an unfortunate revelation for this teacher and she tried to address. Her approach was to make calls to parents and engage them in such a way to remind them that these students matter just as much as the students without disabilities.

However, Natalie, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, shared a different viewpoint when it comes to parental support. She identified the support that she receives from parents as very strong, and described these parents as heavily involved in the education of their children, especially when their children have disabilities. She shared:

There are a group of parents there are some—without telling you too much information about the student that I have with autism—her father is a congressman. They [the student’s parents] get whatever they want whenever they want it, and they are pushy about it. Umm it is great for the kid. She is getting everything and you know there is no doubt about it on top of it, but that is not fair to all of the other kids who don’t have parents like that. Our parents are generally supportive if you are working hard and doing the best you can for the kids, and

125

they are very vocal and politically connected—willing to say and do whatever they need to get what their kids need. I know it is not the majority of DC.

Natalie was the only participant that shared how influential some of the parents are towards the special education services and support that the school provides their children and teachers. She was also aware of how uncommon this situation is with most other schools, like the majority of schools represented in this study.

Theme Summary. While most participants felt the support that they have received was inadequate and ineffective, there was little desire to seek a better way to service students with disabilities in their classrooms. Most participants described their requests for support as discouraging and the lack of consistent follow-through have diminished their expectations towards the development and implementation of best practices for inclusion. Though there was one participant who shared how influential the parent support has been for students with high-incidence disabilities in her classroom, she was the only participant to share such views. Most participants felt that more support was needed from administration and parents alike to support students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom.

Summary to Research Question 3

Research Question 3 asked: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the support for inclusion within the school and within the classroom? The researcher offered her interpretation and analysis based on the interviews of study participants, which revealed two themes: 7) Flaws in Identifying Students Who Need

Help, and 8) Issues of Support. Some of the themes were common across schools and some were saturated in one section of the district. Study participants shared how support impacts their perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities. Study participants

126 also shared how the process to identify students who are in need of services impacts the entire classroom, including students who have already been identified.

Other Emerging Themes

There were two additional themes that emerged from the data that did not answer a research question, but were significant and relevant to this study. From interviews with participants, the researcher identified socioeconomic status and privilege, and race as barriers to the proper implementation of inclusion. While data were heavily saturated with responses from participants in Section H of the city, which was the poorest section, contrasting opinions from participants teaching in other sections of the city polarized the responses to how general education teachers in different sections of the city felt about students—specifically students with high-incidence disabilities—being included in their classes.

Theme 9: Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Privilege

This impact of socioeconomic status and privilege of the school populations was a constant thread to how teachers were deeply impacted by the school where they taught and the students that they taught. Participants ranged from the lowest socioeconomic tier of the city, where average incomes of families with children fell far below the poverty line, to the third highest section of the city with six figure incomes. Parents’ levels of education and advocacy on behalf of their children with high-incidence disabilities ranged from school to school.. However, what became most salient was the influence that socioeconomic status and privilege had on the perceptions of participants in this study.

This was mostly observed with the six teachers interviewed for this study who teach in

127

Section H—comprised of the poorest communities. They each shared their frustrations and sense of hopelessness for students in these communities.

Deborah, a teacher in Section H, shared her frustrations with the community. She feels that there are no community supports within the school or surrounding the school and that students are ultimately set up for failure. She shared:

I don’t know, I feel as though children here especially in [this area] someone is setting them up for failure and to remain failed. I don’t understand by being under the same umbrella if we have the same curriculum as the students in [another school] why is it lacking so much—we are lacking in resources, we are lacking in books. We teach close reading. Every child is supposed to have a book. We just got paper. We don’t have ink. How are we supposed to print each child a book? You want these things to be in place but you don’t give us what we need in order for us to make it happen, and then you turn around and say as teachers we are not doing our job, and so I do think all around that it is a big system and that trickle down effect.

She continues by sharing her frustration with the entire school system. She reveals that families in the community where she teaches are in “deep mental slavery.” She believes this is one of the obstacles that make it harder for her to get families on board with education. She stated:

See here in this section [Section H], it is a struggle. These families are in deep mental slavery. You know I do not know who told them but they feel entitled and then to feed on that to patronize that. How is that helping the child? It is so wrong and that at the moment me being a part of this I feel disgusted with myself because I am a part of the problem because if you can’t make a positive change— who wants to be a part of this, just keeping the community down? It is just tough and then when you talk about general ed [education]. If the general [education teacher] is not getting what they want then you know SPED [special education] is not getting what they want. You know the students with disabilities are not getting what they want. You know that as a fact. So I’m like how is it that? But it always boils down to: it’s the teachers’ fault.

She continued by sharing how no one thinks of the children. She believes that children at her school need much more support than what is being offered. She believes that, despite the many barriers and challenges that she faces on a daily basis, no one is truly

128 advocating for the children and ultimately they are the ones that are truly suffering. She stated:

If you question their [the administration’s] motives, if you question their actions, then you’re wrong. You are out to get them so they are going to get you first, but no one thinks about these kids. When a child is allowed to come to school everyday and curse a teacher all day long, and teacher is calling security and the security is calling for help because it is way too much and the principal never comes out of her office never shows her face how does that help our kids and the kids know already “aww she not going to do nothing” [she shrugged her head and hand acting as if she was a kid]. They know. So how you helping them.

Her added frustration stemmed from her principal, who appeared to have little forethought for her students’ futures. She explained how the principal seemed to only focus on her future and not that of the students which was problematic. The principal was cited as a point of frustration for the lack of concern for the growth and development of students. She shared:

I don’t want these kids eating up my retirement. I don’t want to be taking care of these kids or them running behind me knocking me upside my head or this and that or the other. Wrong answer boo. Nobody wants that at anytime. But we need to move these kids because they need to see that they have a future in spite of their circumstances. That’s your answer. Moving them in spite of their circumstances. Moving them forward. Not I got plans for my money when I retire. And it is not taking care of them. I get that.

Natalie, a kindergarten teacher in Section F, discussed how she feels resentment for teaching at a school with privileged parents and students. While there were eight participants in this section of the city, only two participants in this section taught at schools that were not Title I She described how she can easily identify the privilege that parents in her school have and how it is unfair to others around this school district. She stated:

You know most days I resent it [she laughs]—not that I resent it but I really didn’t think I would be in a place this privileged in this school. You know coming from the Peace Corps ,where I served for free for 2 ½ years, and feeling like I need to

129

get out of there and go somewhere where I am more needed, but I guess I am also a mother of two and umm halfway to retirement and do I really need to start over in a harder environment where I won’t have parent support.

Natalie continued by sharing an incident to which she became resentful. She described in detail about how vocal and unapologetic community members as well as parents felt about how money should be spent on needed renovations and repairs of schools. She shared:

Mostly I resent the parents for being so privileged and expecting whatever for their kid and not for the greater good. They are really pushing for just themselves. I mean, if it helps someone else down the line good, but that is not their intent. We are going through a renovation and there was a parent meeting everyone was really upset. They are getting a five million dollar renovation and in the meantime they have to move to another school that is not as nice and it is not in as nice a neighborhood as where [the school is currently located]. A parent actually stood up and said that the school that they are moving to needs repairs and they did not want [monies from their school] to go into [the other school that they would move to for a year] to repair it, because it doesn’t benefit their kid for more than a year, and someone stood up and said you know this is a community and we want to help everyone, and most people disagreed with the person that stood up and said no this is our community, and the money goes to us and I was so embarrassed and kind of disgusted. That’s when I become so resentful. We were at a public meeting and a lot of people agreed, and I was shocked. So I don’t know what I am doing in the future, but I probably won’t stay.

While this study included six participants who did not teach in Title I schools, Natalie was the only participant who spoke with such details about the entitlement that she observed by not just the parents, but by the community members of where this school was located. She identified the impact of entitlement and privilege, which have polarized this school district and separated the haves from the have-nots.

Theme Summary. In this theme, data was interpreted on the role that socioeconomic status and privilege play in education. Participants from across this school district described in detail how these factors and attitudes cripple the chances of success for students with disabilities in their classrooms.

130

Theme 10: Impact of Race

This theme emerged as participants shared the role that it plays in decision making factors for access and equity. As mentioned in Table 5, Overall Demographics of

School Districts in Percentages, Section H, which is the poorest section of the city, is also the section that is the least diverse. Over 90% of the student population is African-

American. These students, as participants described, were also the children that are farthest from opportunity. The role that race plays in this study is very significant, and could also show a direct connection with access to adequate resources and academic success.

Betty, a first grade teacher in Section H, explained that before she can even address academics, there is such a strong need for families to know that they can trust their teacher, and trust that their teacher wants what is best for their students. She shared how the behaviors are frustrating because much of them are “learned behaviors” from what they see in the community. She feels that students spend a lot of time at school and in other places but not with families, which makes it harder for her as a teacher. She shared:

We have about eight or nine of them that are here until 5:30, 6:00 everyday. That’s ten hours. That’s a lot and to be perfectly honest with you some of them leave here and go to aftercare in their community, so I know that there is—see, when I said that there are a lot of behaviors, I am talking about anxiety. I am talking about depression. I am talking about attention because you don’t get to see your parents because there is someone else always looking for your parents. That’s not your mom. That’s not your dad. See there are so many things that they have to worry about but again, if I have to concentrate on those types of things when do I have time to concentrate on academics. She continued by sharing her strategy for building relationships with students. She explained how she has to almost demand that students treat each other opposite from

131 what they may have been exposed to in their homes, which becomes very challenging.

