Principals' Knowledge of and Attitudes
Toward Inclusion
CAROL BARNETT AND
A B S T R A C T
n this study, principals' attitudes toward and
knowledge of inclusion were examined. Surveys sent to 115
randomly selected principals across the state of Illinois were
designed to elicit information regarding definitions, leadership
styles, and effectiveness and implementation of educational
practices associated with successful inclusive education. No clear
definition emerged, but principals generally viewed inclusion as
most appropriate for students with mild disabilities. Additionally,
results indicated that teachers were not adequately prepared
to implement inclusive practices. Significant differences between
extent of use and perceived effectiveness of 13 educational
practices were found. Findings raise issues related to adminis-
trators' awareness of practices that facilitate inclusion and how
prepared they are to implement and support inclusive education.
E
- A E D U C A T I O N A L S E R V I C E
students with disabilities have been changing since the pas-
sage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of
1975 (P. L. 94-142). Recently, educators have begun to embrace
the concept of inclusive schooling as most appropriate for
delivering services to students with special needs. Stainback
and Stainback (1990) have defined an inclusive school as
"one that educates students in the mainstream . . . providing
[them] appropriate educational programs that are challenging
yet geared to their capabilities and needs as well as any
support and assistance they and/or their teachers may need to
be successful in the mainstream" (p. 3).
Advocates of inclusion feel that all children should actively
participate in their neighborhood schools and communities,
but for this to happen, school environments need to be restruc-
tured to accommodate the differing needs of all students
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
LISA E. M O N D A -A M A Y A
(Stainback, Stainback, & Jackson, 1992). In an interview
published in Educational Leadership, Sapon-Shevin said, "The
idea is that these [inclusive] schools would be restructuring
so that they are supportive, nurturing communities that really
meet the needs of all the children within them: rich in resources
and support for both students and teachers" (O'Neil, 1994/
1995, p. 7).
In order for schools to become more successful in includ-
ing students with special needs, attitudinal, organizational,
and instructional changes must take place (Block & Haring,
1992; Sapon-Shevin, 1994/1995). A major player in the change
process is the school principal (Servatius, Fellows, & Kelly,
1992). In a series of case studies from varying perspectives,
Villa, Thousand, Stainback, and Stainback (1992) addressed
how principals defined their roles in supporting teachers who
D E L I V E R Y M O D E L S F O R
had students included in their classrooms. In one case study,
Solomon, Schaps, Watson, and Battistich (1992) identified
four key roles for principals in facilitating inclusive practices:
(a) providing support for teachers as they learn and grow,
(b) working to establish caring relationships with students
and faculty, (c) developing a schoolwide discipline program
that reflects insight into students and their problems, and
(d) setting a tone of support and caring in the school commu-
nity while providing resources for students, staff, and parents.
Carrying out these responsibilities requires principals to func-
tion as primary change agents.
Additional case studies (Kaskinen-Chapman, 1992; Porter
& Collicott, 1992; Schattman, 1992; Servatius et al., 1992)
stressed the role of the principal as the school's instructional
leader. As instructional leaders and agents of change in inclu-
sive schools, principals should possess several important com-
petencies. First, principals should have knowledge and skills
in effective instruction, assessment, and discipline to provide
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998, 181-192
support and feedback to teachers as they develop environ-
ments for teaching heterogeneous groups of students. It should
be noted that most instructional practices (collaboration, out-
come-based instruction, cooperative learning and teaching,
learning strategies, and curriculum modification) recommended
for inclusive schools have been recognized as exemplary
practices for all schools.
Second, principals should possess skills in establishing
and supporting instructional teams. Principals must structure
time for teams to meet and provide support for their work.
Principals must also be able to facilitate teachers' understand-
ing of the benefits of team membership. A third competency
needed by principals is the willingness to support collabora-
tive interactions and operate comfortably and effectively in
collaborative groups. The decisions made through collabora-
tive interactions may not always match the principal's prefer-
ences, but must be recognized as appropriate for that group, at
that moment, on that issue.
Finally, leaders in inclusive schools must establish a
clear vision that results in a commitment from the school and
community (Servatius et al., 1992; Villa & Thousand, 1990,
1992). This can be done through inservice programs that
stress the philosophy of inclusion in combination with train-
ing in actual practices that support implementation. Fullan
(1991) described an agenda for school leadership that "points
to the centrality of the principal in working with teachers to
shape the school as a workplace in relation to shared goals,
teacher collaboration, teacher learning opportunities, teacher
certainty, teacher commitment, and student learning" (p. 161).
Because there is currently very little research examining
principals' attitudes and beliefs regarding inclusive educa-
tion, a review of research on attitudes toward mainstreaming
and integration might provide some insight. In two early
studies, principals' attitudes toward mainstreaming were exam-
ined through surveys of basic knowledge and expectations.
Davis (1980) evaluated principals' judgments of how stu-
dents with 21 different disabilities would succeed in their
schools. The results indicated that students with the label
"mentally retarded" (mild, moderate, or severe) were per-
ceived by principals as having a poor chance of being suc-
cessfully mainstreamed. Davis suggested that successful
mainstreaming programs were unlikely to be available in
schools where principals did not have expectations of suc-
cess.
Cline (1981) also examined principals' attitudes toward
and knowledge of mainstreaming. When asked to select the
most appropriate placement from descriptions of students
with disabilities, principals demonstrated a lack of knowl-
edge regarding the nature and needs of students with disabili-
ties. This was particularly apparent when their placement
decisions were compared with placement decisions of special
education experts. The author concluded that in order to
enhance successful mainstreaming efforts, training and
inservice were needed for principals.
In an effort to examine differences in attitudes over time,
an Australian study by Center, Ward, Parmenter, and Nash
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
(1985) compared principals' attitudes toward integration to
those found in a similar, earlier study (Ward, Parmenter,
Riches, & Hauritz, 1978). The questionnaire revealed that
individual characteristics were associated with certain atti-
tudes. For example, administrators with less than 7 years of
experience and those with special education qualifications
