Measuring Concerns about Integrated Education in India

Umesh Sharma

Research Assistant, Unit for Disability Studies and Integration
Department of Learning and Educational Development
The University of Melbourne
Australia

Ishwar Desai

Head, Unit for Disability Studies and Integration
Department of Learning and Educational Development
The University of Melbourne
Australia

Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure educators' concerns about integrated education in India. A 21-item on Concerns about Integrated Education (CIE) scale was constructed. The instrument was administered to 310 primary school principals and 484 teachers in Delhi, India. Factor analysis of the data indicated that the CIE scale involved four factors: concern about resources, concern about acceptance, concern about academic standards and concern about workloads. The results indicated that school principals were significantly more concerned than classroom teachers about implementing integrated education.

A major challenge facing regular school educators today is the need to accommodate students with disabilities to regular classrooms. Integrating students with disabilities into regular classrooms is a complex issue and its implementation is a topic of great controversy in a number of countries. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are some of the countries that have adopted the principles of inclusive education as the preferred method of educating students with disabilities. Recently, several Asian countries have also embraced the concepts of integration and inclusion as the most viable method of providing education to children with disabilities. One such country is India, where its National Government has taken a number of initiatives to promote the integration of children with disabilities: Integrated Education of Disabled Children (IEDC), 1974; Project Integrated Education of the Disabled (PIED), 1987; and more recently the passage of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996 (Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, 1996).

The passage of The Persons with Disabilities Act has the potential to change the educational status of more than 30 million children with disabilities who currently do not have access to any forms of education (Vaughn, 1997). It is also likely to provide a window of opportunity to those children who are currently educated in segregated settings (estimated to be less than one percent of children with disabilities) (Rehabilitation Council of India, 1996). However, Mitchell and Desai (in press) point out that providing education to such a vast number of children with disabilities in regular school settings will face a number of challenges or issues: (a) the challenge of modifying deeply held attitude, (b) the challenge of providing adequate levels of training to key stakeholders, (c) the challenge of providing adequate resources, (d) the issue of large class size, (e) the issue of coordination among the various government departments and (f) the concerns of educators.

Werts, Wolery, Caldwell and Salisbury (1996) and Sharma (2001) state that any change initiative such as the development of inclusive schools will require the perceived concerns of regular school educators to be systematically addressed. They further add that failure to address educators' concerns may result in problems related to its implementation. Likewise, Evans, Townsend, Duchonowski and Hocutt (1996) point out that attention needs to be given not only to the identification of the barriers and challenges faced by educators but also the development of mechanisms to confront and overcome such challenges. Stoler (1992), referring these concerns as "impediments to the successful implementation of inclusive programs", has stressed that inclusion cannot become a viable educational reality unless educators' concerns are systematically identified and addressed.

Although several studies have investigated educators' concerns about integrated education (Center and Ward, 1987; D'Alonzo, et. al., 1997; Heflin and Bullock, 1999; Stoler, 1992; Wolery, et. al., 1994) yet they are conducted largely in Western countries that none of them addresses problems and issues that are relevant to the Indian context. Miles (1997) who has worked extensively in India has cautioned against the application of research findings of Western countries to India without consideration of India's sociopolitical and educational traditions. Also, the scope of most studies examining concerns about integrated education is rather limited. For example, such studies have often neglected to examine specific factors that may be associated with concerns of educators about integrated education. In addition, most of the instruments used to identify concerns have not mentioned the scale reliability and validity. Nonetheless, with regard to the situation in India, while there are studies that have examined educators' attitude towards integrated education (Dev and Belfiore, 1996; Jangira and Srinivasan, 1991) and disabilities (Panda, B. K., 1991; Panda, K. C., 1972), there appears to have no studies that have examined educators' concerns about integrated education. Given the recent policy initiatives and the legislative mandate calling upon schools to educate children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers, an examination of educators' concerns about integrated education seemed to be necessary. The purpose of the present study was to develop an instrument that could be used in India to measure educators' concerns about implementing integrated education and at the same time it has to meet the following criteria:

1. The instrument should be simple and easy to administer, that only little or evenno training is required.
2. The instrument should be useful for the subjects who are directly involved inthe implementation of the integration programmes.
3. The instrument should be reliable and valid.