These examples are specific psychological issues faced by students in Section H that are factoring into their academic and social development. She added:

The truth of the matter is you have to break the walls down so that they can trust me, so that you can understand that you are going to be safe. So that you can understand that Ms. Teacher has no time to tolerate foolishness up in here. I don’t have to show that I am a bully up in here. I don’t have to show you what they show me when I am at home so we have to be respectful in here. We have to treat each other with kindness and respect so our job is just the teaching field is just a multitude of things that no one seems to understand unless they are really truly an educator. They have to experience it and in [this] school.

She continued by sharing how she has grandchildren that attend schools in this same school district, but in a different part of town. She shared that they have access to much more and that the quality of education is very different from what students where she teaches experience. She shares her frustration with teaching at a high-poverty school and what that means for the educator at this school or similar schools. She continued:

I have grandchildren that [go] to a school in the city...I know the difference you see. I have a granddaughter that teaches at [a different school district] you see. I know the difference. I know that they don’t work nowhere near as hard as we do in these schools. I know that for a fact. And for me I am at the top of my salary and my scale what, is this is it for me. I have to work. I have to work in situations where I have to give 120% because 100 is not enough.

Deborah, a teacher in Section H shared her similar frustrations over the limitations that are in her school. She feels that she is not able to teach students other subject areas that would help them develop as “well-rounded citizens.” She feels that she must only teach reading and math because this is the expectation for students in her school.

Deborah stated:

I think Central, whoever the head is. I mean it all needs to be cleaned up. You are not doing our children a good service. In the black community especially in [this part of the city] the achievement gap gets wider and wider. You cannot tell me that our children will be well-rounded citizens. They want us to teach reading

132

and math all day. Where is the science? Where is the social studies? Where is the humanities?

Deborah feels that it is society’s low expectations that keep families in this community oppressed and therefore, students will remain low. She feels that she is not provided with the opportunity to step up for students in this community and that no one is expected to stand up for them.

You just adding to society’s, I guess, thoughts and how society views them. You helping society keep them down by not standing up for them. You know and this is just a school system that don’t, they just don’t. I have been saying this for the past year that someone must be paying them to keep these kids down. Cause how can you come in here and not think of your own child when you come in here. But instead you say you glad that your kid is not in here. I try to get them where my child is. We are going to learn. We are going to read.

She continued by sharing her thoughts on black people. She stated, “As black people why are we the only ones who would burn a ladder once we reach the top instead of bringing the ladder back down.” Her frustration stemmed from the cycle and impact that poverty has in her school. She continued:

Why are we like that? Why can we step over a child in the gutter because you got to get in line for the next pair of Jordan’s instead of taking that money and saying you know what let me at least get you a room for the night so you could get some food and get taken care of. I have parents in here and kids with $80 sneakers on $70 sneakers on and they don’t know nothing. You could have put that [money] in a tutor. They don’t come to school with supplies and people [students get pissed off. I take my pencils. I have to buy those pencils everyday, every week. I have to buy pencils because they don’t bring pencils. They don’t bring supplies and we at a school that don’t give. Like we just got a case of paper and this is our so-called supply list—a box of paper and some post it paper. [She pointed to the yellow post it notes and the box of paper that was in the corner.] That’s our supply list and that is supposed to keep us until the end of the year. So it’s like what’s next?

Barbara, a kindergarten teacher at an elementary school in Section F discussed the role of race when it comes to servicing students with disabilities who do not share the same race.

She discussed how she became a ‘buddy classroom’ for a student with disabilities that

133 was experiencing difficulties in behaviors. She shared some of observations of the classroom teacher that would send the student with disabilities to her. According to

Barbara,

I am sorry. Let me go back. I am always careful always not introduce race into these conversations but I do feel that race is in these types of things and these conversations that we are having. Last year, my student that has a disability was in a classroom and had a teacher and I think it may have been four other black boys in the classroom and it was like it was always those four little boys that got in trouble. I had the opportunity to go in and build a rapport with him when he was in PreK 3. I would often ask that he would come to my class because I would see that they [the other teacher] have identified him as the bad black boy and that caused some diversity. They really needed to work with him and the teacher.

Barbara continued,

The same happened in Pre K 4 and I was able to see that it wasn’t just him—that the teacher took a blind eye to him and worked with the other students who were as disruptive, and in my head I had to figure out a way, “How can I get him in my class?” and “How can we work it so he is not seen as this problem child?” Yes, some of these were manifestations of his disability, but since he has been with us, he has not been put out of class once and down to the principal’s office. His mother has not been up here every other day because they do not know what to do and it is because of the position that we expect of him. “We are going to have a good year!” “You have two teachers in here who love you. If you need a hug, come and get one. If you want to hug your friend, go and ask your friend if you can hug them and if they say yes go on and hug them.” And he feels that love even when he is angry and when he is lashing out he knows he is in a safe place. He can lash out in my office. “I am going to lash out in my office. I know that that is a safe place and when I am done, I will get it together.” It is not going to be, “You are not going to have your recess.” We don’t do all of that. We love him and he feels it. I want him to feel it on his grade level all across the board. That’s why that oppositional defiance could be managed.

In her description, she revealed that it was not necessarily the student that had the issues, but the teacher that took issues with the same set of students daily. She was the only teacher that shared how she took initiative on her own to develop a relationship with students that were described as disruptive, and tried to provide alternatives for them, which ultimately resulted in her being able to teach them once they were old enough for

134 kindergarten. She recognized that she would be the right teacher for them and wanted them to have a shot at success with her.

Theme Summary: In this theme, participants shared how race influences access to resources and expectations for student achievement through two avenues—first, how race of students determines location of school and funding, and second how race can influence teacher and student relations. Teachers of races different from their students were able to share how they have observed interactions of other teachers with students of other races.

This impacts their decisions that determine who is included in the classroom and who gets referred for additional services.

Summary of Additional Findings. It is important to note that additional themes may emerge from data that reveal commonalities between participants. In this study, two additional themes that did not answer a research question were revealed. An exploration of both enhances the understanding of what influences the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers of students with high-incidence disabilities.

Summary of Chapter Four

In this chapter, the results of the interviews with study participants were analyzed and discussed. Themes answering three research questions were defined, described and supported using exact words from participants to ensure that results were grounded in data. Data revealed ten themes within participants’ responses to the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their urban general education elementary classrooms:

1) “It was a disservice,” 2) Being “Set Up” for Failure 3) Impact of Behavior, 4) Issues of

Being Stranded, 5) Feeling Inadequate, 6) Reluctant Acceptance, 7) Issues of Support, 8)

135

Flaws in Identifying Students that Need Help, 9) Impact of Socioeconomic Status and

Privilege, and 10) Impact of Race.

In the first theme, participants viewed students with disabilities who are not being properly supported as a “disservice”. Participants collectively felt that students with disabilities have the right to be included in their classrooms as long as supports are provided to ensure their success. If services are neither provided nor offered, participants felt strongly that students with disabilities should not be placed in their classrooms.

There was some discussion surrounding the idea of what support looks like for the success of students with disabilities in their classrooms.

In Theme 2, Being “Set Up” for Failure, participants expressed with overwhelming conviction that students with disabilities were being “set up” for failure both academically and socially. Participants described how they felt their local schools let students with disabilities fail. Participants expressed how students with disabilities were often not placed in the appropriate environment and that they are not always receiving the proper support needed.

In Theme 3, Impact of Behavior, two parts of concern presented the “biggest challenge” for participants. All participants teaching in Section H of this school district described challenges from three areas: academic, behavior (inconsistencies with medication) and support (lack of available staff). Participants in other sections of the city primarily described challenges stemming from student behavior. The description of the behaviors of students with disabilities appeared to be consistent across this school district—each participant responded by describing limited options for support and the frequent feeling of cluelessness over what to do to provide the best learning environment

136 for all of their students. Some participants shared how they have “trained their students” to ignore disruptive behavior while other participants shared their own feeling of helplessness and how the behavior of students with disabilities usually brings their instruction to a halt.

In response to Research Question 2 revealed Theme 4—Issues of Being Stranded.

This theme emerged from data revealing how participants felt about being alone in a classroom full of students with disabilities and non-disabled peers. Participants across this school district expressed the same concerns of having to stop instruction to address behaviors which was “not fair” to the other students in the classroom. Participants genuinely shared that they needed assistance for students with disabilities daily in order to maximize instructional time for the entire class. No participants expressed positive interactions of this feeling of being isolated. They described this feeling of being stranded in a negative and punitive way.

Data further revealed that participants felt they had no choice or say of who would enter their classroom and who they had to teach, which resulted in the theme of reluctant acceptance of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Because of this, with the exception of one participant, they felt their hands were tied of who they could teach and how they would teach. Participants shared that lack of support, misinformation, lack of appropriate staff and district mandates have all added to this idea of reluctant acceptance.

Theme 7—Feeling Inadequate—also emerged in response to Research Question

2. While participants across this school district shared similar perceptions that planning for students with disabilities was “too much,” most of these responses were from

137 participants that had between three to ten years of teaching experience. Participants shared that the resources they have for students were usually discovered on their own and that resources within their schools were limited.

Data revealed two themes in response to Research Question 3: Issues of Support and Flaws in Identifying Students that Need Help. While most participants felt the support that they have received has been inadequate and ineffective, there was little desire to seek a better way to service students with disabilities in their classrooms. Most participants described their support as negative and expressed that the lack of consistent follow-through has diminished their expectations towards developing and the implementation of best practices for inclusion. However, there was one participant who shared how influential the parent support has been for students with disabilities in her classroom. She did not teach at a Title I school, and was the only participant to share such views. Most participants felt that more support was needed from all areas to support students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Within the next theme, Flaws in Identifying Students Who Need Help, participants in Section H were extremely vocal about the challenges they face when requesting a referral to receive special education services. They describe in detail roadblocks to obtaining the requested supports and resources from administration,

Central Office and the special education team at their schools. Each participant who shared consistent frustrations with the process to identify students taught at as school in

Section H.

