High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-9084-2

Religion and attitudes of college preservice teachers

toward students with disabilities: implications for higher
education

Yona Leyser Æ Shlomo Romi

Published online: 22 July 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract The study examined attitudes toward school inclusion of students with dis-
abilities of 1,145 prospective teacher trainees from six national/religious groups in eleven
colleges in Israel: The groups were secular, religious and ultra-orthodox Jews and Muslim,
Christian and Druze Arabs. Participants responded to the ‘‘Opinion Related to Inclusion
Scale’’. Trainees in all six groups supported the principle of inclusion while simultaneously
recognizing the need for segregated special education placements. Several significant
group differences were found on the total score and the factor scores. The most supportive
group of inclusion (i.e., the strongest rejection of segregation and the least concern about
behavior problems) was the Jewish secular group followed by the Jewish religious group.
The least support for inclusion was found for the ultra-orthodox Jewish group and the Arab
groups. Implications for the preparation of educators in institutions of higher education
were discussed.

Keywords Attitudes
Disabilities
Higher education
Inclusion
Pre-service teachers

Religion

Introduction

The education of students with disabilities in regular or ordinary classrooms and schools
with their peers without disabilities is becoming a world-wide movement (Hegarty 1998;
Mittler 2002; Sebba and Ainscow 1996). Education professionals and practicians use
different terms to describe this practice such as mainstreaming, integration, least restrictive

S. Romi (&)
School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel
e-mail: romish@mail.biu.ac.il

Y. Leyser
Professor Emeritus of Special Education, Northern Illinois University, Urbana, USA

123
704 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

environment, inclusion and full inclusion, which reflect the multiple view points about this
movement (i.e., should all students with disabilities be placed in regular education class-
rooms? How much time of the school day should they be there? and should more restrictive
special education placement options be maintained?) Indeed, the degree of implementation
of this school change movement differs not only among countries reflecting differences in
their educational traditions and socioeconomic cultural and political conditions, but also
within nations i.e., states and districts (Booth and Ainscow 1998; Marchesi 1993;
McLeskey et al. 2004; Meijer et al. 1994).
In the U.S.A., for example, Federal Legislation, PL 94–142 from 1975 now known as
IDEA, Individual with Disabilities Education Act (most recently reauthorized as the PL
108–446 in 2004), has resulted in the placement of almost 50% of students with disabilities
(mainly students with mild to moderate disabilities) for the majority of the school day in
regular classrooms. In addition about 30% attend school for part of the day in general
education classrooms and receive services in special education resource room settings
(Friend and Bursuck 2006; U.S. Department of Education 2002). The success of this
educational reform depend on many factors such as the need to revise policies and pro-
cedures, support from administrators, and the availability of resources. Of particular
importance are the knowledge, teaching skills and the attitudes of educators toward
inclusion and students with disabilities (i.e., Bender et al. 1995; Cook 2001; Friend and
Bursuck 2006; Hegarty 1994). Teacher perspectives are strong predictors of their class-
room behavior. As Richardson (1996) noted ‘‘Attitudes and beliefs are a subset of a group
of constructs that name, define and describe the structure and content of mental states that
are thought to drive the person’s actions’’ (p. 102).
Findings regarding attitudes toward inclusion by practicing and prospective teachers
provide mixed results. Some studies reveal that they are supportive of inclusion (Avramidis
et al. 2000a, 2000b; Villa et al. 1996), while others suggest that they are hesitant or even
opposed (Martin et al. 2003; Minke et al. 1996). Studies also reveal that teachers hold a
number of major concerns about inclusion such as about their own lack of needed teaching
skills, a possible negative influence on students without disabilities, the behavior and
academic progress of students with disabilities and about classroom size and the lack of
teacher time and resources (Avissar 2003; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996; McLeskey et al.
2001; Turnbull et al. 2004).
Research data also revealed that more positive disposition toward inclusion has been
found for teachers with more experience in inclusive settings and with students with
disabilities (i.e., Cook et al. 2000; Avramidis et al. 2000a; McLeskey et al. 2001) and with
more university training and course work in the area of special education (i.e., Bender et al.
1995; Taylor et al. 1997) and for female teachers (Avramidis et al. 2000b; Leyser and
Tappendorf 2001). Findings also suggest that teachers are also less accepting of students
with severe disabilities compared to students with mild disabilities (Scruggs and Ma-
stropreri 1996; Stoiber et al. 1998), and seem to reject in particular students with emotional
and behavioral disorders (Stoiber et al. 1998; Heflin and Bullock 1999).
Teacher perspectives about disabilities, and toward the educational reform of school
inclusion cannot be detached from the social, cultural and political context in which they
live. Meijer et al. (1994), reported that in Sweden attitudes toward inclusion are influenced
by the social-democratic ideology, which provides a context for integration. In Denmark
where the principle of normalization is widely accepted, teachers are more likely to be
positively disposed toward integration. Furthermore, Blake (cited in Meijer et al. 1994)
pointed out that acceptance of special needs students in Denmark is enhanced because this
society is fairly homogeneous in social, cultural and financial respects. In contrast in