Method

Subjects and Settings

Two subsets of educators, primary school principals and primary school teachers, drawing from three educational zones administered by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, India were selected to participate in the study. These principals and teachers should represent the urban, suburban, and rural educational areas across the three educational zones. All principals (n=355) who attended regular monthly meetings with their administrators were surveyed. Out of 355 questionnaires that were distributed to the principals, 310 were finally returned. This constituted a response rate of 87 percent.

There were a total of 5004 teachers employed in 482 primary schools in the three educational zones selected for this study. In order to ensure a representative sample of teachers from the three zones, a simple cluster sampling technique was used (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). The sampling procedure was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved a random sampling of 15 percent (n=72) of schools in the three zones. In the next stage, all teachers (n=606) from these 72 schools were invited to participate in the study. Out of the 606 questionnaires that were distributed to the teachers, 484 completed questionnaires were finally received. This represented a return rate of 80 percent.

Fifty-two percent of the principals and 76 percent of the teachers were females. The majority of principals were above the age of 50 while the majority of teachers aged between 31 and 40. A very large majority of the principals (89%) as well as teachers (91%) did not have any training in special or integrated education. Also, a significant number of principals (41%) and teachers (45%) indicated having "no" knowledge of The Persons with Disabilities Act.

Scale Development

The scale, "Concerns about Integrated Education" (CIE), was designed to measure the concern of principals and classroom teachers regarding the integration of students with disabilities into regular school programmes. The following steps were undertaken in the development of the scale.

Step 1 Identifying concerns

The first step in the development of the scale involved the identification \ of concern which educators may have regarding the integration of children \ with disabilities. A pool of 36 items for the scale was developed on the \ basis of a review of the literature and informal discussion with educators \ (both school and university) and school administrators in India and Australia.

Step 2 Determining the format for measurement

Each identified concern was written as a single statement. A four point Likert-type classification with responses ranging from Extremely Concerned (4), Very Concerned (3), A Little Concerned (2), Not Concerned at all (1) to measure the level of educators' concern was used. The phrasing of items and Likert responses were based on a similar US study conducted by Pearman, Huang and Mellblom (1997).

Step 3 Development of scale (Draft form)

A 36-item Concerns scale was constructed in Hindi as well as in English. For each item, respondents could indicate their level of concern by choosing a response, that best reflected their feelings, ranging from Extremely Concerned to Not Concerned at all.

Step 4 Review of the scale by an expert panel

A panel of eight Indian experts working in the field of disability and education was provided with a working definition of concerns about integration and was asked to review the 36-item Concerns scale. The purpose of this exercise was to establish the content validity of the scale. The panel, as a group, was asked to review the scale and offer comments in regard to the following: (a) rating of the importance of each item as a measure of participants' concerns about integration particularly in the context of the unique socio-educational and legal situation in India. The panel was requested to rate from high, moderate to low; (b) each individual item's clarity and conciseness and wordings used in the cases, where possible suggestions can be made; and (c) the clarity and conciseness of the directions for completing the scale. The panel rated 21 items as of "high" and 15 items as of "moderate" or "low" importance. The panel also suggested a few terminological changes and the rephrasing of a few items in the scale. A second draft of the Concerns scale, consisting of the 21 items which were rated highly by the panel, was produced.

Step 5 Pilot study

In order to determine the reliability (internal consistency) of the scale, it was administered to a sample of 25 principals and 29 teachers. The reliability of the scale was determined by computing Cronbach's alpha. An analysis of the data indicated that Cronbach's alpha value (reliability coefficients) for the Concerns scale was 0.83. According to DeVellies (1991), a reliability coefficient for a scale ranging from 0.80 to 0.90 is considered as "very good". The analysis of the data also revealed that the corrected item-total correlation for all items was adequate except for the first one. The item-total correlation for this item was 0.03. It has been recommended by DeVellies (1991) that when the item-total correlation for an item is low, it should be dropped from the scale. It was decided, however, to retain this item because research indicates that the concern addressed in this item (concern about the lack of time to plan educational programmes for students with disabilities) is one of the most frequently cited concern expressed by educators. Also, the dropping of this item from the scale seemed unwarranted because its omission would not increase the alpha value significantly.