The last two themes that emerged from the data do not respond to a research question. However, data revealed them as issues that are relative to this body of research.

138

The themes Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Privilege and Impact of Race on education, were as prevalent as the other themes that emerged from the data. Participants from across this school district spoke in detail about how these two external factors cripple the opportunities for success of students with disabilities within their classrooms.

Discussion of findings and recommendations for future research, policy and practice are included in detail in the next and final chapter.

139

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

This qualitative study was conducted to gain an understanding of how urban elementary general education teachers: 1) perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms; 2) perceive their own competence in teaching these students; and 3) perceive the accessibility of supports they need for inclusion within the classroom and within the school. This chapter details the conclusions based on the findings of this study and aims to contribute new insights to existing literature on the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. It will also provide recommendations for continued research, teacher preparation programs, policy, and inclusion practices.

Discussion and Findings

There were four findings as described in Table 9. The findings reveal a more interlaced and independent relationship between teachers, students and central office.

The conceptual framework changed from what was initially presented. The original framework (see Figure 1), suggested a strong focus on three different lens a teacher may view a student with a disability. However, data revealed that the perceptions of teachers were more connected in an ecological way that reflected a diagram that was in the spirit of Bronfenbrenner. Bronfenbrenner identified ecological environments as a way to measure behavior (Muus, 1996). In his work, Bronfenbrenner identified “four major ecological environmental levels or systems that constitute a model of nested

140 interdependent, dynamic structures,” (Muus, 1996, p. 322). The nested structure has each environment fit within the other environment like a set of Russian dolls, ranging from immediate to more remote (Muus, 1996). These four layers: microsystem, mesosystem, ecosystem and macrosystem are all interrelated.

The first level (microsystem) is the overall implementation of inclusion as it is configured now is not working for students in local schools. The second level

(mesosystem) is how inclusion impacts teachers externally. This is mostly observed through participants’ accounts of their interactions with other students and execution of lessons. The third level (ecosystem) is how inclusion impacts teachers internally as it relates to their own competence when teaching students with high-incidence disabilities.

The fourth and final layer (macrosystem) is how the school district systems which includes: policies, funding, standardized tests, curriculum, standards, and partnerships, effect teachers’ overall perceptions. School district systems are the overarching layer and the most influential as they directly impact teachers and students alike. Race, socioeconomic status, and school location were identified as factors that play a role in shaping the perceptions of teachers of students with high-incidence disabilities in urban school districts. Figure 3 describes this relationship in greater detail, showing the changes in the conceptual framework, which were a direct result from the data analysis.

141

Table 9

Findings and their relationship to the Thematic Findings within the Data

Finding Theme Finding 1-Inclusion, as it is configured Theme 1 “It was a disservice” now, does not work for students Theme 2 Being “set up” for failure both academically and socially Theme 3 Impact of behavior Theme 7 Flaws in identifying students who need help Finding 2: Inclusion does not work for Theme 5-Feeling inadequate teachers Theme 6- Reluctant acceptance Finding 3: Teachers feel powerless and Theme 4- Issues of being stranded stranded Theme 8- Issues of support Finding 4: Systems disproportionally Theme 9-Impact of socioeconomic status influence teachers’ perceptions of and privilege inclusion Theme 10-Impact of race

142

Race, socioeconomic status, policies, location of schools, funding, standardized tests, standards, and curriculum disproportionally influence urban teachers' perceptions of inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom.

Teachers feel powerless and stranded. Teachers feel that they are left alone in classes with students without continuous support.

Inclusion does not work for teachers. They are not able to execute effective lessons and do not feel they have enough training to be effective.

Inclusion , as it is configured now, does not work for students.

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework on Urban Elementary School Teachers’ Perceptions of the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom.

Finding 1: Inclusion, as it is configured now, does not work for students

Students are not being correctly identified for special education services

Participants shared that the process to recommend children in need of additional services through an IEP, is often overlooked because of the push from their school district to decrease the amount of students referred for special education services.

Overrepresentation with students of color, as it relates to the representation of students to receive special education support has been a significant problem in schools across

America (Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., Ju, S. & Roberts, E., 2014). More specifically, children of color, specifically black boys, were cited as being overidentified in receiving special education services, especially with the diagnosis of Emotional Disturbance.

Black boys were identified in disproportionate amounts for the diagnosis of Emotional

Disturbance than any other subgroup, (Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., Ju, S. & Roberts, E.,

143

2014). As a result, the process to identify has been cumbersome and laborious to the point that identification takes almost a full academic year, and can result in students not being properly identified and receiving supports needed.

Participants referenced data collection and lack thereof to be a reason for incomplete referrals for special education services. This was mostly expressed in Theme

7 (Flaws in Identifying Students Who Need Help). Nineteen participants shared how these flaws present competing challenges for students that already receive services.

While 95% of the participants shared their concerns over the referral process, participants in Section H, the poorest and most disadvantaged section of the city, described how they received a directive from their administration to not identify or refer any more students for services. Participants at one school in Section H shared their school has a student population of over 400, yet only nine students have been identified and are thereby eligible to receive special education services for the 2017-2018 school year. Participants in this section expressed the many challenges they face daily and the need to improve the overall process when it comes to the identification of students that are in need.

Participants in this study spoke very little about RTI programs at their school or any interventions that were done. It appeared that participants wanted to go straight to the referral process without speaking about the interventions of lack thereof that have taken place before the need to refer. This was a concern.

Students are misplaced in the general education environment

Participants provided a detailed description about how students with disabilities were not placed in the appropriate learning environment. Misplacement of students became a hindrance to the overall impact of student achievement and daily performance

144 in classrooms. Data seemed to suggest that students misplaced should be in a more restricted environment. Data revealed that the referral process to a more restricted environment could take up to one academic year and cause a tremendous barrier to student achievement within the entire class—not just students with disabilities. This was mostly described in Theme 1 (“It was a disservice”) and Theme 2 (Being “set up” for failure both academically and socially). Further, data revealed that all of the 20 study participants confirmed that they had at least one student in their class that should not have been placed in their general education setting and expressed that it is a disservice to the student to keep the student in their current school. Additionally, data revealed that their local schools could not provide the support that was needed for students with high- incidence disabilities to be successful. Participants shared that students with high- incidence disabilities would receive inconsistent services, if at all, and ultimately students were being set up for failure. Most participants shared that one-on-one support is the most effective way in reaching and teaching students with disabilities. This finding is mostly similar to a study that was conducted by Nusbaum (2013). In his study, teachers were introduced to the pull-out model of inclusion and had students with high-incidence disabilities removed from the classroom at some portion of the school day. Teachers often felt relieved that students were removed from their class for a period of time. They felt less responsible for these students and more supported. However, the data from this study concluded that no matter the placement, students needed one-on-one support or removal from the classroom. This was mostly aligned to Theme 8 (Issues of Support).

Participants identified three areas that students were not benefitting: classroom support, school level support and district level support.

145

Theme 1 (“It was a disservice”), directly provides a detailed description of how the wrongful placement of students deeply impacts the effectiveness of the inclusion model. Students with disabilities have to be properly placed in the most appropriate learning environment. Participants often reflected on how instruction would come to halt due to the behaviors of students and not having adequate resources and support to address the needs of the students.

In addition, student teacher ratio became an additional concern. Class size averages would range between 20-25 students. All of the participants had at least one student in their classroom with high-incidence disabilities, and most participants had anywhere from four to six students that were identified or needed to be identified for services. Participants reported that class ratio would cause an overall negative impact on student achievement and on daily performance in the classroom (Nusbaum, 2013). It would be harder to gauge the effectiveness of proper implementation of inclusion when class size may be a factor on student achievement and teacher perceptions.

Additionally, participants shared that the presence of students with high-incidence disabilities would decrease the overall effectiveness of teaching the entire class.

Participants shared a dichotomy of feelings when it came to students with high-incidence disabilities. Participants stated that students with high-incidence disabilities had the right to be in the classroom with their non-disabled peers. However, participants felt strongly that students with high-incidence disabilities should only be placed in their classrooms if the proper supports are in place. If supports such as a dedicated aide and/or professional development opportunities are not in place, it is a disservice to all students, not just students with high-incidence disabilities.

146

Inclusion of Students with High Incidence Disabilities Is Not Helping Student Outcomes

Participants shared that the gains that students with disabilities are exhibiting are often minimal compared to those of the rest of the students in the class. This achievement is incremental to the growth that nondisabled peers show within the academic year. Class size would often impact the effectiveness of inclusion. Participants described their classroom demographics that included about one- fourth of their student population as students with disabilities. Participants shared that students with disabilities in their classrooms and are often competing with each other for the attention from the teacher. Because of this, participants are not always capable of addressing the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. This was mostly addressed in Theme 3

(Impact of behavior). All participants shared their challenges and frustration of how the behavior of students with disabilities impacts overall class performance.

Access to academic and social content become a hindrance for student achievement. Students with high-incidence disabilities are not making successful gains or adequate progress to master goals. Participants shared that these experiences revealed some of the unintended consequences of integration of students with high incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. Compared to their nondisabled peers, students with high-incidence disabilities often struggle to make progress and often do not have the support that would make learning more accessible. This was mostly expressed in Theme 2 (Being “set up” for failure both academically and socially).

Finding 2: Inclusion does not work for teachers

Teachers are not prepared to meet the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities

147

Participants shared that they neither felt adequately prepared nor properly trained to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms. Participants shared that the absence of this particular skillset makes it extremely difficult to fulfill their professional responsibility to teach students with disabilities. Participants’ levels of effectiveness were directly related to their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). All participants shared that they each had a level of incompetency when teaching students with disabilities. This was not due to their unwillingness to acquire these skills, but the lack of resources and training available to address these deficits. Participants consistently shared that they were struggling to meet the needs of the students in their classrooms and were doing the best that they could. Data most closely connected to Theme 5 (Feeling inadequate) revealed that participants lacked the skillset to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. However, they each recognized that what they were doing was not enough to maximize the learning opportunities for students with disabilities in their classrooms.