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 705

Nigeria, a country with extreme cultural, social, economic, religious and political diversity,
perception and care of persons with disabilities have been influenced by cultural beliefs
that attribute the cause of disability to curse from God; family sins; offenses against the
Gods; witches or wizards, and an evil spirit (Obiakor 1998). Shor (1998) noted that one of
the critical components of culture is religion, which can have a major influence on values,
beliefs, and educational practices such as child rearing.
Israel in which the present study was conducted, is a cultural, multinational and multi-
religious society. It has a well-developed special education system. Inclusion in the least
restrictive environment is mandated by law.
The impact of cultural ethnic and religious variables on attitudes by educators toward
disabilities and school inclusion has not been widely explored .In this study conducted in
Israel, attitudes of prospective teachers from two national groups, Jews and Arabs, rep-
resenting six religious affiliations will be explored. The groups included secular, religious
and ultra-orthodox Jews and Muslim, Christian and Druze Arabs (no distinction in this
group has been made by level of religiosity).

Religious groups in Israel and their approaches to disability

Jews and Judaism

Judaism holds a wide range of ways to practice and express religion. A majority of Israel’s
Jewish population considers itself as secular. As nonobservant Jews, questions and issues
raised by Halakha (Jewish religious law) do not pertain to them. Their attitudes toward
disability tend to be affected by prevailing trends in Western culture. Among the observant,
there are variations ranging from modern Orthodox, who feel that their beliefs are compatible
with life in the twenty-first century to—Ultra-Orthodox who adhere to their strict code of
Jewish law and view modern life as a threat to their spirituality. Within ultra-Orthodox
society, these laws dictate the way of life from the segregation by gender to distinct clothing,
living in a defined geographic community, restrictions on sexual relations (even within
married couples), and ritual purity. Furthermore, men are encouraged to study the Bible,
Jewish law, and commentaries well into adulthood, while women are often responsible for
the family budget and for child rearing. In this group the religious leadership is the legitimate
authority in all domains of life, and as such medical and mental health professionals and
institutions often turn to Rabbis for resolve problems within this closed society (Friedman
1991; Arieli 2000). Modern conveniences such as television, computers, and even mobile
telephones are viewed with suspicion. Lifshitz and Glaubman (2004) stated that while most
societies find mental illness difficult to accept, this is especially true in Ultra-Orthodox
society because of the great value placed upon excellence in learning and scholarship.
Recent studies of attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities (Glaubman and
Lifshitz 2001; Lifshitz and Glaubman 2002, 2004; Merrick et al. 2001), revealed that
Jewish sources are being interpreted as representing a positive view about disabilities, one
which accepts the humanness of people with disabilities.
According to one interpretation (Merrick et al. 2001), Halakhic attitudes toward people
with intellectual disabilities, echo the actively modifying approach developed by Feuerstein
(Feuerstein 1969; Feuerstein et al. 1988). The actively modifying approach argues that the
manifest level of an individual’s functioning should not be seen as constant, unchangeable and
predictive of future achievements, as appropriate environmental intervention can substantially
improve levels of functioning. The Jewish law (Halakha) sets flexible criteria for determining

123
706 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

whether an individual must perform religious obligations (mitzvot) and whether his or her acts
are legally binding. Halakha requires an evaluation of a person’s level of understanding before
determining whether an individual is capable to fulfill any religious obligation.
Feinstein’s work (1996) deals with the responsibility of parents to educate their children
with intellectual disabilities to fulfill their religious obligations. The article discusses
whether this responsibility stems from the obligation of education or charity (hesed).
Bleich (in Farbstein 1995) addresses the question of the age at which parents of children
with disabilities should educate them to fulfill their religious obligations. The answer is
flexible, and the author concludes that the age of educating the child to fulfill a specific
obligation is contingent upon the child’s level of development and the difficulty involved
in fulfilling the obligation.