expressed more positive attitudes toward integration of stu-
dents with disabilities than principals with more years of
experience and no special education qualifications. The ma-
jority of principals reported that pull-out programs were the
most effective placements for most students with disabilities,
that full-time regular class placement was of greater social
than academic benefit, and that adequate support services
were not likely to be provided. Surprisingly, results showed
that there were few differences in attitudes between 1978 and
1985, which in turn led to a call for additional preservice and
inservice preparation for principals.
Superintendents, special education coordinators, and prin-
cipals were surveyed by Wade and Garguilo (1989-1990) to
assess their concerns with the implementation of the least
restrictive environment (LRE) provision of P.L. 94-142. Prin-
cipals expressed significantly greater concerns over the social/
personal issues (i.e., acceptance of students with disabilities
and the problems their presence in the classroom might present)
involved in LRE implementation than either of the other
administrator groups. The authors concluded that principals
should be provided with additional preparation to address
practical solutions for successful implementation of the LRE
for all students.
Teachers and administrators' attitudes toward mainstream-
ing were examined in a study by Garvar-Pinhas and Schmelkin
(1989). Administrators did not feel that mainstreaming would
have a negative effect on the academic achievement of the
other students in the class, yet teachers felt that there would
be a negative effect. Teachers also felt that principals often
did not furnish the support needed to provide appropriate
services to students with disabilities in the regular classroom
setting. The authors noted that if mainstreaming was to be
successful, it was the responsibility of administrators to find
new ways to enhance the acceptability of students with dis-
abilities in regular classrooms.
Bain and Dolbel (1991) studied the Australian education
system, which provides services for students with intellectual
disabilities in education support centers (ESCs) located in
regular elementary and secondary schools across the country.
Principals from general education schools as well as those
from the ESCs (special education principals) were found to
hold positive attitudes toward the integration of students with
disabilities and were positive about the relationships among
the school staff that enabled integration to occur. Attitudinal
variables (e.g., willingness to work collaboratively) once again
were identified as critical factors for the successful integra-
tion of students with disabilities.
In general, studies of principals' attitudes have revealed
mixed findings. Some studies showed that principals stressed
the benefit of social integration, while other studies noted a
lack of support for integration based on the low expectation
of success in the mainstreamed environment. However, the
majority of the studies reviewed recognized that as the instruc-
tional leader in a school, principals are being called upon to
provide training and support to teachers. If teachers and prin-
cipals are not comfortable or confident in providing appropri-
ate services to mainstreamed students, an even higher level of
anxiety and negative reaction is likely to accompany move-
ment toward inclusive education.
As increasing numbers of schools are including students
with disabilities, the principal's belief in the inclusive phi-
losophy, together with a willingness and ability to lead staff
in successfully implementing inclusive practices, merits further
examination. The information gained from such an inquiry
would provide a basis for understanding not only how inclu-
sive practices could be better implemented, but also how
principals should be prepared for inclusive education. The
purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and knowl-
edge of principals across the state of Illinois toward inclusion.
The following questions were addressed:
1. How do principals define inclusion and to
which populations of students do they apply
that definition?
2. What attitudes do principals have toward
inclusive education?
3. What leadership approaches do principals
most commonly exhibit? Does leadership
approach influence how they define and react
to the philosophy of inclusion?
4. What is the extent of use and perceived
effectiveness of activities and educational
practices that are viewed in the literature as
important for successful inclusion programs?
METHOD
Participants
Of the 3,879 schools (2,648 elementary, 574 junior high, 657
high schools) in the state of Illinois, 115 were randomly
selected for participation in the study. Surveys were sent to
principals in 59 elementary schools, 27 junior high schools,
and 29 high schools. No a priori attempt was made to balance
the selection of the principals based on population of students
(rural, urban, or suburban) or to determine whether the schools
were considered to be inclusive environments.
Instrument
The survey instrument was divided into four sections. In the
first section, general background information was elicited
regarding the school and the principal. Questions were asked
to determine the types of special programs in the school and
the background and professional preparation of the principal.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
The second section was designed to address the leader-
ship approach most commonly used by the principal. Four
statements were provided that summarized four common mod-
els of school leadership (Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs,
& Thurston, 1987). The principals were asked to choose the
one statement that most accurately reflected their style of
school leadership.
The third section elicited information on principals' defi-
nitions of inclusion. First, principals were given a list of terms
and asked to select five terms they considered most essential
to their definition. The terms, selected from a review of the
literature, were those most commonly associated with or used
to define and describe inclusion. Second, principals selected
from a list of eight categories of special needs populations all
students to whom they felt their definition of inclusion would
apply. The following categories, which are consistent with
terminology used in the state, were presented: learning dis-
abilities (LD), at-risk for school failure, behavior disorders
(BD), educable mentally handicapped (EMH), trainable men-
tally handicapped (TMH), severely or profoundly handicapped
(SPH), physically/health impaired (PHI), and culturally diverse.
The next set of questions addressing the definition of
inclusion required that principals respond on a 4-point Likert
scale (0 = not at all; 3 = completely) to statements related to
(a) their attitudes toward inclusion, (b) the degree of inclu-
siveness of their school, (c) the extent to which their school
was working toward becoming inclusive, (d) how well pre-
pared their teachers were for implementing inclusion,
(e) whether they felt inclusion could work in their schools, and
(f) whether the school community was supportive of inclusion.
In the final section of the survey, principals rated the
extent to which 21 programs, activities, and strategies were
being used in their schools and the extent to which they
perceived those practices to be effective for inclusion. These
21 educational practices were gleaned from the literature as
useful approaches for providing successful educational oppor-