Participants shared that the training they receive is usually content-specific. The training targets a specific content area and the purpose or goal is to develop ways to increase their content knowledge or instructional practice in that specific content area.

The training does not include ways to differentiate instruction to address the needs of diverse learners. Along with the lack of training, participants also shared that they do not have adequate amount of time to properly plan for students with disabilities in their classrooms. They often shared that planning for their students with disabilities requires more time than planning for the rest of their class, and that they do not know how to properly plan for outbursts and behaviors that can impede the entire lesson.

148

Participants also expressed their lack of knowledge of the disability that the student has. Because of this lack of understanding, participants would often default into complacency. In other words, they would often allow the student to have their way in the classroom without providing any limitation or structures to support students with disabilities. This was mostly revealed in Theme 3 (Impact of behavior). A participant shared that the inconsistencies with supports that she receives to support students with disabilities in her classroom often makes her feel like “giving up.” She would often yield to students with disabilities and let them have their way in her class. She described these experiences as allowing students to have “free will” in her class to do what they wanted to do, and that she has trained her other students to stay away from the students having these outbursts.

Similarly, participants revealed that there was a lack of understanding with the overall implementation process. Not only did participants not understand the disability, but they did not understand the IEP or the goals for the student, either. In Theme 5

(Feeling inadequate), data revealed that participants often felt that they were incapable of meeting the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Participants shared that did not receive the current IEPs for students in their class and did not know how to accommodate or modify lessons for these specific students. Some participants shared that they have not even read the IEP for identified students. This information was not only problematic; it was a violation of policy. This lack of knowledge and understanding ultimately impacts how participants can adequately plan and prepare for students with disabilities in their classrooms.

149

Finding 3: Teachers feel powerless and lonely

Teaching students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education setting is lonely

Participants frequently described a sense of loneliness when it comes to teaching students with disabilities. Participants shared that they should not be in classrooms teaching these specific students alone. They often shared that the special education teacher should be in the classrooms with them and implement a co-teaching model of instruction for students with disabilities. Rather than the push-in model as previously described, participants told the researcher they would greatly benefit from a co-teaching model. They would like special education teachers to remain in their classrooms throughout the entire school day.

In Theme 4 (Issues of being stranded), participants described the recurrent scenario of having to singlehandedly execute a lesson for a diverse student population because there was no other support in the classroom. They explained how helpless they felt when outbursts in behavior occurred. They would usually concede and allow students with disabilities to have free range to do as they pleased or they would try to ignore their behavior. Participants admitted this was not an effective strategy, but felt they had no choice at the time as they had no other options.

Teachers need more support

Consistent with all participants was the need for additional support. Participants often shared that goals were already written by another teacher from the previous school year and did not know how to change or update goals. With the exception of one participant, they have all shared that they had no input in the selection of students to be

150 placed on their class roster. Class assignments and class lists were completed by administration without feedback from classroom teachers. This was most closely aligned to Theme 8 (Issues of support). In this theme participants revealed that the absence of support caused their frustration to grow. Participants in Section H revealed that not only did they not have classroom support, the support from administration was inconsistently provided and was usually negatively reflected on their classroom management skills in a punitive way as if teachers were to blame as the reasons students did not behave. They would be viewed by administration as a teacher that could not handle her students and would often receive negative feedback. Many participants ultimately shared that they felt uncertain of their longevity in the field of education.

Finding 4: Several factors disproportionally influence teachers’ perceptions of inclusion

Teachers recognize the overarching effects of discrimination—Race matters

Participants all shared their thoughts on how access to adequate funding is mostly affected by the race of students and the socioeconomic location of the school.

Participants who worked at non-Title I schools shared how they received additional financial support from families. A participant shared that one of her students in her class was actually the daughter of a senator and that she was sure to uphold the goals of the student in her class for fear of the backlash it would cause if she did not. She stated, “I know that her IEP will be followed with fidelity because her father is a senator, but it should be like that for all students not just his.” Additionally, another participant shared how she feels resentment for teaching at a school with privileged parents and students.

While she recognized that this was a privilege, she would not transfer to another school in

151 greater need. She asked, “Do I really need to start over in a harder environment where I won’t have parent support?”

Participants in Title I schools all shared that funds were just one of the sources of inequities. Participants shared that the funding should be based on the need of the school and not the number of students enrolled. This was mostly reflected in Theme 9 (Impact of socioeconomic status and privilege) and Theme 10 (Impact of race). Study participants cited that students farthest from opportunity receive the least amount of support. Society has low expectations of the academic performance of these students and the achievement gap has incrementally widened as a result of such changes.

Critical race theory (CRT) mostly connects with the perceptions of teachers when it comes to how teachers feel about the role that race and privilege play in schools.

Critical race theory started by activists as a law movement in the 1970’s who wanted to transform the relationship among power, race, and racism (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001).

In the field of education, the ideas of CRT can be used to understand controversial issues like tracking, school funding, standardized testing and discipline (Delgado & Stefancic,

2001). Participants tried to make sense of their realities that racism is still a factor when determining placement and funding. They felt that these were strong concerns, but did not know how to address these concerns in a proactive way. They recognized that it existed, but did not have solutions. Racism was described as a stain that could not go away.

Zip codes matter

In this study, the location of the school directly impacted the amount of funding, support, and resources that were made available for teachers and students. Resources,

152 support and funding were all cited as sources that effected their perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms. This was mostly described in Theme

9 (Impact of socioeconomic status and privilege). Participants described how parents in more affluent schools felt privileged and wanted teachers to operate as if their students with disabilities were their only student. Likewise, the need is much greater in schools in

Section H. Teachers in this section of the district often felt that they were trying to support the need of all students, but the need outweighed their capacity which caused them to feel ineffective.

Participants who taught in Title I schools all shared the same concern about equity and access of funding. Participants shared that there were many student needs that required addressing prior to academic goals. Participants most often felt that it was their duty to address the needs of the students but did not always feel equipped to best address these concerns. Participants shared that they compete with the community for influence over the students, and that the two sources of influence are not always on the same page when it comes to educating students—especially when those students that have disabilities. Children in these areas are exposed to more traumatizing experiences that other locations of the city. Participants shared that they would have no control over what happens when students leave their schools, but try to make learning engaging while students are present with them in their classroom.

Recommendations

A review of the conceptual framework and data for this study revealed important recommendations that should be considered in regards to the perception of urban elementary general education teachers teaching students with disabilities. These findings

153 have implications for the improvement of teacher preparedness, research-based best practices, and for policy and future research. Table 10 summarizes the recommendations based on the findings from the data.

Table 10 Summary of Recommendations in Practice, Policy, and Research

Category Recommendations Practice 1. Teacher training programs need to be more rigorous to include differentiation for mixed ability learners in teacher preparation programs nationwide. 2. Professional development opportunities for teachers need to include research-based strategies for teachers to use to increase access for all learners. 3. Schools should work to strengthen their RTI programs across the nation to include research based best practices and standard requirements for the referral process. Policy 4. Policy need to change which includes additional funding for universities and local schools to support mixed ability classrooms. 5. Policy should include plans to include students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms. Research 6. Continued research to extend this study should be considered using different qualitative and quantitative methods.

Recommendation 1. Teacher training programs

An overwhelming response from all participants revealed that they were not adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms. Of the five participants that graduated from an undergraduate program in teaching, they shared the same sentiment as the other participants in their lack of preparedness in teaching and planning for students with disabilities. There was a strong need for more support in this area.

The curriculum and course of study for teacher preparation programs should be revisited to include more rigorous preparation that meets the demands of the evolving

154 classroom. This would mean that coursework along with practicums should include differentiated instruction for the diverse classroom. Teacher preparation programs should include planning using Universal Design for Learning. This planning tool focuses on accessibility for students through three areas: engagement, representation, action and expression. Training programs should consider a hybrid model where students receive academic training in addition to practical experience alongside experts in the field.

Coursework should include; reading and understanding IEPs; engaging families in partnerships, differentiated assessments, Universal Design for Learning, accommodations and education law. This should be added in addition to core content areas.

Undergraduate programs should include intensive practicums with a plethora of school settings and locations. This will give student-teachers opportunities to increase their understanding of what is needed to become an effective teacher.

Teacher preparation programs should also include lab times where they observe effective teachers in practice that have students in their classrooms with IEPs. This will also include time to debrief with the teacher after the observations to discuss strategies that were used. Teachers in the preparation program should also submit their lesson plans and receive feedback on their plans and make adjustments accordingly. Programs should also include being paired with a mentor that will provide on-going feedback and support. This should include on-going observations and debriefs that will provide targeted and specific feedback on instructional best practices.

Recommendation 2. Professional development opportunities

There remains a growing need for ongoing, job-embedded professional development to address diversity in classrooms. Professional development may include,

155 but is not limited to research-based best practices for planning, preparing, and teaching students with disabilities. School districts should adopt cultural responsiveness as the approach to teaching diverse classrooms. This approach will provide a framework for teachers on how to create warm and inclusive classrooms, and will also provide teachers with strategies for student success. Additionally, school districts should include mindfulness training for students to include mental health awareness. This could be in the form of yoga classes or mindful moments where teachers and staff with diverse specialties join to meet the needs of students. An alternative to recess may be a way to start with mindful moments or yoga. Physical education teachers and classroom teachers should receive training on how to incorporate strategies like breathing techniques, yoga poses, and meditation as strategies to assist students in the classroom.