Arabs in Israel

There are several ethnic groups within the Arab society in Israel, Muslims, Christians, and
Druze which were examined in the present study. All groups share a basic Arab culture
characterized as collectivist and authoritarian (Dwairy 1998). Religion, tradition, and
family are central components in this culture (Barakat 1993; Dwairy 1998; Jackson 1997).
Accordingly, social relationships are built on duty and faithfulness to family and friends
rather than on self-needs. Overall, individuals are dependent on their family (Nydell 1987),
and the family’s reputation depends on the individual member’s behavior. Self-esteem and
respect are interdependent concepts in Arab families, which operate as close units—
cohesive, loving, and warm. At the same time, this closeness may suppress personal
feelings, opinions, experiences, and needs.
Within this common Arab culture, there are cultural variations between groups, depending
on their degree of acculturation identified as traditional, bicultural, and Westernized (Dwairy
1998; Lee 1997). Traditional Arab identity is the common cultural identity of Arabs in rural
areas, where people live with traditional collectivist values and norms within their extended
families and social life. Bicultural identity is common among middle-class, educated Arabs,
but even in this category Westernization is evident, mainly in the emphasis on materialistic
aspects of living rather than on their social relationships (Al-Sabaie 1989).
The largest Arab group in Israel is Muslim. Traditional Islamic society determines a
person’s position in society by clan. With exposure to modernism the nuclear family is
gaining importance, and a person’s status is determined by abilities and achievements
(Perry 1998).
Several studies conducted in Israel have examined attitudes held by Muslim society
toward people with disabilities, and some studies included comparative groups within the
Jewish population. For example, Florian and Katz in their literature review (1983) reported
that Arab citizens appear to have less positive attitudes toward individuals with a disability
than Jewish citizens. More recently, Kasam (1999) reported again, that attitudes of Jewish
students toward individuals with disabilities were more positive than those of Arab stu-
dents. Weisel and Zaidman (2003) examined attitudes of religious and secular Israeli
Jewish and Muslim adolescents. They reported that secular participants from both national
groups had more positive attitudes than religious participants. However, level of religiosity
was not a predictor of attitudes.
Two recent studies on teachers support for inclusion of students with disabilities
(Gumpel and Awartani 2003; Lifshitz et al. 2004) reported that Palestinian Arab teachers
were less supportive then their Jewish Israeli counterparts.

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 707

Christians are a minority within Arab society. Although there is some political agreement
between them and the Muslim Arab population, the relationship, on the whole, is complex.
Christian Arabs are part of the Arab community and consequently, share various aspects of
traditional and conservative culture. The third Arab group is the Druze. The major social
difference between Muslims and Druze is the level of acculturation. Close to one million
Muslims live in Israel, and most of them may be considered bicultural. The Druze, in
contrast, who number about 94,000, are known as an ethnic group that is furthest removed
from the mainstream lifestyle in Israel and considered to have the greatest solidarity in the
Middle East. They differ from Muslims in religion, ethnicity, geography, and politics. They
are a minority in several Arab countries in the Middle East, including Israel, and believe that
keeping up with their tradition is the basis for their survival (Dana 1998). Therefore, they are
very strict in their socialization of the young generation (Phalet and Claeys 1993).
Druze live according to seven basic religious principles, among which is mutual help
and assistance in time of need. Within Druze society there is a clear-cut division between
the knowledgeable elders and the general populace that is not familiar with the intricacies
of religion.

The context of the study

In Israel, special education legislation passed in 1988, subsequent legislation (Amendment

number 7, 2002), and circulars issued by the Ministry of Education, mandate as one of their
key provisions the inclusion of students with special educational needs in regular class-
rooms to the maximum extent possible. The Ministry of Education developed a plan for
inclusion aimed at reducing the number of students with special needs in special class-
rooms and schools while increasing their participation in general education settings. Indeed
as reported by Margalit (2000) about 8% of students with disabilities receive special
education services in inclusive settings, while an additional 2.25% are enrolled in special
education classrooms within regular schools or in separate special schools.
Over the years a number of regulations and laws have been enacted on behalf of
individuals with disabilities, including the Equal Rights for people with Disabilities Law
5758–1998, modeled after the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
The public education system in Israel offers four options for state-run schools to
accommodate the country’s religious and ethnic variety. The different schools enable
each segment of the population to express it’s unique ideology and to educate future
generations according to their specific traditions while complying with overall national
academic requirement. Parents in Israel can choose between state-run secular public
schools, Jewish religious public schools, independent (private) Jewish ultra-Orthodox
schools, and Arab public schools, all of which meet Ministry of Education standards
(Law of Education 1949). Each of these systems has established teacher-education
facilities, often supported by related political powers, to educate professional teachers
who meet the requirements of the overall educational system. In addition, prospective
teachers receive specific training relevant to their target student population, focusing on
religious and cultural issues in an atmosphere and environment that reflect those in
which they will work. Teacher training is provided in teacher education colleges and
schools of education in universities. Colleges prepare and certify teachers to work in
kindergarten through junior high while universities prepare teachers to work in high
schools. Many teacher-training colleges offer some course work in special education/
inclusion for general education majors.

123
708 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

The purpose of the study

With the world-wide trend toward inclusion of students with disabilities in schools there is
a need to continue to explore attitudes of practicing and prospective educators toward this
educational practice. The present paper is the second part of a large-scale study which
examined the impact of various background variables on attitudes toward inclusion and
self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers (Romi and Leyser 2006). This study will
explore the contribution of the variables of religious/nationality on attitudes. Specifically
the purposes of this study were as follows: (1) to examine attitudes toward inclusion of a
large sample of Jewish and Arab prospective teachers, (2) to examine whether there are
attitudinal differences among these prospective teachers representing six religious affili-
ations: secular, religious and ultra-orthodox Jews and Muslim, Christian and Druze Arabs.
Gathering this data has theoretical and practical implications for the training and prepa-
ration of educators in institutions of higher education.