tunities for students included in the regular classroom. In this
section, the educational practices and brief definitions were
provided, followed by two columns. In Column A, principals
indicated the extent to which the practice was used in their
school (0 = never; 3 = routinely). In Column B, they rated the
extent to which they perceived that practice to be effective for
inclusion (0 = not at all; 3 = extremely).
The final instrument was reviewed and piloted with
professors and graduate students presently engaged in teach-
ing and research on inclusion and with principals in the local
schools. Changes were made to the instrument based on their
suggestions and feedback.
Procedure
Once the schools were selected, packets were mailed to the
115 principals. Each packet contained a cover letter explain-
ing the purpose of the study, the survey instrument, a self-
addressed stamped return envelope, and an optional form to
request the results of the study.
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
 The surveys were coded to protect the respondent's iden-
tity and to provide a means for follow-up to those who did not
respond within the prescribed time. Principals who had not
returned surveys at the end of 2 weeks were sent a second
cover letter and survey. If the survey was not returned follow-
ing the second mailing, a third mailing was sent with a new
cover letter and copy of the instrument.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the first three
sections of the survey (demographic information, leadership
approaches, and definitions of inclusion). Analyses of vari-
ance (ANOVAs) were used to determine whether differences
in responses existed based on grade level (elementary, junior
high, secondary) or personal characteristics of the principal
(professional preparation, experience, length of service).
T tests were used to analyze item-by-item (p < .0001) and
overall differences between ratings of extent of use and per-
ceived effectiveness of the 21 educational practices. Finally,
correlations were used to evaluate whether leadership
approaches influenced choices of descriptors defining inclusion,
selection of student populations, results of attitude statements,
and ratings of educational practices.
RESULTS
Of the 115 surveys sent, 65 (57%) were returned: 33 (56%)
from elementary schools, 16 (59%) from junior high schools,
and 16 (55%) from senior high schools. Principals character-
ized their schools as being 3 1 % rural (19 schools), 19% urban
(12 schools), and 50% suburban (31 schools). These data
appear to be somewhat representative given that the 1990
census indicated that Illinois schools were 47% rural, 14%
urban, and 39% suburban (Illinois State Board of Education,
1995). Demographic information on the schools is shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1. School Demographics
Grades (no. of schools)
Elementary K-8 (20)
Pre-K-8 (6)
Other (6)
Junior high 5-8
6-8
7-8
High school 9-12 (12)
5-12(1)
K-12(l)
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
Administrators reported that the service delivery models
most often used in their schools were resource and consulta-
tion programs for students with LD or BD. Junior high school
students with LD were in consultation programs in 6 3 % of
the schools, whereas only 42% of elementary schools reported
programs in LD consultation. High school administrators
reported the highest percentages of consultation programs for
students with BD (69%) and LD (93%) and the highest per-
centages of resource programs for students labeled EMH
(47%) and TMH (20%). Junior high and high school adminis-
trators reported a higher percentage of self-contained pro-
grams for students labeled BD, LD, or EMH than elementary
schools. Only 2 3 % of all the schools were reported to have
self-contained programs for students with moderate disabili-
ties and 9% for students with severe disabilities.
Principal Demographics
The majority of the respondents (89%) were school princi-
pals; the remaining 1 1 % were principal/superintendent, assis-
tant principal, assistant superintendent/principal, or assistant
superintendent for instruction. Seventy percent were male
and 30% were female (1 respondent did not indicate gender).
The average age of the respondents was 47, with a range of 36
to 68 years. The average number of years in their present
position was 6, with a range of 0 to 36 years. Only 3 adminis-
trators had any special education teaching experience. The
average number of years in administration was 9, with a range
of 1 to 36 years. Of the 65 administrators, 56 (86%) had
master's degrees and 9 (14%) held doctoral degrees.
Leadership Style and Definition of Inclusion
Principals were asked to select the statement that most accu-
rately described their approach to leadership. Three percent
of the 63 principals who responded to this item selected the
Student population
Rural Urban Suburban A v e r a g e enrolled (range)
9 8 15 422
(200-867)
5 1 10 498
(225-870)
5 3 6 1,236
(215-3,956)
first statement, "Above all, I try to develop clear role defini-
tions and practice hierarchical decision making so that the
school can be run more efficiently. The goal is to have a
formal set of policies and procedures to which every
employee can be held responsible." Fifty-seven percent chose
the second statement, "Above all, I try to make sure that all
employees are highly motivated and satisfied with their work.
The goal is to nurture employees and develop a shared under-
standing about the goals of the group as we make important
decisions together." Ten percent indicated agreement with
the third statement, "Above all, I try to reconcile the conflict-
ing interests of various groups through bargaining and media-
tion. The goal is to fashion a consensus on major issues
among competing groups in the school and community."
Finally, 30% of the administrators chose the last statement,
"Above all, I try to develop a school culture that shapes the
behavior of employees in desirable ways. The goal is to
encourage everyone to share in 'bottom-up' decision making
within the context of my vision and symbolic leadership."
In examining how they defined inclusion, principals
(n = 64) selected 5 descriptive items from a list of 22 that
were most essential to their definition of inclusion. Results
are presented in Table 2. Overall, the three items that were
chosen most often were supportive environment (56%), shared
responsibility (48%), and cooperative (41%). Across grade
levels, 67% of high school principals rated supportive envi-
ronment as essential to their definition, the highest percent-
age given to any of the 22 terms at all grade levels. Terms also
receiving high ratings by high school administrators were
shared responsibility (47%) and mainstreaming (40%). At the
junior high level, the highest rated terms were cooperative
(56%), supportive environment (44%), team instructional
approach (44%), and supportive assistance for staff (44%). At
the elementary level, supportive environment (56%), shared
responsibility (53%), and collaboration (47%) were ranked
highest.
Principals also indicated the populations to whom their
definition of inclusion would apply. Overall, populations of
students with LD (97%) and those at risk for school failure
(83%) most frequently fit within administrators' definitions
of inclusion, whereas students labeled TMH (36%) and SPH
(20%) were selected least often. No junior high school
administrators indicated that inclusion would apply to stu-
dents with the SPH label and only 19% indicated that their