School districts should also reconsider school day schedules and classroom designs to possibly include more time and space for students to move. This could be an additional recess. This could be a room to deescalate and refocus. Schools should be provided with funding so that these strategies can be in place to support the total well- being of students. While these strategies are outlined to address the needs of students with high-incidence disabilities, all students could benefit from the addition of these resources. School districts should also include trauma training for teachers so that they can become more aware of the different obstacles that students are facing before entering classrooms.

Recommendation 3. Strengthen RTI and standardized referral process

Participants shared that the process to identify students was a barrier to student success. Schools should adopt a standardized format for the referral process that is

156 streamlined to the needs of students and what schools have to offer. Additionally, schools should invest in intensive research-based intervention programs in reading and math. These programs should include tools and strategies for progress monitoring to decrease the number of referrals for special education services and to increase on- or above-grade level performance. Some examples of interventions that could be used can be FUNdations- a phonics based instructional program and Do the Math which is a tired intervention for math for small group instruction.

The referral process should include more targeted data points and specific progress monitoring tools for teachers to use to capture moments within the school day.

Data should be tracked throughout the school day and should include input from the classroom teachers, specials teachers (P.E., library and music classes) and also from the social worker if necessary. It is important to include all necessary stakeholders when making the referral to receive testing for special education services.

Recommendation 4. Policy changes with university partnerships

In the area of human capital, policy should include loan repayment programs or loan forgiveness programs for teachers that stay committed to the field of education.

Additionally, for each year that the teacher stays and remains effective or higher, a year from their loan should be forgiven. In addition, they will serve as mentors in the building and mentors for the university to keep the cycle going for on-going support receiving observations, debriefs and modeling.

Policy should include pipeline programs and partnerships with state universities and colleges. This means that undergraduates who successfully complete the rigorous teacher-prep program at their state’s university can have a guaranteed position in one of

157 the local schools. This policy should be implemented to attract talented teachers and to increase a strong commitment to teacher development. This policy will also increase effective candidates to the teaching profession. Their certification should also automatically be provided upon the successful completion of their program. This standard license should be included in their tuition and should not be an additional cost to students.

Policy 5: Policy changes within current law

In addition to the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), which provides states the opportunity to decide on academic measures used to determine student success, the federal government should provide additional support on how states support students with high-incidence disabilities. States are required to develop their own plans on how to support all students so that all students succeed. However, states may need support in what this might mean and what might success look like for students with high-incidence disabilities.

Policies might include funding support in three areas: teacher development, human resources, and family engagement. Teacher development can be two-fold: one for pre-service teachers and one for teachers that are already in the field. Teacher preparation programs should be incentivized to gain strong attraction to the field of education. This could be one way to provide alternative routes to join this profession and to strengthen inclusion programs nationwide. This may also assist in attracting strong candidates.

In the area of human resources, policy should include additional teachers in every building. These teachers would be federally funded with the specific purpose to support

158 the well-being of children. Policy should also include yoga instructors to facilitate mindful moments for students that are in need. This should be offered to the entire school, not just to students that have disabilities. Another consideration could be the placement of special education teachers. While it may take time to implement changes such as strengthening teacher preparation programs nationwide and providing job- embedded, research-based professional development opportunities for teachers, an immediate response could be to utilize a co-teacher model. This would mean that a special education teacher will be placed in each general education teacher’s classroom.

These additional teachers can be funded by the government and would not affect the budget of local schools.

In addition, urban general education classrooms with twenty or more students and whose classroom population of students with high-incidence disabilities exceeds 25% should use a co-teacher model. This would mean that there would be a special education teacher teaching this class along with the general education teacher. Funding for this teacher would not come out of the local school’s budget, but would be a federally funded position.

Recommendation 6: Continued research to extend this study should be considered using different qualitative and quantitative methods.

This study revealed that there is a need for continued research on this topic.

Future research should include different methodologies. A combination of mixed methods to include quantitative and qualitative methods. This would deepen the understanding of how teachers in this particular setting perceive their abilities in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities. This study included interviews only. Future

159 research should include multiple data points to strengthen the data. Focus groups, surveys, and classroom observations should all be considered as data sources for future research. The length of the study should be longer to include multiple observations, interviews, and student work analysis to determine the effectiveness of such inclusion.

Summary of Chapter Five

In this chapter, findings from the data were discussed in detail according to the three research questions of this study and the ten themes that answered them. Existing research and the conceptual framework were used to provide a foundation to the findings from this data. Findings and recommendations are offered to address the perceptions of general education elementary teachers and the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. Policy, future research and additional recommendations on a school-based level were offered.

Conclusion

This purposes of this study were to be able to: 1) Investigate urban elementary general education teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms with their non-disabled peers; 2) Give these teachers an opportunity to share their perceptions on the supports received to meet the demands and challenges of their profession; and 3) Provide recommendations for policies and practices for the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms that can contribute to the preparation and professional development of general education teachers.

160

The conceptual framework identified three theories that guided this study as they related to the perceptions of urban elementary general education teachers on the inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom. Semi- structured interviews were conducted, and data from these interviews revealed a different source used to create perceptions. Data revealed systems had disproportionate influence on teacher perceptions. Figure 3 provides a different conceptual framework that has changed as a result of the data. This figure reveals an interrelated relationship from immediate to remote. The figure is in the spirit of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems in that they are systems within systems and each system influences the other.

The first system (microsystem) is that inclusion as it is configured now does not work for students. Students are not receiving adequate services and supports as their

IEPs indicate. This is problematic. Students are placed in the wrong setting, with minimal support. Students that need to be identified are not being identified.

The second system (mesosystem) is that inclusion does not work for teachers. Participants in this study revealed that inclusion does not work, but not because they are not trying to make it work. The shortcomings of inclusion stem from the influence of factors that teachers feel that they have no control over. For example, they do not receive targeted on-going job-embedded training and professional development to increase their effectiveness in teaching students with disabilities. Instead, teachers are forced to make meaning independently about what to do and how to do it with the students in their class. Participants shared that they felt stranded and alone. They had to make inclusion work without proper support and training. Teachers are being penalized for high referrals, and as a result students who need help may be overlooked.

161

The third system (exosystem) addresses teachers internally. Participants shared that they lack the motivation and efficacy to teach students with disabilities. They feel that they do not have adequate resources and proper skills to effectively manage and teach students with disabilities. Teachers have to make meaning of such policies and standards, and teach students. Teachers are constantly making adjustments on how to include all students. However, teachers feel helpless when it comes to servicing students with high-incidence disabilities.

The last system (macrosystem) is how external factors influence the effectiveness of inclusion. Race, socioeconomic factors, location of school, funding, standardized tests, and standards to name a few have been identified as factors that influence teachers’ perceptions. Participants shared that these factors highly influence their effectiveness as a teacher servicing students with disabilities.

There is a need for continued research on how these factors influence the perceptions of teachers and what changes can be made to increase effectiveness and competence with this population. Continued research is recommended. It is the hope of this study to initiate more revelations on this topic so that improvements can be made. It is often mentioned that schools do not discriminate against students. However, data revealed a different aspect to this creed that is included in schools across America. It is my continued hope that the conversation can shift from feeding our students crumbs to feeding them the entire pie as all students deserve a high-quality education no matter their race, disability, or economic status.

162

References

Abernathy, T. & Taylor, S. (2009). Teacher perceptions of students’ understanding their

own disability. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 121-136. DOI:

10.1177/0888406409334084

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447.

Aldridge, P. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of students who are learning disabled and

gifted. Academic Leadership Journal, 15(2).

Ashby, C. (2010). The trouble with normal: The struggle for meaningful access for

middle school students with developmental disability labels. Disability and

Society, 25(3), 345-358. DOI:10.1080/09687591003701249

Auerbach, C. & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and

analysis. New York and London, New York University Press.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research-

based instructional practice: A case study of peer-assisted learning strategies in

mathematics. Remedial and Special Education.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes.

Bandura, A. (1194). Social cognitive theory & exercise of control over HIV infection. In:

163

Diclemente, R.J., Peterson, J.L. (eds). Preventing AIDS. AIDS prevention and

mental health. Springer, Boston, MA

Barlett, L.D., Etscheidt, S. & Weisenstein, G. (2001). Special Education Law & Practice

in Public Schools. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Berry, B. (2013). Teacherpreneuers: A teacher leadership bold brand of for 21st-century

teaching and learning. Science. 340(6130), 309-310. DOI:

10.1126/science.1230580

Berry, R.A.W. (2006). Beyond strategies: Teacher beliefs and writing instruction in two

primary inclusion classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 11-24.

Berry, R.A.W. (2006). Teacher talk during whole-class lessons: Engagement strategies to

support the verbal participation of students with learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 211-232.

Berry, R.A.W. (2011). Voices of experience: General education teachers on teaching

students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6),

627-648. DOI: 10.1080/13603110903278035

Bianco, M. & Leech, N. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher

preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 33(4), 319-334.

Black, D. & Fernando, R. (2014). Mindfulness training and classroom behavior among

lower-income and ethnic minority elementary school children. Journal of Child

Family Studies, 23, 1242-1246. DOI:10.1007/s10826-013-9784-4

Bloomberg, L.D. & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road

Map from Beginning to End. (2nd ed.) Los Angeles: SAGE

164

Bon, S. Faircloth, S.C., & LeTendre, G.K. (2006). The school violence dilemma:

protecting the rights of students with disabilities while maintaining teachers’

sense of safety in schools. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(3), 148-157.

Bouck, E., Shurr, J., Tom, K., Jasper, A., Bassette, L., Miller, B., & Flanagan, S. (2012).

Fix it with TAPE: Repurposing technology to be assistive technology for students

with high-incidence disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 121-128. DOI:

10.1080/1045988X.2011.603396

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in

special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.

Bridwell, S. (2012). School leadership: Lessons from the lived experiences of urban

teachers. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.