Method

Sample

The sample included 1,145 preservice teachers enrolled in 11 different teacher education
colleges. Some of these colleges are large with an enrollment of several hundreds of
students, some are smaller with only a couple of hundreds of students and a few have an
enrollment of less than 100 students (the ultra-religious colleges). These colleges offer
training programs for students majoring in elementary and junior high education, special
education, early childhood education, non-formal education and child and youth care work.
Four of the colleges prepare Jewish teachers for the public secular school system, three
prepare teachers for the religious public school system, two small orthodox colleges or
institutes (one for males and one for females), prepare teachers for the independent ultra-
religious school system. One large Arabic college and one Arabic institute located in a
secular Jewish college prepare teachers for the Arab school system. (Some Arabs students
are enrolled in secular Jewish colleges.)
There were 756 Jewish students of this group, 440 were secular, 273 religious and 43
ultra orthodox. There were 389 Arab students of this group, 244 were Muslim, 71 Christian
and 74 Druze. There were 993 females (87.1%) and 147 males (12.9%). Three hundred and
seventy (34.4%) were enrolled in their first year of study, 329 (30.5%) in the second year,
200 (18.6%) in the third year and 178 (16.5%) in their fourth year. The mean age of these
students was 24.68, SD = 5.52. About one half reported having no experience or very
limited experience with special needs students, and an additional 30% reported some
experience. A majority of 709 (66.3%) reported no course work or very limited training in
special education. (Figures represent numbers of subjects for whom demographic data was
available, and may therefore not add up to the total number of participants.)

Instruments

Opinions Relative to Integration Scale (ORI)

In the first part of the questionnaire following an explanation of the study and it’s purpose
respondents were asked to provide background information on the followings; college, age,

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 709

gender, religious affiliation, work experience, experience with individuals with disabilities,
training in special education and area of study. In the second part participants were
administered the ORI scale, originally developed by Larrivee (Larrivee and Cook 1979;
Larrivee 1982), used to examine attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming. The original
scale included 30 items on a five point Likert type scale. The authors reported a Spearman-
Brown corrected split half reliability coefficient of 0.92. The questionnaire asks respon-
dents to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement. Scoring of
12 items requires reverse coding so that a high total score on the scale represents an
attitude endorsing inclusion, while a low score indicates a negative perception. The scale
was revised by Antonak and Larrivee (1995) and five of the 30 items were deleted because
they manifested some unacceptable psychometric characteristics. The authors reported a
Spearman-Brown split—half reliability of 0.82 for the revised scale. The factor analysis of
the revised scale yielded four factors. The present study used the Hebrew version of 30
items which was employed in previous studies (i.e., Leyser et al. 1994). Following An-
tonak and Larrivee’s (1995) revision, five items were deleted. The factor analysis for this
sample yielded a somewhat different factor structure, and it was decided to use the four
factors reported by the scale developers. This approach was taken in order to compare
results from this study to previous studies which reported similar factor scores. The factors
were: Factor 1, identified as ‘‘Benefits of Inclusion’’, with a reliability of 0.73. This factor
included items which explored the social, emotional and academic benefits for integrated
students and the benefits for their peers i.e., acceptance of individual differences. Factor 2,
was identified as ‘‘classroom management’’ with a reliability of 0.69. Items addressed
possible behavior problems of the integrated student and the creation of confusion in the
classroom and negative impact on peers. Factor 3, identified as ‘‘perceived ability to teach
students with disabilities’’ with a lower reliability of 0.47. Items explored whether teachers
have the needed knowledge and teaching expertise and their training needs. Factor 4,
identified as ‘‘special versus regular education placement’’ with a reliability of 0.57 (for 4
items). Items explored whether needs of students with disabilities are best be served
through separate classes and whether better academic progress is expected in a special
education placement.

Procedure

Following approval from the Ministry of Education, copies of the letter and a description
of the study were sent to deans or directors of participating colleges. Questionnaires were
distributed to students by these researchers and one research assistant during class time
(with permission of the instructors). The length of time required to respond to the ques-
tionnaires ranged from 25 to 35 min. The completed forms were delivered to the research
center in one of the colleges where the data was scanned and analyzed.

Results

Attitudes toward integration of total sample

Mean scores for all six groups on the attitude scale (total score) and the four factor scores
are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, the total mean scale score was 3.37 (SD = .37),
on a five point scale. The mean score on Factor 1, Benefits of integration was very high

123
 710

123
Table 1 Means, SD, for total scale and four factor scores for six groups
Group N Factor 1—Benefits Factor 2—Classroom management Factor 3—Teaching ability Factor 4—Integration/Segregationa Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Jews
1. Secular 440 4.52 .47 3.14 .54 2.59 .65 2.63 .71 3.48 .37
2. Religious 273 4.51 .55 3.00 .49 2.67 .56 2.52 .70 3.42 .36
3. Ultra Orthodox 43 4.26 .66 2.52 .60 2.80 .79 2.24 .74 3.14 .38
Arabs
4. Muslim 244 4.12 .64 2.78 .50 2.95 .77 2.19 .76 3.20 .34
5. Christian 71 4.27 .52 2.83 .48 2.72 .73 2.07 .73 3.23 .29
6. Druze 74 4.31 .51 2.85 .43 2.93 .68 2.06 .62 3.28 .27
Total 1,145 4.40 .59 2.97 .54 2.72 .68 2.42 .75 3.37 .37
a
A higher score represents rejection of segregated special education
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 711

(M = 4.40; SD = .59). A lower score can be seen on Factor 2 (M = 2.97; SD = .54)

representing a concern about discipline and behavior problems in the classroom. On Factor
3 the score was M = 2.72; SD = .62 represented concern about teachers’ preparedness for
meeting the needs of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. The score on Factor
4 (M = 2.42; SD = .75) showed that the sample did not reject the special education
placement option.