TABLE 2. Terms Selected as Essential to Administrators' Definition of Inclusion

Percentage of administrators selecting term

Term Elementary 0
Junior h i g h b
High s c h o o l 0
Overall

Supportive environment 56 44 67 56
Celebrating differences 19 6 27 17
School restructuring 6 38 7 14
Combining best practices 16 25 33 22
Administrative mandate 9 13 13 11
Guiding philosophy 13 0 20 11
Schoolwide vision 19 31 33 25
Shared responsibility 53 38 47 48
Supported learning 22 25 20 22
Neighborhood school 19 0 7 11
School as community 19 13 20 17
Coordinating services 9 13 7 10
Mainstreaming 22 13 40 24
Adaptation 31 25 0 22
Team instructional approach 22 44 33 30
Supportive assistance for staff 31 44 13 30
Individualized 9 25 20 16
Reciprocal 3 0 0 2
Cooperative 38 56 33 41
Social equity 25 6 27 21
Integration 9 6 7 8
Collaboration 47 25 20 35
Other d
0 6 0 2

a
n = 33. = 1 6 . n = 1 6 . Move slowly, modify curriculum.
b c d

REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016

definition applied to students with the TMH label. In contrast,
24% of elementary administrators and 3 3 % of high school
administrators reported that their definition of inclusion would
apply to students with the SPH label.
Finally, administrators indicated their agreement (0 =
not at all; 3 = completely) with six statements regarding
inclusion as they related to their school (see Table 3). No
statistically significant differences were noted between the
grade levels on responses to these statements. It should be
noted that for the fourth statement, regarding teacher prepara-
tion for inclusion, no elementary or junior high school princi-
pals felt that their teachers were completely prepared (rating
of 3), but 13% of the high school principals felt that their
teachers were completely prepared. Overall, 4 administrators
indicated total disagreement (rating of 0) with the statement,
"I feel that inclusion can work in my school." Additionally,
no elementary or junior high school administrators were in
complete agreement (rating of 3) with the statement, "I feel
that the school community is supportive of the implementa-
tion of inclusion in our school."
Ratings of Educational Practices
The data from principal ratings of the 21 educational prac-
tices (Column A, extent of use; Column B, perceived effec-
tiveness) were analyzed in a number of ways. First, the mean
ratings for each column were noted. Means and standard
deviations for each practice by grade level are provided in
Tables 4 (extent of use) and 5 (perceived effectiveness).
Second, t tests were conducted to determine whether overall
or item-by-item differences existed between the extent to
which the practices were used and their perceived effective-
ness for facilitating inclusion (see Table 6). Finally, ANOVAs
were used to determine whether any differences existed in
TABLE 3. Ratings on Statements of School Inclusiveness (Scale: 0 = not at all to 3 = completely)
Statement
1. All children should be educated in the
general education classroom.
2. How inclusive is your school?
3. Our school currently is working toward
becoming a more inclusive school.
4. The teachers in my school are prepared to
deliver educational services to general and
special education students included in the
general education setting.
5. I feel that inclusion can work in my school.
6. I feel that the school community is supportive
of the implementation of inclusion in our
school.
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
ratings of the educational practices on the basis of demo-
graphic information or grade level of the school.
Overall, three educational practices received the highest
mean ratings for both extent of use and perceived effective-
ness (see Tables 4 and 5): heterogeneous and/or multi-age
groupings, collaboration, and cooperative learning. The prac-
tices receiving the lowest overall mean ratings for both extent
of use and perceived effectiveness were parent education
support groups, interaction analysis, and inservice on inclusion.
Interesting patterns can be found in the range of mean
scores within each grade level. In examining extent of use for
elementary principals, mean scores ranged from 1.03 (peer
coaching) to 2.48 (heterogeneous/multi-age grouping) with a
median of 1.93. Collaboration received the second highest
mean rating, followed by behavior management, cooperative
learning, and learning strategies instruction. Mean scores for
junior high principals across all practices ranged from 1.00
(interaction analysis, parent/volunteer participation, and teacher
assistance teams) to 2.38 (heterogeneous/multi-age group-
ing), with a median of 1.63. Collaboration and cooperative
learning were second, followed by behavior management. At
the high school level, mean scores ranged from 1.00 (parent/
volunteer participation) to 2.31 (collaboration), with a median
of 1.85. At this level, heterogeneous/multi-age grouping
was ranked second highest for extent of use, followed by
computer-assisted instruction and curricular modification.
The ranges for perceived effectiveness were generally
higher across all three levels, with elementary mean scores
ranging from 1.70 (parent education support groups) to 2.61
(cooperative learning), with a median of 2.29. At junior high,
the range of mean scores was 1.38 (interaction analysis) to
2.63 (cooperative learning), with a median of 2.1, and at high
school the range was 1.64 (parent/volunteer participation) to
2.56 (computer-assisted instruction), with a median of 2.23.
Mean/SD
Elementary Junior high High school Overall
1.36/.82 1.06/.77 1.38/.88 1.29/.82
1.67/.65 1.50/.52 1.81/.54 1.66/.59
1.85/.71 1.50/.63 1.88/.72 1.77/.70
1.337.59 1.31/.60 1.69/.79 1.427.66
2.00/.71 1.63/.81 2.00/.85 1.91/.77
1.36/.60 1.447.73 1.63/.81 1.457.69
 TABLE 4. M e a n Ratings of Extent of Use of Educational Practices b y G r a d e Level

Mean/SD

Educational Elementary Junior high/ High school

practice <E) middle (M) (H) Overall

Collaboration 2.36 (.70) 2.31 (.70) 2.31 (.79) 2.34 (.71)

Co-teaching 1.39 (.90) 1.13(1.09) 1.13(1.15) 1.26(1.00)
Inservice on inclusion 1.45 (.75) 1.25 (.77) 1.19(1.05) 1.34 (.83)
Interaction analysis 1.34 (.83) 1.00 (.82) 1.81 (1.05) a
1.38 (.92)
Parent education support groups 1.15 (.87) 1.38 (.81) 1.94(1.12) 1.40 (.97)
Parent/volunteer participation 2.09 (.91) b
1.00 (.73) 1.00(1.10) 1.55 (1.06)
Peer coaching 1.03 (.98) 1.00 (.73) 1.06(1.18) 1.03 (.97)
Teacher assistance teams 1.85(1.15) 1.63(1.20) 1.06(1.12) 1.60(1.18)
Teacher mentoring 1.38(1.10) 1.63 (.89) 2.13(1.02) 1.63(1.06)
Behavior management 2.23 (.76) 2.19 (.66) 2.00 (.73) 2.16 (.72)
Computer-assisted instruction 1.94 (.81) 1.81 (.75) 2.19 (.75) 1.97 (.78)
Cooperative learning 2.23 (.76) 2.31 (.79) 2.00 (.63) 2.19 (.74)
Curricular modification 2.19 (.70) 1.88 (.81) 2.19 (.75) 2.11 (.74)
Curriculum-based assessment 1.81 (.87) 1.75 (1.00) 1.56 (.81) 1.73 (.88)
Direct instruction 2.06 (.81) 2.13 (.72) 1.88(1.02) 2.03 (.84)
Heterogeneous and/or multi-age groupings 2.48 (.76) 2.38 (.62) 2.25 (.77) 2.40 (.72)
Learning strategies instruction 2.21 (.65) 1.88 (.62) 1.81 (.91) 2.03 (.73)
Modification of peer attitudes 1.45 (1.00) 1.44 (.96) 1.31 (.95) 1.42 (.97)
Multicultural education 2.18 (.81) 1.50 (.82) 1.75 (1.06) 1.91 (.91)
Peer and cross-age tutoring 1.94 (.90) 1.44 (.83) 1.94 (.77) 1.81 (.86)
Social skills instruction 1.91 (.68) 1.81 (.75) 1.88 (.81) 1.88 (.72)

a
H > M,E. E > M,H.
b

TABLE 5. M e a n Ratings of P e r c e i v e d Effectiveness of Educational Practices b y G r a d e Level