American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066x.32.7.513

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press

Cameron, D. L. (2014). An examination of teacher-student interactions in inclusive

classrooms: Teacher interviews and classroom observations. Journal of Research

in Special Educational Needs, 14(4), 264-273. DOI:10.1111/1471-3802.12021

Cameron, D.L. & Cook, B.G. (2013). General education teachers’ goals and expectations

for their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Education Training

in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 18-30.

Cameron, D.L., Cook, B. & Tankersley, M. (2012). An analysis of the different patterns

165

of 1:1 interactions between educational professionals and their students with

varying abilities in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 16(12), 1335-1354. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580459

Carter, N., Prater, M.A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of

collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School

Failure, 54(1), 60-70.

CAST (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from

http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Cheek, J., Abrams, E., Lipschitz, D., Vago, D., & Nakamura, Y. (2017). Creating novel

school-based education programs to cultivate mindfulness in youth: What the

letters told us. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26 (9), 2564-2578.

DOI:10.1007/s10826-0017-0761-1

Cho, H.J., Wehmeyer, M. &Kingston, N. (2011). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and

use of interventions and barriers to promoting self-determination. The Journal of

Special Education, 45(3), 149-156. DOI: 10.1177/0022466910362588

Coffey, A.J. & Attkinson, P.A. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. (1st ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Conley, L., Marchant, M. & Caldarella, P. (2014). A comparison of teacher perceptions

and research-based categories of student behavior difficulties. Education, 134(4),

439-451.

Cook, B. & Cameron, D. (2010). Inclusive teachers’ concern and rejection toward their

students: Investigating the validity of ratings and comparing student groups.

Remedial and Special Education, 31(2), 67-76. DOI: 10.1177/0741932508324402

166

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques & procedures

for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications.

Cote, P., Cassidy, D., Carroll, L., Frank, J. & Bombardier, C. (2001). A systematic

review of the prognosis of acute whiplash and a new conceptual framework to

synthesize literature. Spine, 26(9), E445-E457.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). The New IDEA: CEC’s summary of

significant issues. Available from CEC: http://www.cec.sped.org/

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five

Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Cullinan, D. & Kauffman, J. (2005). Do race of student and race of teacher influence

ratings of emotional and behavioral problem characteristics of students with

emotional disturbance? Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 393-402.

Cramer, E. (2006). We cannot possibly meet the needs of these children: Complexities of

race and disability in the referral process of urban schools. Multiple Voices, 9(1),

50-63.

Damore, S. & Murray, C. (2009). Urban elementary school teachers’ perspectives

regarding collaborative teaching practices. Remedial and Special Education,

30(4), 234-244. DOI: 10.1177/0741932508321007

Dariotis, J., Mirabal-Beltran, R., Cluxton-Keller, F., Gould, L., Greenberg, M., &

Mendelson, T., (2017). A qualitative exploration of implementation factors in a

school-based mindfulness and yoga program: Lessons learned from students and

teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 54(1). DOI:10.1002/pits.21979

167

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory an introduction. New York: New

York University Press.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: Macmillan.

Doan, K. (2006). A sociocultural perspective on at-risk Asian-American students.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(3), 157-167.

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Dye, J.F., Schatz, I.M., Rosenberg, B.A. & Coleman, S.T. (2000). Constant comparison

method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2).

Easton, K., McComish, J.F. & Greenberg, R. (2000). Avoiding common pitfalls in

qualitative data collection and transcription. Qualitative Health Research, 10(5),

p. 703-707.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R. & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, The

University of Chicago Press.

Esposito, M.C., Guarino, A.J., & Caywood, K. D. (2007). Perceived teacher efficacy

beliefs for the inclusion of the student with learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities, 14(4), 265-271.

Eva, A. & Thayer, N. (2017). The mindful teacher: Translating research into daily well-

being. The Clearinghouse, 90(1), 18-25, DOI:10.1080/00098655.2016.1235953

Evans, C., Weiss, S., & Cullinan, D. (2012). Teacher perceptions and behavioral

168

strategies for students with emotional disturbance across educational

environments. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 82-90. DOI:

10.1080/1045988X.2011.574170

Fernandez, N. & Hynes, J. (2016). The efficacy of pullout programs in elementary

schools: Making it work. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research,

2(3), 32-47.

Friend, M. (2006). Special Education: Contemporary Perspectives for School

Professionals. Allyn & Bacon: New York

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D. & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching:

An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.

Fuchs, W.W. (2009). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion.

SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30-35.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and

how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Stecker, P. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new

continuum of general education placements and services. Council for Exceptional

Children, 76(3), 301-323.

Gage, N., Lierheimer, K. & Goran, L. (2012). Characteristics of students with high-

incidence disabilities broadly defined. Journal of Disabilities and Policy Studies,

23(3), 168-178. DOI: 10.1177/1044207311425385

Gallagher, D. (2006). The natural hierarchy undone: Disability studies, contributions to

169

contemporary debates in education. Vital Questions Facing Disability Studies in

Education. 2:63-95.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity, New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Gotshall, C. & Stefanou, C. (2011). The effects of on-going consultation for

accommodating students with disabilities on teacher self-efficacy and learned

helplessness. Education, 132(2), 321-331.

Gresham, F., Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills

training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children,

67(3), 331-344.

Griffin, C., Jones, H. & Kilgore, K. (2007). The unintended side effects of including

students with learning disabilities for teacher educators. Learning Disabilities: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 195-204.

Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A

review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2),

173-208.

Gutshall, C. A. (2013). Teachers’ mindsets for students with and without disabilities.

Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 1073-1083. DOI: 10.1002/pits.21725

Hallahan D.P., Kauffman, J.M. & Pullen, P.C. (2012). Exceptional Learners: An

Introduction to Special Education, (12th ed., pp 22-49). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klinger, J.K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of

process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher,

34(2), 3-13.

170

Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1),

1-32.

Hodge, S., Ammah, J., & Casebolt, K. (2004). High school general eduation teachers’

behaviors and beliefs associated with inclusion. Sport, Education and Society,

9(3), 395-419.

Hui-Michael, Y. &Garcia, S. (2009). General educators’ perceptions and attributions

about Asian-American students: Implications for special education referral.

Multiple Voices, 12(1), 21-37.

Hurt, J.M. (2012). A comparison of inclusion and pullout programs on student

achievement for students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://dc.etsu.edu/edt/1487

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A

program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-

94.

Jackson, J. & Campbell, J. (2009). Teachers’ peer buddy selections for children with

autism: Social characteristics and relationship with peer nomination. Journal of

Autism Development Disorder, 39: 269-277. DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0623-1

Johnson-Harris, K. & Mundschenk, N. (2014). Working effectively with students with

BD in a general education classroom: The case for universal design for learning.

The Clearing House, 168-174.

Jones, M., Michael, C., Mandala, J. & Colachico, D. (2008). Collaborative teaching:

Creating a partnership between general and special education. The International

Journal of Learning, 15(7).

171

Keller, J., Ruthruff, E., Keller, P., Hoy, R., Gaspelin, N. & Bertolini, K. (2017). “Your

brain becomes a rainbow.” Perceptions and traits of 4th graders in a school based

mindfulness intervention, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(4),

508-529. DOI:10.1080/02568543.2017.1343212

Khan, K., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a

systematic review. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 118-121.

Kurth, J., Gross, M., Lovinger, S., & Catalano, T. (2012). Grading students with

significant disabilities in inclusive settings: Teacher perspectives. Journal of

International Association of Special Education, 12(1), 41-57.

Landrum, T., Cook, B., Tankersley. M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2007). Teacher perceptions of

the useability of intervention information from personal versus data-based

sources. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 27-42.

LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146-

154.

Lee-Tarver, A. (2006). Are individualized education plans a good thing? A survey of

teachers’ perceptions of the utility of IEPs in regular education settings. Journal

of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 263-272.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity

in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73-84.

doi:10.1002/ev/223.

Lindsey, J., Ghose, C., Ramasamy, R., &Quinn Head, L. (2001). Learning disability

172

factors and inclusive educational experiences and teachers’ perceptions of full

inclusion. Research for Educational Reform.

Lohrman, S. & Bambara, L. (2006). Elementary education teachers’ beliefs about

essential supports needed to successfully include students with developmental

disabilities who engage in challenging behaviors. Research & Practice for

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 157-173.

Long, A., Renshaw, T. & Camarota, D. (2018). Classroom management in an urban,

alternative school: A comparison of mindfulness and behavioral approaches.

Contemporary School Psychology, 22, 233-248. DOI:10.1007/s40688-018-0177y

Luckner, J. & Ayantoye, C. (2013). Itinerant teachers of students who are deaf and hard

of hearing: Practices and preparation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 18(3), 409-423. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/ent015

Magiera, K., Lawrence-Brown, D., Bloomquist, K., Foster, C., Figueroa, A., Glatz, K.,

Heppeler, D. & Rodriguez, P. (2006). On the road to more collaborative teaching:

One school’s experience. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 2(5).

Malone, D.M., Gallagher, P.A., & Long, S. R. (2001). General education teachers’

attitudes and perceptions of teamwork supporting children with developmental

concerns. Early Education & Development, 12(4), 577-592.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The

Lancet, 483-488.

Martin, B., Ireland, H. Johnson, J., & Claxton, K. (2003). Perceptions of teachers on

inclusion in four rural Midwest school districts. Rural Educator, 24(3), 3-10.

Mastergeorge, A. & Martinez, J. (2010). Rating performance assessments of students

173

with disabilities: A study of reliability and bias. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 28(6), 536-550.

Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research: An interactive design. (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Los Angeles:

SAGE.