Impact of religion/nationality on attitudes

Total Scale Score

The ANOVA test for six religious/national groups on the total score on the scale revealed a
statistically significant difference F(5,1119) = 16.36, p < .001. Post hoc tests (Scheff’e)
revealed that the Jewish secular group (Group 1) had a significantly higher score (more
positive attitudes) than the Jewish Orthodox group (Group 3) and all three Arab groups
(Group 4, 5, 6). The Jewish religious group (Group 2) had also significantly higher score
than the Orthodox group (Group 3), and two of the Arab groups (Muslims and Christians),
but not from the Druze group (Group 6). No significant differences were noted between the
Jewish Orthodox group and the three Arab groups, or among the three Arab groups.
The MANOVA test for the six groups and the four attitude factor scores together
showed a significant group difference F(20,3742) = 13.70, p < .001. The ANOVA tests
conducted separately for each factor were all statistically significant as follows:

Factor 1: Benefits for all students

ANOVA test for the difference between groups on Factor 1 was statistically significant
F(5,1131) = 19.30, p < .001. Post hoc tests (Scheff’e) showed that the Jewish secular and
the religious group (# 1, 2) had higher scores than only the Muslim group (# 4). No other
significant group differences were found.

Factor 2: Classroom discipline and management problems

ANOVA test for the difference between groups on this factor was statistically significant
F(5,1131) = 25.28, p < .001. Post hoc tests revealed that the Jewish secular group had
significantly higher scores (were less concerned about discipline problems) than all the
other five groups. The Jewish religious group had significantly higher scores than the
Jewish Orthodox group and the Arab Muslim group. No differences were found between
the Jewish Orthodox groups and the three Arab groups, or among the three Arab groups.

Factor 3: Teacher skills

ANOVA test revealed a significant group difference F(5,1131) = 11.41, p < .001. Post hoc
tests revealed that the Jewish secular group had significantly lower scores (were more
concerned about teacher skills) as compared to the Arab Muslim and Druze groups. The
Jewish religious group had significantly lower scores (more concern) than only the Muslim
group. No significant differences were found between the three Jewish groups, between the
Jewish religious and the Arab Christian and Druze groups or between the Jewish Orthodox
group and all three Arab groups or among the Arab groups.

123
712 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

Factor 4: Integration versus segregation

ANOVA tests for the difference between groups on this factor was statistically significant
F(5,1131) = 20.86, p < .001. Post hoc tests revealed that the Jewish secular group has
significantly higher scores (rejected more the special education placement) than did the
Jewish Orthodox group and all three Arab groups. The Jewish religious group was not
different from the Orthodox group but had significantly higher scores (rejected more
special education) than the three Arab groups. No statistically significant differences were
found between the Jewish Orthodox group and the three Arab groups, or among the Arab
groups.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes of a large sample of Jewish and Arab
college students in teacher education from six religious affiliations toward school inclusion
of students with disabilities. Findings revealed that this sample regardless of national or
religious affiliation expressed support for the philosophy or ideology of school integration
of students with disabilities. They expressed the view that integration does benefit students
with disabilities by fostering their academic, social and emotional development, while also
believing in the positive impact on peers namely promoting their acceptance of individual
differences. By expressing a positive disposition toward the principle of inclusion, these
future educators line up and support the official policy led the Ministry of Education and
the state law, which mandate the mainstreaming of students with disabilities in ordinary
schools and classrooms. However as classroom teachers expected to work in inclusive
settings, they were also cognizant about the practical implications by sharing two major
concerns. The first, an uncertainty whether teachers have the necessary knowledge and
instructional skills for working in inclusive classrooms, and the second, a concern about
behavior problems and possible negative impact on classroom peers. Similar concerns have
also been reported by other researchers (i.e., Daana et al. 2000; McLeskey et al. 2001).
A separate examination of each factor revealed that on Factor 1, the most supportive of
inclusion were the Jewish secular and the religious groups while the least supportive was
the Muslim group. On Factor 2 ‘‘classroom management’’ again the Jewish secular and
religious groups were least concerned about possible problems while the greatest concern
was noted for the ultra-orthodox Jewish group and the Arab groups. This finding has been
supported in a previous study by Romi (2004) who compared the attitudes of two groups of
teachers and students from religious and secular schools in Israel toward classroom
behavior problems and discipline. The study, too, revealed that the religious participants
regarded such issues more harshly than did their secular counterparts. Similarly Shor
(1998) reported a relationship between religious affiliation and an orientation that supports
obedience and harsh forms of punishment.
Findings regarding the differences in Factor 3 ‘‘Teacher skills’’ indicated that the
secular Jewish group as compared to the Muslim and Druze groups expressed more con-
cern about the lack of teacher skills. The least concerned were the ultra-orthodox Jewish
group and the three Arab groups. This view appears to reflect a stronger respect and
acceptance of the authority of the teacher/scholar by individuals in collectivistic traditions
communities. Gumpel and Awartani (2003) found in their study that Arab Palestinian
teachers and student teachers were more satisfied with their professional status than were
their Israeli Jewish counterparts.