Step 6 Final version of the scale

Finally a 21-item Concerns scale, entitled concerns about Integrated Education (CIE), was produced (see Appendix 1). This scale was used to collect the data from the principals (n=310) and teachers (n=484) in the three educational zones. An individual's concerns score on CIE may range from 21 to 84. The concerns score for an individual is calculated by adding all the responses of each item. High score on the CIE scale indicates that the respondent is more concerned about integrating students with disabilities compared to the respondent who obtain low score.

Factor Analysis of the Concerns about Integrated Education Scale

The educators' responses from the final study sample of educators (n=794) (310 principals and 484 teachers) on the Concerns about Integrated Education (CIE) scale were factor analyzed to determine if their concerns were clustered in some particular pattern. Initially the educators' responses were subjected to principal component analysis, which was followed by varimax rotation of factors with Eigen values more than 1.0. The purpose of rotating the factors was to achieve a simpler data structure by spreading the variance more equally across the identified factors of the Concerns scale. Use of varimax rotation ensured that the factors identified were as distinctively different from each other as possible. The analysis revealed four factors, which accounted for 55.2 percent of the variance. In order to determine which factor was relevant for each item, the highest loading for each item was used. These values are shown in Table 1. All items that were finally included had a loading of above 0.49. Thus, at least 24 percent of the variance in each item could be explained by its most relevant factor.

* Number in parenthesis indicates the serial number of each concern item on the CIE scale.

The first factor included items in relation to either resources or financial concern. This factor was labelled as 'Concern about Resources'. The second factor included five items. Two items related to the non-acceptance of students with disabilities. The remaining three items related to concern about lack of time, concern about difficulties in maintaining discipline, and the lack of skills and knowledge to integrate students with disabilities. This factor was called 'Concern about Acceptance'. Six items loaded on the third factor. Of these, three items related to concern about the declining academic standards of educators, concern about declining academic standards of non-disabled students and concern about declining academic standards of the school. The concern addressed in the remaining three items (concern about integrating students who lack self-help skills, concern about giving equal attention to all students, and concern about integration that will lead to stress and anxiety in teachers) also related to declining academic standards. It seemed that some educators were concerned that the need to spend extra time helping integrated students would contribute to increased stress levels and a decline in their work with other students, thereby leading to a lowering of academic standards. This third factor was named 'Concern about Academic Standards'. As most items on the fourth factor related to the increased workloads of educators, it was named 'Concern about Workloads'.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the four concern factors and the total CIE scale based on the responses from the final survey population (n=794) was computed using Cronbach's alpha. The coefficient alphas were found acceptable for all four factors and the total CIE scale. They were 0.82, 0.70, 0.84, and 0.74 for 'Concern about Resources' (Factor I), 'Concern about Acceptance' (Factor II), 'Concern about Academic Standards' (Factor III) and 'Concerns about Workloads' (Factor IV) respectively. The coefficient alpha for the total scale was 0.91.

Results and Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the Concerns about Integrated Education (CIE) scale possesses adequate reliability and validity to justify its use in assessing educators' concerns about integrated education in India. Estimates of sub-scale reliabilitity indicate a level of internal consistency sufficient to allow the use of factor scores for inter-group comparison.

The results of this study indicate that the construct of 'Concern about Integrated Education' is multi-dimensional. The four interpreted factors indicating the measurement of educators' concerns about integrated education were: Concern about Resources, Concern about Acceptance, Concern about Academic Standards and Concern about Workloads.

Given the multi-dimensional nature of concerns about integrated education, it appears to be reasonable to ask: Is the concern in each sub-scale expressed to the same degree? This is an important question for school administrators and policy makers involved in the implementation of integration programs. For example, if it is found that the concern about resources (Factor I) is greater than the remaining three dimensions, then school administrators and policy makers must target their efforts to reduce this concern by providing the necessary resources to implement integrated education. Comparison between Principals' and Teachers' Concerns The principals' and teachers' concern scores on each of the four factors and the total scores on CIE scale are presented in Table 2. It was found that the mean concern scores for both groups of educators ranged between 2 and 3 (Mean = 2.30 for principals; Mean = 2.20 for teachers). This suggested that the educators in this study were moderately concerned about implementing integrated education (the value of 2. 2 and 2.3 lay between 2 = A Little Concerned, and 3 = Very Concerned). When the mean concern scores of both groups were compared, it was found that principals were significantly more concerned than classroom teachers.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Note: High concern mean scores are indicative of more concern about integrated education. 10 U. Sharma & I. Desai