Mean/SD

Educational Elementary Junior high/ High school

practice <E) middle (M) (H) Overall

Collaboration 2.58 (.56) 2.38 (.72) 2.44 (.51) 2.49 (.59)

Co-teaching 2.21 (.74) 2.27 (.70) 1.73 (1.03) 2.11 (.83)
Inservice on inclusion 1.91 (.78) 1.81 (.83) 2.00 (.85) 1.90 (.80)
Interaction analysis 1.84 (.81) 1.38 (.96) 2.19 (.75) a
1.81 (.87)
Parent education support groups 1.70 (.98) 1.69 (.87) 1.94 (.85) 1.75 (.92)
Parent/volunteer participation 2.45 (.67) b
1.40 (.83) 1.64 (.74) 2.02 (.86)
Peer coaching 2.00 (.97) 2.13 (.72) 2.20 (.68) 2.08 (.84)
Teacher assistance teams 2.33 (.78) 2.40 (.74) 1.69 (.87) 2.19 (.83)
Teacher mentoring 2.22 (.87) 2.19 (.75) 2.53 (.52) 2.29 (.77)
Behavior management 2.29 (.64) 2.38 (.50) 2.25 (.68) 2.30 (.61)
Computer-assisted instruction 2.19 (.79) 2.06 (.68) 2.56 (.63) 2.25 (.74)
Cooperative learning 2.61 (.62) 2.63 (.50) 2.38 (.62) 2.56 (.59)
Curricular modification 2.39 (.72) 2.31 (.70) 2.31 (.60) 2.35 (.68)
Curriculum-based assessment 2.29 (.74) 2.13 (.72) 1.94 (.77) 2.16 (.75)
Direct instruction 2.29 (.53) 2.31 (.48) 2.19 (1.05) 2.27 (.68)
Heterogeneous and/or multi-age groupings 2.48 (.57) 2.38 (.50) 2.44 (.51) 2.45 (.53)
Learning strategies instruction 2.52 (.57) 2.06 (.57) 2.38 (.62) 2.37 (.60)
Modification of peer attitudes 1.91 (.84) 2.00 (.76) 2.27 (.70) 2.12 (.79)
Multicultural education 2.27 (.67) 2.00 (.63) 2.00 (1.03) 2.14 (.77)
Peer and cross-age tutoring 2.33 (.54) c
1.69 (.70) 2.31 (.95) c
2.17 (.74)
Social skills instruction 2.30 (.59) 1.94 (.57) 2.25 (.68) 2.20 (.62)

a
H > M,E. E > M,H. E,H > M.
b C

REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016

Collaboration received the second highest mean ratings from
TABLE 6. T-test Results for the Extent
elementary principals and third highest from junior high and
of Use a n d Perceived Effectiveness of
high school principals. Teacher assistance teams were given
Educational Practices
the second highest mean rating by junior high school princi-
pals, with high school principals giving teacher mentoring the Educational practice df t
second highest rating. Junior high and high school principals
overall rated heterogeneous and/or multi-age groupings as Collaboration 64 1.93
their third highest mean ratings while elementary principals Co-teaching 62 6.90*
rated learning strategies instruction third highest. Inservice on inclusion 62 4.84*
Additionally, the practices were examined by calculat- Interaction analysis 63 4.65*
ing the percentage of principals rating practices at a level of 2 Parent education support groups 64 3.08
(frequently used/moderately effective) or 3 (routinely used/ Parent/volunteer participation 61 4.04*
extremely effective) for extent of use and perceived effective- Peer coaching 61 8.00*
ness. Overall, the following practices were rated highest for Teacher assistance teams 63 4.87*
Teacher mentoring 62 5.47*
extent of use: heterogeneous and/or multi-age groupings (89%
Behavior management 62 1.83
of principals), collaboration (87%), and behavior manage-
Computer-assisted instruction 62 3.45
ment (84%). In contrast, peer coaching was rated by only Cooperative learning 62 4.42*
29% of principals as being used either frequently or routinely. Curricular modification 62 3.56
In terms of perceived effectiveness, several practices were Curriculum-based assessment 62 4.63*
rated at a level of 2 or above: heterogeneous and/or multi-age Direct instruction 62 3.38
groupings (98%), collaboration (96%), cooperative learning Heterogeneous and/or 64 .55
(95%), learning strategies instruction (94%), behavior modi- multi-age groupings
fication (92%), and curricular modification (92%). Learning strategies instruction 64 4.24*
T tests were calculated on the 21 educational practices to Modification of peer attitudes 62 5.84*
determine whether significant differences existed between Multicultural education 64 2.65
Peer and cross-age tutoring 64 3.98*
the overall ratings in the extent of use (Column A) and the
Social skills instruction 64 4.07*
perceived effectiveness (Column B). The t test for overall
means revealed significant differences, t(2\) = 8.05,/? < .0001,
*p<.0001.
between the two columns. Statistically significant differences
(p < .0001) were found for 13 practices (see Table 6).
ANOVA results indicated that statistically significant
Additional Educational Practices
differences (see Tables 4 and 5) were found for only a few
practices based on grade level (elementary, middle, or high In the final section of the survey, administrators were encour-
school). High school administrators differed from elementary aged to suggest and rate additional practices that did not
and middle school principals in the extent of use and the appear in the survey. Five administrators added practices
perceived effectiveness of interaction analysis, with high school such as parent workshops on inclusion, special services teams,
administrators reporting more frequent use, F(2, 59) = 3.55, all teachers being responsible for all students, enrichment
p < .01, and higher ratings of effectiveness, F(2, 59) = 3.52, through the arts, use of integrated curriculum, and expanded
p < .01. Parent/volunteer participation was reported to be functioning of the resource room for students with and with-
used significantly more, F(2,60) = 11.33,/? < .01, and viewed out disabilities.
as more effective, F(2, 57) = 13.03, p < .01, by elementary
administrators than by either high school or middle school
administrators. Elementary and high school principals rated DISCUSSION
peer and cross-age tutoring as significantly more effective,
F(2, 60) = 5.01, p < .01, than middle school administrators. With the increasing emphasis on the inclusion of students
No statistically significant results were found for popu- with disabilities in regular education classrooms, effective
lation of school (rural, urban, suburban) or size of the school leadership is needed to support teachers and students. The
(number of students). Female administrators rated parent/ results of this study extend previous research (Bain & Dolbel,
volunteer participation as significantly more effective, 1991; Center et al., 1985; Cline, 1981; Garvar-Pinhas &
F ( l , 57) = 3.10,/? < .01, than did male administrators, but no Schmelkin, 1989; Wade & Garguilo, 1989-1990) by examin-
other administrator characteristics yielded significant results ing principals' knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusive
(age, number of years in the position, experience in special education. Respondents to this survey provided insight into
education, or number of years in administration or general the components of their definitions of inclusion and ratings of
education). No correlations were found in regard to the influ- extent of use and perceived effectiveness of educational prac-
ence of leadership approaches on definitions of inclusion, tices commonly associated with inclusive programs and phi-
results of attitude statements, or ratings of educational practices. losophies in schools.

REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016

Definitions and Populations
No clear definition of inclusion emerged from the data. The
lack of consensus about how to define inclusion was reflected
in how the principals identified terms and populations of
students associated with the concept. Out of the 22 defini-
tional descriptors, none emerged as a clear and essential
descriptor. The item supportive environment received the
highest rating overall (56%). All other descriptors were rated
as essential by 50% or fewer of the principals. Phrases often
used by proponents (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1990) to
describe inclusion, such as celebrating differences, schoolwide
vision, neighborhood school, school as community, and indi-
vidualized instruction were rated as essential by 2 5 % or fewer
of the respondents.
Difficulty in establishing a definition of inclusion also
was evident in terms of the populations of students to whom
administrators indicated that their definition of inclusion would
apply. Students with mild disabilities (LD, 97%; EMH, 7 3 % ;
and BD, 72%), those at risk for school failure (83%), and
those from culturally diverse backgrounds (66%) were selected
most often as fitting within principals' definitions. On the
other hand, only 36% of administrators indicated that stu-
dents with moderate disabilities and only 20% felt that
students with severe or profound disabilities would fit within
their definition of inclusion. Notably, administrators reported
that their definition of inclusion most often pertained to students
who would not be likely to require significant adaptations or
modifications (e.g., at risk, LD, BD) to achieve success in the
general education setting. Students requiring extensive adap-
tations (e.g., TMH, SPH) of curriculum and instruction fell
least often within the parameters of their definitions.
The present findings support extant research in revealing
inconsistencies in defining inclusion (Reed & Monda-Amaya,
1995). The variations may directly reflect the differing views
of inclusion presented in the literature (see Fuchs & Fuchs,
1994; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). As we begin to restruc-
ture schools to better meet the needs of all students, greater
consistency in defining inclusive philosophy and practices is
necessary for researchers and practitioners alike.
Attitudes
In previous research it was reported that principals with fewer
years of experience and those with special education qualifi-
cations had more positive attitudes toward integration efforts
(Center et al., 1985). The present study revealed no relation-
ship between positive or negative attitudes toward inclusion
and the number of years in administration or special educa-
tion teaching experience.
In providing a snapshot of how administrators view
inclusion in their schools, principals rated level of agreement
with statements related to the perceptions of inclusion in their
schools. The low level of agreement (M = 1.29) with the
statement "All children should be educated in the regular
classroom" is further evidence of the lack of agreement on a
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
definition of inclusion, the populations to which inclusion
should apply, and how principals implement the various models.
This score might also reflect administrators' apprehension
regarding the need for providing appropriate levels of support.
It might be concluded, based on responses to these state-
ments, that respondents felt overall that their schools were
somewhat inclusive and were continuing to work to become
more inclusive. They felt that inclusion could work in their
schools, but were not convinced that all children should be
included in regular classrooms. Finally, they did not believe
that teachers and school communities were adequately pre-
pared to support the implementation of inclusive educational
practices.
Leadership
Only 30% of principals selected the leadership statement that
most closely resembles that advocated by proponents of inclu-
sive schools. This approach stresses strong visionary lead-
ership in the creation of inclusive schools and communities
(Servatius et al., 1992). Proponents of inclusion emphasize
that through visionary leadership, "school personnel can moti-
vate themselves to reshape their culture, invent ways to com-
municate this new culture to others, and become consistent in
their actions" (Villa & Thousand, 1992, p. 119).
Further investigation is needed to determine whether
particular leadership styles are more closely associated with
inclusive practices. If there is a direct correlation to a particu-
lar leadership style, information is needed to determine whether
administrators at the preservice level are being prepared in
the skills needed to implement that style of leadership.
Educational Practices
The final research question addressed principals' ratings of
the extent of use and perceived effectiveness of 21 educa-
tional practices commonly associated with the successful
implementation of inclusion. This list is representative but
not exhaustive. Pugach (1995) has noted the importance of
understanding inclusion from the perspective of making addi-
tive changes, that is, creating classrooms "from a stance of
what we already know and are already comfortable with"
(p. 8) to viewing inclusive education from a generative per-
spective, or, "transforming the educational enterprise, forcing
the production of new knowledge on the part of special and
general educators alike from entirely new vantage points"
(p. 10). The educational strategies compiled for this study
represent additive changes. Survey questions did not address
possible generative changes taking place that emphasize sys-
tems change. If this transformational approach is to be imple-
mented, principals must become the change agents (Villa &
Thousand, 1992) who articulate and function in ways that
facilitate the needed changes. Additional research questions
should be formulated that emphasize the philosophical foun-
dation, the desire for systems change, and the procedures and
strategies for making that change happen.
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
 Of the 13 educational practices in which significant
differences were found between the extent of use and per-
ceived effectiveness, the higher rating was always in the
perceived effectiveness column. This would seem to indicate
that even if a practice was not used often, principals consis-
tently believed that these practices could be effective for
including students.
Mean ratings of the practices indicated that three educa-
tional practices, heterogeneous/multi-age groupings, coop-
erative learning, and collaboration, were rated highest in both
extent of use and perceived effectiveness. The choice of these
three practices may be explained by the fact that they have
consistently been reported in the literature as effective teach-
ing practices, and many teachers have received training in
these approaches in the last decade. On the other hand, the
educational practices receiving lower mean ratings in both
extent of use and perceived effectiveness were inservices on
inclusion, interaction analysis, parent education/support groups,
and peer coaching. Lower mean ratings were indications that
these practices were not used often and not viewed as effec-
tive for implementing inclusion. Further examination is needed
to determine the influences on principals' views of, and expe-
rience with, a variety of effective educational strategies.
Although there were some differences noted in responses
among the grade levels on some items of the survey, none
were so noteworthy as to warrant special attention. In general,
these preliminary findings suggest that across the grade levels
there exists the same lack of a cohesive definition, under-
standing, and knowledge base of inclusive practices in the
schools of Illinois.
Although a small number of administrators had special
education certification or experience, this experience did not
correlate with particular attitudes toward or knowledge about
inclusive practices. This might be partially explained by the
fact that the principals surveyed had been in general educa-
tion positions for an average of 19 years.
Implications for Practice and Future Research
One variable influencing attitude not examined in this study