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 713

Findings regarding differences in Factor 4 ‘‘Inclusion vs. Special Education’’ were

consistent with the tendencies revealed thus far. The secular and religious Jewish groups
were least supportive of separate special education placements. The ultra-orthodox and the
three Arab groups were most supportive of segregated placements.
Data from this study suggested that these teacher trainees did support the principle of
school inclusion. However it became also clear that they were opposed to the concept of
full inclusion endorsed by some professionals, who believe that all students with disabil-
ities should be fully integrated and accommodated in general education classrooms and
schools. By taking this position they joined a growing group of education professionals and
practicians who advocate for maintaining a range of educational options and services,
which includes a continuum of special education settings and classrooms where the needs
of students with more severe disabilities can better be met (see Friend and Bursuck 2006;
Kauffman McGee and Brigham 2004; Hallahan and Kauffman 2006).
Results reported here regarding the differences between the various religious groups
suggest that religion was a contributing factor that impacted the beliefs toward inclusion.
As findings revealed the group that was the least religious/conservative, namely the large
Jewish secular student group was the most receptive. On the other hand, there was a great
degree of similarity between ultra-orthodox Jewish group, a religious cultural minority
which is the most observant and conservative of the three Jewish groups and the three Arab
groups. Their attitudes were the least supportive of inclusion. This finding may be ex-
plained by the cultural conservative and traditional orientation, fostered by religion, which
is stronger than the religious tenets. Support for this position can be found in the results of
a large cross cultural study on the relationship between values and religiosity (Schwartz
and Huismans 1995). These authors reported a positive high correlation between religiosity
and traditional values. They suggested that regardless of which religion a person is born
into, religious commitment is less likely to develop or be maintained by those who favor
openness, than by those who favor conserving the status-quo.
The attitudes of the ultra orthodox group, which reflected a limited support for inclusion
of students with disabilities, may not be part of the humanistic ideals advocated by their
religious faith, which encourages comparison, kindness and empathy toward those who are
weak, disabled or needy. Rather, a belief in inclusion is about an educational innovation
which calls for renewal, change and readjustment which may undermine their centuries old
conservative educational tradition known to endorse excellence in education, and the fear
that students with disabilities may interrupt the academic progress of their classroom peers.
Findings regarding the similarity among the three Arab groups also suggest that their
cultural conservatism also had a more prominent role than the religious ideals. For these
three groups their cultural and national identity tends to be shaped more around common
traditional values and customs than around religious beliefs.
The Jewish religious group, which was similar in its positive attitudes to the secular
group, expressed a greater degree of openness than conservatism. Members affiliated with
this group in Israel are trying to merge religious life and modern life and assimilate into the
broader society. They often identify themselves more with the secular Jewish group than
with the ultra-Orthodox one (Sheleg 2000). This finding is quite similar to Tabory’s (1992)
results which pointed out, that the secular Jewish group perceives the religious group to be
more similar to themselves as compared to the ultra-orthodox community.
Findings here have implications for the training and preparation of future educators in
colleges and universities. The authors wish to stress that although the study was conducted
on teacher trainees in Israel, this is a nation of cultural religious and national diversity as
are many other nations around the globe. Furthermore, findings for this sample regarding

123
714 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

their disposition toward integration, and their concerns are supported by results reported in
studies on preservice and inservice educators in other countries. Implications for other
public and private institutions of higher education can therefore be useful.
Reports indicate that institutions of higher education in many countries have started to
infuse course work about students with disabilities, and inclusion into their curriculum, yet
evidence suggests that a single course may not be effective (i.e., Staton and McCollum
2002).
In today’s schools and the growing number of inclusive classrooms, teachers are ex-
pected to make adaptations and accommodations of the curriculum, their instructional
techniques and evaluation procedures as well as their classroom and behavior management
techniques. These topics need to be emphasized more in courses, instructional units and
across the curriculum in higher education. It should be stressed that among the standards
and principles, that must be mastered by all beginning teachers as stated by different
professional associations (see Friend and Bursuck 2006) are the development of attitudes
and beliefs about students with disabilities, and how to teach them effectively.
Attitudes including those toward disabilities are formed through various personal
experiences such as exposures to persons with disabilities, interactions with family
members and friends, readings, watching TV and mass media, and experiences in previous
schooling (i.e., Triandis et al. 1984), before students enter teacher education programs.
Research and practice have shown that attitudes may be modified through course work
(i.e., presentation of information about disabilities) and especially by having successful
contacts with mainstreamed students and their effective cooperating teachers during field
experiences. Furthermore, several strategies for promoting acceptance of individual dif-
ferences could be implemented. These include group discussions, simulations, presenta-
tions by guest speakers, reading of books about disabilities, use of media (films, video
technology and the internet), and through values clarification activities.
Finally, several reported studies on faculty in higher education show that for the most
part they hold positive attitudes toward students with disabilities. However, some found
faculty to have negative attitudes. Furthermore, findings also suggest that faculty members
have limited knowledge about disabilities and disability legislation, and seem to have
limited teaching experience with students with disabilities (i.e., Leyser et al. 2003; Vogel
et al. 2006). Although faculty views were not explored in this study, data cited above
suggest, that faculty involved in the preparation of education majors in departments of
education and other university departments should be encouraged to participate in staff
development activities on inclusion and disabilities. These activities may provide current
information on topics such as laws, characteristics of students with disabilities, and data on
the effectiveness of inclusion and about teaching accommodations and adaptations. Several
avenues may be selected in order to disseminate such information to busy faculty. These
include short workshops, presentations by speakers during faculty meetings, mailing of
short publications and brochures and over the internet.