Based on the analysis of the mean factor scores of principals and teachers, it was found that whilst principals were significantly more concerned than teachers about the acceptance of students with disabilities (Factor II) and increased workloads (Factor IV), there were no such differences on the other two factors (Factor I - Lack of Resources and Factor III - Concern about Declining Academic Standards). A major concern of both principals and teachers was the non-availability of resources (Factor I), particularly with regard to para-professional and special education staff. This finding was similar to those reported in a number of studies undertaken in the USA (Heflin and Bullock, 1999), Australia (Roberts and Pratt, 1987) and New Zealand (Harvey and Green, 1984). In India, the number of special educators and para-professional staff (physiotherapists and speech therapists) available is extremely limited (Rehabilitation Council of India, 1996). The concern for the need of special education and para-professional staff, therefore, calls for the urgent attention of policy makers and education administrators if the intent of The Persons with Disabilities Act is to be realised. Some literature have pointed out that indequate provision of trained staff and lack of funds are the commonly reported barriers to inclusion (D'Alanzo, et. al., 1997; Downing, et. at., 1997; York and Tundidor, 1995). The present study confirmed this financial barrier as a major concern of school educators.

An overall lower mean concern score for Factor IV (concern about increased work loads) was found for both principals (Mean = 1.83) and teachers (Mean = 1.65). This is in sharp contrast to findings from overseas studies in which the concern about increase in workloads and additional paper work are often expressed as the major concerns of educators (Pearman, et. al., 1997, Vaughn, et. al., 1996). Less concern for this factor is considered as an encouraging finding. It indicates that educators in Delhi are not overly concerned about the increase in workloads associated with integrated education. However, one should be cautious in interpreting this finding as very few principals and teachers who participated in this study involved in implementing integrated education and they may, therefore, not be aware of the considerable increase in workloads that are often associated with integrated education. It is also possible that these results reflect the concern of educators to abstract problems.

In the light of the level of reliability and suggested validity of Concerns about Integrated Education scale, it seems to be worthy to further investigate and apply the measure to other countries.

Appendix 1

Concern about Integrated Education

Integrated education is one form of educational provision that may be made for students with disabilities within the school system. In the context of your school situation and your personal experience indicate whether any of the following items will be a concern to you if a student with a disability was placed in your class or school.

Instructions

Please indicate your level of concern by circling the number that applies to you most appropriately.

1: Extremely Concerned
2: Very Concerned
3: A Little Concerned
4: Not Concerned at All

1. I will not have enough time to plan educational programs for students with disabilities.
   (4 3 2 1)
2. It will be difficult to maintain discipline in class.
   (4 3 2 1)
3. I do not have knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities.
   (4 3 2 1)
4. I will have to do additional paper work.
   (4 3 2 1)
5. Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students.
   (4 3 2 1)
6. Parents of children without disabilities may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom where there are students with disabilities.
   (4 3 2 1)
7. My school will not have enough funds for implementing integration successfully.
   (4 3 2 1)
8. There will be inadequate para-professional staff available to support integrated students (e.g. speech therapist, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, etc.).
   (4 3 2 1)
9. I will not receive enough incentives (e.g. additional remuneration or allowance) to integrate students with disabilities.
   (4 3 2 1)
10. My workload will increase.
    (4 3 2 1)
11. Other staff members of the school will be stressed.
    (4 3 2 1)
12. My school will have difficulty in accommodating students with various types of disabilities because of inappropriate infrastructure, e.g. architectural barrier.
    (4 3 2 1)
13. There will be inadequate resources or special teachers available to support integration.
    (4 3 2 1)
14. My school will not have adequate special education instructional materials and teaching aids, e.g. Braille.
    (4 3 2 1)
15. The overall academic standards of the school will suffer.
    (4 3 2 1)
16. My performance as a classroom teacher or school principal will decline.
    (4 3 2 1)
17. The academic achievement of students without disabilities will be affected.
    (4 3 2 1)
18. It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an integrated classroom.
    (4 3 2 1)
19. I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self-care skills e.g. students who are not toilet trained.
    (4 3 2 1)
20. There will be inadequate administrative support to implement the integration program.
    (4 3 2 1)
21. The integration of a student with disability in my class or school will lead to higher degree of anxiety and stress in me.
    (4 3 2 1)