was extent of experience with and preparation for inclusion.
McLaughlin (1991) found that attitude can change once indi-
viduals have actual experience and that commitment often
comes after they have acquired new skills necessary for imple-
mentation. To what extent were the principals participating in
this study prepared for inclusion? One might assume that
principals who had acquired their degrees more recently would
have different, possibly more positive, attitudes toward inclu-
sion, but in this study, no correlation was found.
The question of appropriate preparation was addressed
by Sirotnik and Kimball (1994), who, following a national
study of 23 administrator preparation programs, concluded
that "special education and its relationship to general educa-
tion is treated wholly inadequately, if at all, in programs
designed to prepare school administrators, and it would appear
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
that special education has no place at all in these programs"
(p. 616). Lovitt (1993) noted that administrators receive little
information on (a) analyzing and defending the philosophical
and normative basis for arguments favoring different delivery
systems (i.e., inclusive education); (b) identifying students
with special needs; (c) organizing appropriate curricular expe-
riences; and (d) facilitating relationships, responsibilities, and
inservice training with and between general and special edu-
cation teachers. Administrators must receive preparation in
appropriate instructional approaches for students with disabil-
ities. In future research, we must begin to investigate what
information administrators receive in preparation programs,
along with what information is required to lead inclusive
schools.
As we conduct research into best practices and prepare
educators for inclusive education, we cannot ignore the sig-
nificant role that administrators play in restructuring educa-
tional practices within a school. Principals are key figures in
providing appropriate support and education to their teachers.
The availability of that support directly influences the opin-
ions and attitudes teachers hold (Bain & Dolbel, 1991). Prin-
cipals therefore must obtain the skills necessary to lend that
support (Center et al., 1985; Cline, 1981; Junkala & Mooney,
1986; Wade & Garguilo, 1989-1990).
Findings from this study also have implications for the
practice of including students with disabilities in our schools.
Various educational practices are being advocated to support
inclusion, and yet principals in the state of Illinois reported
that many of those practices (e.g., coteaching, teacher assis-
tance teams, cooperative learning) are not being used rou-
tinely. For inclusive education to be successful, teachers must
have a wide repertoire of techniques from which to draw
(Goodlad & Field, 1993; Showers, 1990).
Furthermore, in researching how schools are implement-
ing inclusive education, it is important to examine whether an
additive model alone is appropriate for implementing changes
or whether a more generative (fundamental systemwide change)
approach must be taken. The lack of a clear definition of
inclusion reveals the possibility that schools may implement
basic additive changes without approaching the systemic
changes necessary to be successful inclusive communities.
The results of this study suggest several issues that should
be examined more closely. Principals across the state appear
to have divergent ideas and attitudes about inclusion. The
overwhelming majority are not yet comfortable with the inclu-
sive philosophy, nor do they feel that their teachers and
communities are ready for its implementation. Further inves-
tigation is warranted on definitions, organizational structures,
and skills and practices needed by principals to create inclu-
sive learning environments. It is also important to have a
better understanding of the correlation between leadership
style and restructuring for inclusion. Additional knowledge in
these areas would help formulate recommendations for
(a) necessary role changes for principals in inclusive schools,
(b) critical competencies needed by principals to fulfill the
new roles, and (c) ways to provide the needed knowledge and
training for both practicing and preservice administrators.
Three limitations to this study should be noted. The first
has to do with the nature of survey data. Self-reporting data
provide information related to opinions or perceptions of
practice. As such, the data are not always an accurate indica-
tor of actual behavior (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Further,
other personnel in the organization might have responded
very differently. Perhaps teachers would have more direct
knowledge of what actually occurs in their schools. The use
of site visits or follow-up interviews with parents, teachers, or
students would have allowed for validation of principals'
responses and provided a much richer database.
A second limitation has to do with the limited sample.
This survey focused on principals at schools in the state of
Illinois; this creates a problem in terms of generalization of
the findings. Additional research is needed to determine whether
ratings of extent of use and perceived effectiveness of educa-
tional practices would differ in other states. Furthermore, is
there more clarity and consistency in defining inclusion in
other states?
The final limitation concerns the level of response rate
(57%). Part of the difficulty in getting greater numbers of
responses may have been that a large number of administra-
tors retired at the end of the school year in which this study
was conducted because of a generous statewide incentive
program for early retirement. Retiring principals may have
been less motivated to fill out a survey at the end of the school
year. It would be interesting to conduct the survey with the
new group of administrators.
If inclusive practices are to be implemented in schools,
much work will need to be done to prepare administrators for
the changes that must take place. "Nearly all school district
role descriptions... stress the instructional leadership respon-
sibilities of the principalfacilitating change, helping teachers
work together, assessing and furthering school improvement"
(Fullan, 1991, p. 145). If they are to be the instructional
leaders and the developers of a schoolwide vision to imple-
ment truly inclusive schools, principals need to have a clear
understanding of both additive and generative changes that
must take place. Reform on this scale "cannot work by simply
integrating special needs students into schools as they exist
today" (National Association of State Boards of Education,
1992, p. 4).
CAROL BARNETT is a doctoral student at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, and assistant director of special education for the Urbana
School District No. 116. Her research interests are in the areas of inclu-
sion, school leadership and reform, and the restructuring of teacher educa-
tion. LISA E. MONDA-AMAYA is an associate professor at the University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Currently she is the coordinator of the Col-
laborative Resource Teacher Preparation Program. Dr. Monda-Amaya's pri-
mary research interests are in the areas of inclusive education, collaboration,
teacher education reform, and effective instructional practices. Address: Lisa
E. Monda-Amaya, University of Illinois, Department of Special Education,
288 Education, 1310 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
AUTHORS' NOTES
1. The authors contributed equally to the preparation of this manuscript.
2. A complete copy of the survey instrument can be obtained by contacting
the authors at the University of Illinois.
REFERENCES
Bain, A., & Dolbel, S. (1991). Regular and special education principals'
perceptions of an integration program for students who are intellectu-
ally handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26,
33-42.
Block, J. H., & Haring, T. G. (1992). On swamps, bogs, alligators, and
special educational reform. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback,
& S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective educa-
tion: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169-
185). Baltimore: Brookes.
Center, Y., Ward, J., Parmenter, T., & Nash, R. (1985). Principals' atti-
tudes towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools.