References

Al-Sabaie, A. (1989). Psychiatry in Saudi Arabia: Cultural perspectives. Transcultural Psychiatric Research
Review, 26, 245–262.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to
Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62(2), 139–149.
Arieli, R. (2000). Meeting the other: The challenge of therapeutic work with Haredi population. In N. Ilan
(Ed.), Kindly look: Dialog and polemic in the culture of Israel (Tel-Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuchad
Vene’emnei Torah Va’avoda), pp. 388–403 (Hebrew).

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 715

Avissar, G. (2003). Teaching an inclusive classroom can be rather tedious: An international perspective:
Israel 1998–2000. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3(3), 154–161.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000a). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward the
inclusion of children with special educational needs in ordinary school in one local education authority.
Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191–211.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000b). Student teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of
children with special education needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2),
277–293.
Barakat, H. (1993). The Arab world. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teacher’s attitudes toward increased mainstreaming:
Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 28(2), 8–94.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (1998). From them to us: Setting up the stage. In T. Booth & M. Ainscow (Eds.),
From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education (pp. 1–20). London, New York:
Routledge.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe
disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203–213.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers attitudes toward their included
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 6(1), 115–135.
Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the
collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331–338.
Dana, N. (1998). Hadruzim [The Druze]. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press (Hebrew).
Dwairy, M. A. (1998). Cross-cultural counseling: The Arab-Palestinian case. New York: The Haworth
Press.
Farbstein, M. (1995). Legal aspects and clarifications of the data concept and laws concerning the deranged
(Hebrew) (pp. 66–83). Jerusalem: Shaar Hamispat Institute.
Feinstein, M. (1996). In S. Rapaport (Ed.), Igroth Moshe (pp. 135–140). Jerusalem: Hemed (Hebrew).
Feuerstein, R. (1969). A dynamic approach to the causation, prevention, and alleviation of retarded per-
formance. In Social cultural aspects of mental retardation: Proceeding of the Peabody NIMH Con-
ference. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, R. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. New York: Plenum Press.
Florian, V., & Katz, S. (1983). The impact of cultural, ethnic, and national variables on attitudes toward the
disabled in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 167–179.
Friedman, M. (1991). Hachevra hacharedit: Mekorot, megamot vetahalikhim (Haredi society: Sources,
trends, and processes) (Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Institute for the Study of Israel) (Hebrew).
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2006). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom
teachers (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Glaubman, R., & Lifshitz, H. (2001). Ultra-Orthodox Jewish teachers’ self-efficacy and willingness for
inclusion of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(3), 207–223.
Also published in Megamot, 43(2), 329–346 (Hebrew).
Gumpel, T., & Awartani, S. (2003). A comparison of special education in Israel and Palestine: Surface and
deep structures. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 33–48.
Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Exceptional learners: Instruction to special education (8th ed.)
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Heflin, L. J., & 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), 103–111.
Hegarty, S. (1998). International perspectives on special education. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 13(1), 112–115.
Hegarty, S. (1994). Integration and teachers. In C. J. W. Meijer, S. J. Pijl, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), New
perspectives in special education: A six-country study of integration (pp. 125–131). London, New
York: Routledge.
Jackson, M. L. (1997). Counseling Arab Americans. In C. C. Lee (Ed.), Multicultural issues in counseling:
New approaches to diversity (2nd ed., pp. 333–353). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Associ-
ation.
Kauffman, J. M., McGee, K., & Brigham, M. (2004, April). Enabling or disabling? Observations on changes
in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 613–620.
Kasam, P. (1999). The impact of level of religiosity on attitudes toward people with disabilities among Arab
and Jewish youth. Unpublished MA thesis. Tel Aviv University: School of Education.
Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of variables affecting teacher attitudes. The
Journal of Special Education, 13, 315–324.