McGuinn, P. (2016). From No Child Left Behind to Every Student Succeeds Act:

Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. The Journal of

Federalism, 46(3) 392-415. DOI://10.1093/publius/pjw014

McLaren, E., Bausch, M., & Jones Ault, M. (2007) . Collaboration strategies reported by

teachers providing assistive technology services. Journal of Special Education

Technology, 22 (4), 16-29.

McCullough, J.L. (2008). A study of special education programming and its relationship

to student mathematics performance on the DSTP (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3325487).

Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.etsu.edu:2048/pqdtft/docview/304627371/138

E7314 E099F0AB58/1?accountid=10771

Meltzer, L., Katzir, T., Miller, L., Reddy, R. & Roditi. (2004). Academic self-

perceptions, effort, and strategy use in students with learning disabilities: Changes

over time. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(2), 99-108.

174

Mendelson, T., Greenberg, M., Dariotis, J., Gould, L., Rhoades, B., & Leaf, P. (2010).

Feasibility and Preliminary outcomes of a school-based mindfulness intervention

for urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 985-994.

DOI:10.1007/s10802-010-9418-x

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research & case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. & Bierema, L.L. (2014). Adult Learning Theory Linking Theory &

Practice. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA

Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design &

implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, M., Gresham, P. & Fouts, B. (2011). Remembering memories about students with

disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 173-180.

Muus, R. (1996). Theories of Adolescence. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New

York.

Nusbaum, E. (2013). Vulnerable to exclusion: the place for segregated education within

conceptions of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 179(12),

1295-1311. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2013.826292

175

Obiakor, F. (2011). Maximizing access, equity, and inclusion in general education and

special education. The Journal of International Association of Special Education,

12(1), 10-16.

Obiakor, F., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making

inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of

Children, 35(3), 477-490.

Papalia-Berardi, A. & Hall, T. (2007). Teacher assistive team social validity: A

perspective from general education teachers. Education and Treatment of

Children, 30(2), 89-110.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7),

17-21.

Rauscher, L. & McLintock, M. (1997). Ableism curriculum design. In teaching for

Diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.

Renshaw, T. & Cook, C. (2017). Introduction to the special issue: Mindfulness in the

schools-Historical roots, current status, and future directions. Psychology in the

Schools, 54(1). DOI:10.1002/pits.21978

Rice, N. (2006). Opportunities lost, possibilities found. Journal of Disability Policy

Studies, 17(2), 88-100.

Ryan, G.W. & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15

(1), p. 85-109.

Sabornie, E., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006) Comparing characteristics of high-

incidence disability groups: A descriptive review. Remedial and Special

Education, 27(2), 95-104.

176

Sacks, A. (2009). Special Education: A Reference book for Policy & Curriculum

Development. (2nd ed.) Grey House Publishing: Millerton, NY

Sailor, W. & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applications. Phi Delta

Kappan, p. 503-509.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual of qualitative researchers. (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage

Saldana, J. (2014). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Scruggs, T. & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,

1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, p. 59-74.

Seidel, J. & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data.

In Computer aided qualitative data analysis theory methods & practice, 52-61.

London: Sage

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education & the social sciences. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Shady, S., Luther, V., & Richman, L. (2013). Teaching the teachers: A study of perceived

professional development needs of educators to enhance positive attitudes toward

inclusive practices. Education Research and Perspectives: An International

Journal, 40, 169-191.

Sivan E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist,

21(3), 209-233.

Smith, R. & Leonard, P. (2005). Collaboration for inclusion: Practitioner perspectives.

177

Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(4), 269-279. DOI:

10.1080/10665680500299650

Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, A. & Sadeh, S. (2014). Is there evidence to support the use of social skills

interventions for students with emotional disabilities? Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 30:2, p. 107-131.

Tankersley, M. & Cook, B.G. (2007). An overview of the side effects of including

students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary

Journal, 14(3), 217-224.

Tankersley, M., Niesz, T., Cook, B.G., & Woods, W. (2007). The unintended side effects

of inclusion of students with learning disabilities: The perspectives of special

education teachers. Learning Disabilities, 14(3), 135-144.

Taylor, R., Smiley, L., & Richards, S. (2015). Exceptional Students: Preparing Teachers

for the 21st Century (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill Education.

Tenenbaum, H. & Ruck, M. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial

minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253-273.

Tschannen-Moran, M. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its

meaning and measure, Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Turnbull, III, H.R., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. E. (2007). Free appropriate public

education: the law and children with disabilities (7th ed.) Denver: Love

Publishing Company.

178

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with

Disabilities Act (IDEA) database, retrieved September 25, 2015, from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-

files/index.html#bcc.

Voltz, D. (2006). Inclusion in an era of accountability: a framework for differentiating

instruction in urban standards-based classrooms. Journal of Urban Learning,

Teaching & Research, Volume 2, p. 104-115.

Watnick, B. & Sacks, A. (2006). A snapshot of teacher perceptions on full-inclusion in

an international urban community: Miami-Dade County Florida. The Journal of

the International Association of Special Education, 7(1), 67-74.

Wells, R. A. (2009). Easing anxiety through increasing knowledge: Supporting educators

in inclusive settings. The International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 663-670.

Wilson Kamens, M., Loprete, S. & Slostad, F. (2003). Inclusive classrooms: What

practicing teachers want to know. Action Teacher Education, 25(1), 20-26.

Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic

attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-setting. American

Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.

Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., Ju, S., & Roberts, E. (2014). Minority representation in

special education: 5 year trends. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 118-

127. DOI:10.1007/s10826-012-9698-6

Zindler, R. (2009). Trouble in paradise: A study of who is included in an inclusion

classroom. Teachers College Record, 111(8), 1976-1996.

179

Appendix A

Informed Consent for Research Participation Urban Elementary General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of the Inclusion of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities IRB #111523

Principal Investigator: Elisabeth Rice, Ed. D, 202-994-3365 Primary Contact: Chunita Simms-Pilgrim, 202-390-9808

Introduction You are invited to take part in a research study being conducted by Dr. Elisabeth Rice at The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development. You are being asked if you want to take part in this study because you currently are an elementary general education teacher located in an urban city in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Please read this form and ask any questions that will help you decide if you want to be in this study. Taking part is completely voluntary and even if you decide you want to, you can quit at any time. You must be 18 years old to participate in this study.

Purpose The purpose of this exploratory study, then, is to investigate urban general education elementary teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the inclusion of students with high- incidence disabilities in their classrooms. Basic qualitative research will be used as the method to fulfill the purposes of this study (Merriam, 2009). In order to help urban elementary general education teachers meet the needs of their increasingly diverse students, there is a need to better understand teachers’ perceptions. Perceptions, for the purposes of this study, are defined as: The way you think about or understand someone or something; the ability to understand or notice something easily; the way that you notice or understand something using one of your senses (Merriam-Webster, 2015). The following research questions will be used to guide this study: 1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms? 2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their competence in teaching students with disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? 3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the supports for inclusion within the school and within the classroom?

Procedures Semi-structured interviews will be the method used to collect data for this study. Each participant is encouraged to participate in one interview. Interviews will take up to an hour to complete and will be recorded by an audio voice recording device. However, participants may choose to have portions of their interview to not be recorded. Please

180 inform the researcher in such cases so that audio recording may stop. If you choose to participate in this research, you will also schedule a convenient time to complete the interviews. The interviews will be conducted face to face at an agreed upon location.

Risks and Confidentiality There are no physical risks associated with this study. However, potential risk of losing confidentiality and privacy may be breached. The researcher will make every attempt to keep any and all data collected from interviews in a secure and password protected file to minimize these risks. There is a small chance that someone not on our research team could find out that you took part in this study or somehow connect your name with the information we collect about you. However, the following steps are being taken to reduce this risk. The researcher will use an alphanumeric coding link to a key stored in a separate file and secure location. All collected data will be collected and transcribed verbatim by the researcher. Data will be stored by the researcher and destroyed a year after completion of the study by the researcher. The records of this study will be kept private. In any published articles or presentations, the researcher will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you as a subject.

Benefits Taking part in this research will provide a benefit that is two-folded. First, it will allow you the opportunity to share your insights on teaching students with disabilities in your classroom. Secondly, it will benefit the larger education community by providing potential suggestions and recommendations for pre-service training and professional development opportunities nationwide.

Compensation There will be no compensation offered for your participation in this study. It is completely on a volunteer basis. You have the right to opt out at any time.

Questions Please contact the researcher at 202-390-9808 or through email at [email protected] with any questions or concerns about this study. For questions regarding your rights as a participant in human research call the GWU Office of Human Research at 202-994-2715.

Documentation of Consent If you agree to take part in this study, please sign below:

(Participant’s Signature) (Participant’s Printed Name) (Date)

(Signature of person obtaining consent) (Printed Name of person obtaining consent) (Date) A COPY OF THIS FORM WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU TO KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS.

181

Appendix B

Demographic Data Collection Questionnaire

1. Gender: ___ Male _____ Female 2. Age: 23-30 _____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ 50+ _____ 3. Race/ Ethnicity: _____African-American _____Asian/Asian-American _____European- American _____Hispanic _____Native American _____Other 4. Grade level taught this school year: ______Total number of students: ______5. Number of years teaching: _____ 3-10 _____10-15 _____15-20 _____20+ 6. Education background: (Check all that apply. Please also indicate concentration. Ex. Bachelor’s _X_ English) _____ Bachelor’s ______Master’s ______Doctorate ______7. Is the school you are currently teaching at a Title I school? _____Y _____N 8. Disabilities taught. (Please check all that apply.) Disability Autism Blindness Deafness Emotional Disturbance Hearing Impairment Intellectual Disability Multiple Disabilities Orthopedic Impairment Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment I don’t know.

Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. This will assist in the analysis of this study.

182

Appendix C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

*Questions in bold must be asked.