The Exceptional Child, 32, 149-160.
Cline, R. (1981). Principals' attitudes and knowledge about handicapped
children. Exceptional Children, 48, 172-174.
Davis, W. E. (1980). Public school principals' attitudes toward mainstream-
ing retarded pupils. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,
15, 174-178.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the
radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60,
294-309.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Garvar-Pinhas, A., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1989). Administrators' and teachers'
attitudes toward mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4),
38-43.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design
in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.
Goodlad, J. I., & Field, S. (1993). Teachers for renewing schools. In J. I.
Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special educa-
tion (pp. 229-252). New York: Macmillan.
Illinois State Board of Education, Center for Educational Leadership: Policy,
Planning and Research. (1995). Illinois public school districts by com-
munity type. Springfield, IL: R. Yong.
Junkala, J., & Mooney, J. F. (1986). Special education students in regular
classes: What happened to the pyramid? Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 19, 218-221.
Kaskinen-Chapman, A. (1992). Saline area schools and inclusive commu-
nity CONCEPTS (Collaborative Organization of Networks: Commu-
nity, Educators, Parents, The Workplace, and Students). In R. A. Villa,
J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for
caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating het-
erogeneous schools (pp. 169-185). Baltimore: Brookes.
Lovitt, T. C. (1993). Restructuring issues in special and general education.
In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special
education (pp. 49-71). New York: Merrill.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). The RAND change agent study: Ten years
later. In A. R. Oden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1 4 3 -
155). Albany: State University of New York Press.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October). Winners
all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: NASBE Study Group
on Special Education.
O'Neil, J. (1994/1995). Can inclusion work? A conversation with Jim
Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 7-11.
Porter, G., & Collicott, J. (1992). New Brunswick School Districts 28 and
29: Mandates and strategies that promote inclusive schooling. In R. A.
Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restruc-
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
 turing for caring and effective schools: An administrative guide to creat-
ing heterogeneous schools (pp. 187-200). Baltimore: Brookes.
Pugach, M. C. (1995). On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling.
The Journal of Special Education, 29, 212-223.
Reed, F., & Monda-Amaya, L. (1995). Preparing preservice general educa-
tors for inclusion: A survey of teacher preparation programs in Illinois.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 262-21 A.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994/1995). Why gifted students belong in inclusive
schools. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 64-70.
Schattman, R. (1992). The Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union: A case
study of an inclusive school system. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W.
Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effec-
tive education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous
schools (pp. 143-159). Baltimore: Brookes.
Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W.
(1987). Educational governance and administration (2nd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Servatius, J. D., Fellows, M , & Kelly, D. (1992). Preparing leaders for
inclusive schools. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S.
Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An
administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 109-137).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Showers, B. (1990). Aiming for superior classroom instruction for all chil-
dren: A comprehensive staff development model. Remedial and Special
Education, 77(3), 35-39.
Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1994). The unspecial place of special edu-
cation in programs that prepare school administrators. Journal of School
Leadership, 4, 598-630.
Solomon, D., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (1992). Creating
caring school and classroom communities for all students. In R. A.
Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restruc-
turing for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to
creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 41-60). Baltimore: Brookes.
NOTICES
Federal Agencies Announce New Web Site for Consumers
The first Internet site to provide "one-stop" access
to federal consumer information resources is ready for
visitors. Located at www.consumer.gov, the site, named
U.S. Consumer Gateway, offers information by subject,
rather than by federal agency. Each of the site's 10 major
categories, including Food, Health, Your Money, Product
Safety, and Transportation, has its own subject areas,
allowing consumers to locate and link to appropriate and
late-breaking information quickly and easily. Topics are
cross-linked to encourage and enhance access.
Among the site features are Scam Alert!, which
provides information about current law enforcement efforts
and tips on how to recognizeand avoidfraudulent
and deceptive practices in the marketplace, and Of Spe-
REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Volume 19, Number 3, May/June 1998
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on October 18, 2016
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Inclusive schooling. In W. Stainback
& S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Inter-
dependent integrated education (pp. 3-23). Baltimore: Brookes.
Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Jackson, H. J. (1992). Toward inclusive
classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum con-
siderations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students
(pp. 3-17). Baltimore: Brookes.
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (1990). Administrative supports to promote
inclusive schooling. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support
networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education
(pp. 201-218). Baltimore: Brookes.
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (1992). Restructuring public school sys-
tems: Strategies for organizational change and progress. In R. A. Villa,
J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for
caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating het-
erogeneous schools (pp. 109-137). Baltimore: Brookes.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1992).
Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide
to creating heterogeneous schools. Baltimore: Brookes.
Wade, P., & Garguilo, R. M. (1989-1990). Public school administrators'
concerns with implementing the least restrictive environment provision
of Public Law 94-142. National Forum of Special Education Journal,
7(1), 59-66.
Ward, J., Parmenter, T., Riches, V., & Hauritz, M. (1978). A study of the
attitudes of NSW. school principals towards the education and
prevocational provision for the mildly intellectually handicapped.
Unpublished manuscript, Macquarie University at North Ryde (Australia).
Received February 28, 1996
Revision received July 17, 1996
Initial acceptance September 25, 1996
Final acceptance May 21, 1997
cial Interest, timely and new information on a variety of
topics.
The web site is a cooperative effort among federal
agencies. Charter partners include the Consumer Prod-
uct Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administra-
tion, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The initiative to develop the U.S. Consumer Gateway at
www.consumer.gov was led by the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection. As the "host" agency, the FTC
maintains the site server and provides all technical
support. For more information, contact Don Elder,
Office of Consumer and Business Education, FTC, at
delder@ftc.gov, or 202/326-2988.