References

• Center, Y. and Ward, J. (1987) 'Teachers' Attitudes towards the Integration of Disabled Children into Regular Schools', The Exceptional Child, 34(1), p.41-56.
• D'Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G. and Vanleeuwen, D. M. (1997) 'Perceptions by Teachers about the Benefits and Liabilities of Inclusion', Preventing School Failure, 42(1), p.4-12.
• Dev, P. C., and Belfiore, P. J. (1996) Mainstreaming Students with Disabilities: Teacher perspectives in India. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL.
• DeVellies, R. F. (1991) Scale Development: Theory and applications. California: Sage Publications.
• Downing, J. E., Eichinger, J. and Williams, L. J. (1997) 'Inclusive Education for Students with Severe Disabilities: Comparative views of principals and educators at different levels of implementation', Remedial and Special Education, 18(3), p.133-142, 165.
• Evans, D., Townsend, B. L., Duchnowski, A. and Hocutt, A. (1996) 'Addressing the Challenges of Inclusion of Children with Disabilities', Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(2), p.180-191.
• Harvey, D. H. and Green, K. (1984) 'Attitudes of New Zealand Teachers, Teachers in Training and Non-teachers toward Mainstreaming', New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 19, p.34-44.
• Heflin, L. J. and Bullock, L. M. (1999) 'Inclusion of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A survey of teachers in general and special education', Preventing School Failure, 43(3), p.103-120.
• Mitchell, D. and Desai, I. P. (in press) 'Inclusive education for children with dpecial needs', in J. P. Keeves and Watanabe (Eds.) The Handbook on Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs. (1996) The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. New Delhi: Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs.
• Miles, M. (1997) 'Disabled Learners in South Asia: Lessons from the past for educational exporters', International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44(2), p.97-104.
• Panda, B. K. (1991) Attitudes of Parents and Community Members toward Disabled Children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utkal University, Bhuwaneshwar.
• Panda, K. C. (1972) 'Teacher Perceptions of Exceptional Children', Journal of Special Education, 6, p.261-266.
• Pearman, E. L., Huang, A. M. and Mellblom, C. I. (1997) 'The Inclusion of All Students: Concrens and incentives of educators', Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, p.11-20.
• Pedhazur, E. J. and Schmelkin, L. P. (1991) Measurement, Design and Analysis: An integrated approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Roberts, C. and Pratt, C. (1988) 'The Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Measure Teachers' Attitudes toward Integration in an Australian Context', Australasian Journal of Special Education, 12(2), p.31-36.
• Rehabilitation Council of India. (1996) Report on Manpower Development. New Delhi: Ministry of Welfare, Government of India.
• Sharma (2001) The Attitudes and Xoncerns of SchoolPrincipals and Teachers Regarding the Integration of Students with Disabilities into Regular Schools in Delhi, India. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Melbourne, Parkville.
• Stoler, R. D. (1992) 'Perceptions of Regular Education Teachers toward Inclusion of all Handicapped Students in their Classrooms', The Clearing House, 66(1), p.60-62.
• Vaughan, M. (1997) Report on the India Conferences. [On-line] Available: http://www.mailbase. ac.uk/lists-f-j/inclusive-education/files/india.txt
• Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J. and Samuell, L. (1996) 'Teachers' Views of Inclusion', Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), p.96-106.
• Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D. and Caldwell, N. K. (1996) 'Teachers' Perceptions of the Supports Critical to the Success of Inclusion Programs', Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21(1), p.9-21.
• Wolery, M., Huffman, K., Holcombe, A., Martin, C. G., Brookfield, J., Schroeder, C. and Venn, M. L. (1994) 'Preschool Mainstreaming: Perceptions of barriers and benefits by faculty in general early childhood education', Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), p.1-9.
• York, J. and Tundidor, H. (1995) 'Issues Raised in the Name of Inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents, and students', Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, p.31-44.