123
716 High Educ (2008) 55:703–717

Larrivee, B. (1982). Factors underlying regular classroom teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 19, 374–379.
Lee, C. C. (Ed.) (1997). Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (2nd ed.). Alex-
andria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: A cross cultural
study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9(1), 1–15.
Leyser, Y., & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing? A case
study of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121(4), 751–760.
Leyser, Y., Vogel, S. A., Wyland, S., Brulle, A., Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2003). American and Israeli
Faculty attitudes and practices regarding students with learning disabilities: A cross cultural study. In
S. A. Vogel, G. Vogel, V. Sharoni, & O. Dahan (Eds.), Learning disabilities in higher education and
beyond: An international perspective (pp. 201–225). Timonium: MD, York Press.
Lifshitz, H., & Glaubman, R. (2002). Religious and secular student’ sense of self-efficacy and attitudes
towards inclusion of pupils with intellectual disability and other types of needs. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 46(5), 405–418.
Lifshitz, H., & Glaubman, R. (2004). Caring for people with disabilities in the Haredi community:
Adjustment mechanism in action. Disability and Society, 19(2), 217–234.
Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: The case of Israeli and
Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
19(2), 171–190.
Marchesi, A. (1993). International perspectives on special education reform. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 13(1), 116–122.
Margalit, M. (Chair) (2000). Committee report on the implementation of special education law (Jerusalem,
Israel) (Hebrew).
Martin, B. N., Ireland, H., Johnson, J. A., & Claxton, K. (2003). Perceptions of teachers on inclusion in four
Midwest school districts. Rural Education, 12, 13–20.
McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., So, Tak-Sbing, H., Swanson, K., & Loveland, T. (2001). Perspectives of
teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 108–115.
McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion an illusion? An examination of
national and state trends toward the education of students with learning disabilities in general education
classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(2), 109–115.
Meijer, C. J. W., Pijl, S. J., & Hegarty, S. (1994). New perspectives in special education: A six country study
of integration. London and New York: Routledge.
Merrick, J., Gabbay, Y., & Lifshitz, H. (2001). Judaism and the person with intellectual disability. Journal of
Religion, Disability & Health, 5(2–3), 49–63.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. K. (1996). Teacher experience with inclusive
classrooms: Indications for special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152–186.
Mittler, P. (2002). Moving towards inclusion: The role of the United Nations. Paper presented at the Third
International Conference on Developmental Disabilities Challenges and Opportunities: Policy and
Research (Tel-Aviv, Israel).
Nydell, F. A. (1987). Understanding Arabs: A guide for Westerners. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Obiakor, F. E. (1998). Special education reform in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 13(1), 57–71.
Perry, Y. (1998). Minorities in Israel: Arab and Druze citizens of Israel. Petah Tikva, Israel: Lilakh
(Hebrew)
Phalet, K., & Claeys, W. (1993). A comparative study of Turkish and Belgian youth. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 24, 319–343.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E.
Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–117). New-York, NY: Macmillan
Library.
Romi, S. (2004). A comparison of teachers and students attitudes toward disruptive behavior in religious and
secular high schools. Research in Education, 71, 81–91.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion pre-service training needs: A study of variables asso-
ciated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1),
85–105.
Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four western religions. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming – inclusion, 1958–1995:
A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.

123
High Educ (2008) 55:703–717 717

Sebba, J., & Ainscow, M. (1996). International development in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(10), 5–17.
Sheleg, Y. (2000). The new religious Jews: Recent development among Observant Jews in Israel. Keter
Publishing House Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel (Hebrew).
Shor, R. (1998). The significance of religion in advancing a culturally sensitive approach toward child
maltreatment. Families in Society, 79(4), 400–409.
Staton, V. D., & McCollum, T. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell
us? Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 211–218.
Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents and early childhood
practioner’s beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 107–124.
Tabory, E. (1992). Avoidance and conflict: Perceptions regarding contact between religious and nonreli-
gious Jewish youth in Israel. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(2), 148–162.
Taylor, R. L., Richards, S. B., Goldstein, P. A., & Schilit, J. (1997). Inclusive environments: Teacher
perceptions of inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(3), 50–55.
Triandis, H. C., Adamopoulos, J., & Brinberg, D. (1984). Perspectives and issues in the study of attitudes. In
R.L. Jones (Ed.), Attitude and attitude change in special education: Theory and Practice (pp. 21–40).
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., & Smith, S. J. (2004). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s
schools (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.
U.S. Congress (2004). Individuals with disabilities education improvement act (IDEA) (PL 108–446).
Author.
U.S. Department of Education (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to congress on the implementation of the
individuals with disabilities act. Washington, DC: Author.
Villa, B. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., & Navin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of
heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29–45.
Vogel, S. A., Leyser, Y., Burgstahler, S., Sliger, S., & Zecker, S. (2006). Faculty knowledge and practices
regarding students with disabilities in three contrasting institutions of higher education. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 109–123.
Weisel, A., & Zaidman, A. (2003). Attitudes of secular and religious Israeli adolescents toward persons with
disabilities: A multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Disability, Development and Edu-
cation, 50(3), 309–322.

123