Research Questions RQ1: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classroom? Interview Questions 1. Tell me a little bit about your teaching background; when did you start teaching? a. How long have you been teaching? b. What grade levels have you previously taught and for how long? c. How did you obtain your teaching license? d. Did you go through a teacher preparation program at your school? If yes, how has it helped you in your teaching career? If not, how did you come into education? 2. Tell me about your class this year; how many students in your class have disabilities? 3. What is your definition of inclusion? 4. Tell me about the types of disabilities you have encountered throughout your teaching experience; what are the typical categories of students that are included in your class? 5. Tell me an example or a story about having a student with a disability in your classroom. What was it like? Describe a typical day teaching this student. 6. When you think about students with disabilities in your classroom, how do you feel about the support they need? 7. Tell me about a student in your class that has a disability; what are you likely to do academically, socially and behaviorally with this student? 8. Tell me about a typical lesson with your students; what are you likely to do to keep all students engaged and on-task? 9. What do you think about students with disabilities being included in your classroom? a. Do you feel that they should be there? If not, then where? If so, then why? b. Do you feel that they are capable of completing the work? c. Do you feel that other students understand why they are in this is classroom? 10. How often do you attend IEP meetings? a. Are strategies discussed here that are helpful in your planning for students with high-incidence disabilities in your classroom? b. Do you help develop the goals that students are expected to achieve?

183

Research Question RQ2: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? Interview Questions 11. Tell me about how prepared you feel about teaching students in your class that have a disability; how prepared do you feel you are? What factors (experience, supports, educational training etc.) influences your preparedness? a. What professional development sessions have you attended? b. What resources do you have that would support your preparedness for students with disabilities in your class? c. To what extent did your teacher training support you for this work? Or not? d. To what extent has university coursework prepared you for this work? 12. Tell me about a lesson that you taught that you felt went well with students with disabilities; what did you do? a. Why did you feel that it went well? b. What were some indicators of success? c. What are you using (student responses, completion of work, observed interactions with peers etc.) to make that determination? 13. What are some of the goals that you have for students with disabilities in your classroom? 14. How do you address performance or behavior that do not meet expectations? 15. How familiar are you with the identified academic and social goals that are described on the IEPs of students in your classroom that have disabilities? a. Have you seen their IEPs? b. Did you help create the goals on their IEPs? 16. How successful do you feel about teaching students with disabilities? 17. How effective do you feel about teaching students with disabilities? a. Why are you so effective? b. Why do you feel that you are not as effective? c. What do you think you can do to be more effective? 18. What would make you feel more effective? a. Do you think that you may need more planning time? Resources? Professional development? 19. What would make you feel more successful? 20. How does your understanding of students’ disabilities better help you support students with disabilities in your class? a. Do you feel that you have enough information about students’ disabilities to better help you plan for or support students with disabilities in your class? b. How much or to what extent/ level do you understand the disabilities of your students? 21. How much or how little does the disability category of the student play or influence your planning and teaching students with disabilities?

184

Research Question RQ3: How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their supports for inclusion within the school and within the classroom? Interview Questions 22. How do you feel supported by your school administrators with students with disabilities in your classroom? a. In what ways are you supported by your school administration? b. What additional supports might you need from your school’s administration if any? c. Do you have specific programs, staffing, resources, lesson guides (UDL, differentiated instruction), classroom furniture etc. that supports the inclusion of students with disabilities in your classroom? 23. How do you feel supported in your classroom in teaching students with disabilities? a. Do you have an instructional coach that you meet with to plan? If so, how often? If not, why not? b. Do you spend time planning with special education teachers? If so, how often? If not, why not? c. Do you plan with grade level team members? If so, how often? If not, why not? d. How often do you collaborate with members of the special education team in efforts to finding ways to support students in your class? 24. What do you think would be an ideal level of support in your building and in your classroom when teaching students with disabilities? 25. When thinking about your classroom dynamics this school year, how much say or did you have a say in the demographics of your students? a. Were you consulted about which students would or would not be included in your class this year? b. Did you know much about the students that were to be included in your classroom this year? 26. What is the nature of your school’s culture when it comes to the inclusion of students with disabilities? a. Is it apart of the school’s mission and vision? b. How do you see it being manifested, yearly, monthly, and daily? (awards programs, student appreciations, student of the month, daily incentives, etc.) 27. How do you feel about the discipline policy in your school when it comes to students with disabilities? a. How do you feel about your school’s response to students with disabilities when it comes to discipline? b. How do you feel about the rights of students with disabilities in your class? c. How does their behavior influence your attitude towards them? d. How do you balance your time with students with disabilities and students without disabilities?

185

Appendix D

Matrix for Questions in the Interview Protocol

Research Questions:

1. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classroom? 2. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? 3. How do urban elementary general education teachers perceive their supports for inclusion within the school and within the classroom? *Shaded boxes indicate the possible overlap in responses these questions may cover.

1 2 3 Interview Questions 1. Tell me a little bit about your teaching background: when did you start ✓ teaching? a. How long have you been teaching? b. What grade levels have you previously taught and for how long? c. How did you obtain your teaching license? d. Did you go through a teacher preparation program at your school? If yes, how has it helped you in your teaching career? If not, how did you come into education? 2. Tell me about your class this year; how any students in your class have disabilities?

3. What is your definition of inclusion?

4. Tell me about the types of disabilities you have encountered throughout your teaching experience; what are the typical categories of students that are included in your classroom?

5. Tell me an example or a story about having a student with a disability in your classroom. What was it like? Describe a typical day teaching this student. 6. When you think about students with disabilities in your classroom, how do you feel about the support they need?

7. Tell me about a student in your class that has a disability; what are you likely to do academically, socially, and behaviorally with this student?

186

8. Tell me about a typical lesson with your students; what are you likely to do to keep all students engaged and on-task?

9. What do you think about students with disabilities being included in your classroom? a. Do you feel that they should be there? If not, then where? If so, then why? b. Do you feel that they are capable of completing the work? c. Do you feel that other students understand why these students are in the classroom? 10. How often do you attend IEP meetings? a. Are strategies discussed here that are helpful in your planning for students with high-incidence disabilities in your classroom? b. Do you help develop the goals that students are expected to achieve? 11. Tell me about how prepared you feel about teaching students in your class that have a disability; how prepared do you feel you are? What factors (experience, supports, educational training etc.) influence your preparedness? a. What professional development sessions have you attended? b. What resources do you have that would support your preparedness for students with disabilities in your class? c. To what extent did your teacher training support you for this work? Or not? 12. Tell me about a lesson that you taught that you felt went well with students with disabilities; what did you do? a. Why did you feel it went well? b. What were some indicators of success? c. What are you using (student responses, completion of work, observed interactions with peers, etc.) to make that determination? 13. What are some goals that you have for students with disabilities in your classroom?

14. How do you address performance or behavior that does not meet expectations?

15. How familiar are you with the identified academic and social goals that are described on the IEPs of students in your classroom that have disabilities? a. Have you seen their IEPs? b. Did you help create the goals on their IEPs? 16. How successful do you feel about teaching students with disabilities?

17. How effective do you feel about teaching students with disabilities? a. Why are you so effective? b. Why do you feel you are not so effective? c. What do you think you can do to be more effective?

187

18. What would make you feel more effective? a. Do you think you may need more planning time? Resources? Professional development? 19. What would make you feel more successful?

20. How does your understanding of students’ disabilities better help you support students with disabilities in your class? a. Do you feel that you have enough information about the students’ disabilities to better help you plan for or support students with disabilities in your class? b. How much or to what extent/level do you understand the disabilities of your students? 21. How much or how little does the disability category of the student play or influence your teaching and planning for students with disabilities?

22. How do you feel supported by your school administrators with students with disabilities in your classroom? a. In what ways are you supported by your school administration? b. What additional supports might you need from your school’s administration, if any? c. Do you have specific programs, staffing, resources, lesson guides (UDL, differentiated instruction), classroom furniture etc. that supports the inclusion of students with disabilities in your classroom? 23. How do you feel supported in your classroom in teaching students with disabilities? a. Do you have an instructional coach that you meet to plan with? If so, how often? If not, why not? b. Do you spend time planning with special education teachers? If so, how often? If not, why not? c. Do you plan with grade level team members? If so, how often? If not, why not? d. How often do you collaborate with members of the special education team in efforts to finding ways to support students in your class? 24. What do you think would be an ideal level of support in your building and in your classroom when teaching students with disabilities?

25. When thinking about your classroom dynamics this school year, how much say or did you have a say in the demographics of your students? a. Were you consulted about which students would or would not be included in your classroom this year? b. Did you know much about the students that were to be included in your class this year?

26. What is the nature of your school’s culture when it comes to the inclusion of students with disabilities? a. Is it apart of the school’s mission and vision?

188

b. How do you see it being manifested, yearly, monthly and daily? (awards programs, student appreciations, student of the month, daily incentives, etc.) 27. How do you feel about the discipline policy in your school when it comes to students with disabilities? a. How do you feel about your school’s response to students with disabilities when it comes to discipline? b. How do you feel about the rights of students with disabilities in your class?

189

Appendix E

Research Question Matrix Summary

Research Questions Interview Questions that possibly provide overlap 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14, 15, 16, 17, 1.) How do urban elementary general 18, 19, 20, 24 education teachers perceive the academic abilities and social needs of students with high-incidence disabilities in their classrooms?

2.) How do urban elementary general 1, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13, 14, education teachers perceive their 15,16,17,18,19, 20, 22, 23,24,25,26 competence in teaching students with high-incidence disabilities? How are they making meaning and how do they feel about themselves? 3.) How do urban elementary general 5, 8,9,10, 11, 14, 15,16,17,22,23,24,25,26 education teachers perceive the supports for inclusion within their school and within their classrooms?

190