Inclusion of Children With Special Needs in Early Childhood Education

Abstract

Whereas the inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms has gained increasing advocacy, teachers’ attitudes vary. Previous studies examining teacher attitudes have focused on primary and secondary schools in the Western world, and little is known about early childhood settings in Eastern countries. This study used MANOVA to examine preschool teachers’ attitudes in Hong Kong (N = 410). Teachers reported only modest support for inclusion. Teachers with training in special education were stronger advocates of inclusion, irrespective of their professional roles (administrator or class teacher), for children with intellectual disability, or visual, hearing, and speech and language impairments. However, neither teacher training nor professional role made a significance difference to teachers’ support of including children with physical disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning difficulty, and the gifted and talented. Implications for practice and further research are explored.

Keywords

inclusive education early childhood education teacher characteristics special needs

The inclusion of children with special needs in regular educational settings is becoming increasingly common (Ainscow & Cesar, 2006; Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007) and has resulted in dramatic changes to schools conceptually, organizationally, and structurally (Gavish & Shimoni, 2011). The rise of inclusion has been boosted by its documented benefits whereby students with special needs in inclusive classrooms are better able to learn, make more progress in academic skills, and develop adaptive behavior when compared with students educated in special schools (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). A plethora of research and commentary has occurred regarding the practice and philosophy of inclusion; however, this inquiry has focused predominantly on the Western world and on school-age children and adolescents. The movement toward inclusive education is gradually occurring across the Asia Pacific areas (Forlin, 2010), yet the empirical investigation of this shift is still scant, and in particular, for children in early childhood.

The Emergence of Inclusion in Hong Kong

Among Asia Pacific regions, Hong Kong is one of those that promote inclusion. The Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) enacted in 1995 and the Code of Practice in Education enacted in 2001 both denounced discrimination and supplied practical guidance to support children with special educational needs and their parents and related parties (Forlin, 2010). In 1997, the Inclusive Education Pilot Project was launched to include all children in regular schools regardless of individual difficulties and special needs. However, the complex and dynamic nature of inclusive education has created additional challenges for teachers in Hong Kong. To enhance teachers’ competency to teach in inclusive classrooms, the government launched a 5-year teacher professional development framework on inclusion. A number of teachers in each regular school are expected to have received relevant training by 2007 (Education Bureau, 2014). Nevertheless, the government has focused largely on mainstream primary and secondary schools whereas early childhood teachers have not received such support (Pearson & Rao, 2006; Zhang, 2011).

Early childhood education is not mandatory in Hong Kong; however, more than 95% of children in Hong Kong attend preschool at the age of 3. This is because education is highly regarded in the Chinese community (Poon-McBrayer, 2004), and high-quality early education and care are seen as of extreme importance (Peters & Forlin, 2011; Rao & Koong, 2000). Preschool settings are either not-for-profit organizations where funding is sourced from voluntary organizations, or private independent organizations funded by private sources. Both settings are overseen and monitored by the Education Bureau under the Education Ordinance and Regulation.

However, support for young children with special needs has been traditionally provided by the Social Welfare Department since the 1970s. Due to a severe shortage of services for children with special needs and aligning with the inclusive philosophy, the Social Welfare Department (2008) commenced advocating for “integrated child care services” so that young children with a mild disability could be included in regular classrooms from 1978, which aimed at providing rehabilitative care and training. However, the inadequacy of service is strongly criticized by teachers (Cheuk & Hatch, 2007). At present, there are 900 preschools in Hong Kong, and only about 218 have integrated programs to serve 1,860 young children with special needs (Legislative Council [LegCo], 2013).

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion

As countries move to embrace inclusion, increased attention has been paid to the attitudes of those directly involved in facilitating authentic inclusive practices (Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, & Shelton, 2004; Wong & Cumming, 2010). Given their significant role as an agent of change within the classroom, teachers’ positive views toward inclusion can contribute to others forming affirmative positions toward inclusive education (Guralnick, 2005). Inclusive education is likely to be unsuccessful when teachers do not hold positive attitudes toward inclusion (Engelbrecht, Oswald, Swart, & Eloff, 2003). Moreover, teachers’ attitudes have a significant impact on learning in an inclusive classroom. For instance, Murphy, Delli, and Edwards (2004) found that children are more motivated to learn from teachers who are caring and show respect. When teachers adapted their teaching strategies to meet the needs of children with learning difficulties, all children benefited from their adapted instruction (Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). Such findings cast the investigation of teacher attitudes as pertinent to the promotion of inclusive education. Nevertheless, Yuen and Westwood (2002) found that many Hong Kong secondary school teachers found children with special needs an additional burden and felt that they should not be included in their already stressful working environment. This finding has been supported by a number of other studies in Hong Kong with primary and secondary teachers (Forlin, 2010; Forlin, Loreman, & Sharma, 2014; Leung & Mak, 2010), but there is an absence of empirical research in early childhood settings.

A recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission (2012) revealed that 50% of the principals and teachers disagreed to accept children with severe disabilities; and 20% of the principals and 50% of the teachers and professionals revealed they knew little about the development of inclusive education and related supports and resources available. Most notably, regular class teachers felt underprepared and untrained for inclusion (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2012). Unknown is whether similar attitudes are held within early childhood education settings.

Given the importance of teachers’ attitude, researchers have endeavored to determine a number of underlying factors to explain what contributes to their attitude, with much of this inquiry focusing on primary and secondary teachers in Western countries (e.g., Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012). Some of the underlying factors include teacher training, the types of special needs encountered, teachers’ knowledge of special needs, teachers’ experience of children with special needs, and the professional role held.

Teacher Training

Early childhood teachers with training in special education are generally more positive about inclusion (Lee, Tracey, Barker, Fan, & Yeung, 2014). Baker-Ericzén, Mueggenborg, and Shea (2009) examined the effects of special education training on 1,298 early child care providers from various settings in the United States. They found that care providers showed an improved sense of competence and attitude toward inclusion, and the improvement was more pronounced for those who attended more sessions of training. Other research findings concur with the positive effect of special education training (e.g., Feng & Sass, 2013; Smith & Smith, 2000; Yang & Rusli, 2012). Overall, training seems to make a difference (Damore & Murray, 2009), and teachers seem to be willing to receive training to improve their knowledge and skills and to collaborate with other people to help children with special needs (Haycock & Smith, 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). We may therefore expect that preschool teachers with special education training would hold more positive views about inclusion compared with their counterparts without training (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008).

Types of Special Needs

Teachers’ attitudes appear to be affected by characteristics of children with special needs (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). Yan and Sin (2014) found that primary and secondary teachers (N = 841) from regular schools in Hong Kong held positive views about including children with mild disabilities but negative views about including children with moderate or severe disabilities. Research consistently purports that acceptance is higher for children considered to have mild or moderate special needs (Dupoux, Wolman, & Estrada, 2005), who are less likely to require teachers’ additional instructional or management skills (Avramidis et al., 2000). Indeed, types of special needs have been identified by teachers (Dupoux et al., 2005) and administrators (Praisner, 2003) as a crucial factor to consider. Overall, teachers in primary and secondary settings are more supportive of accepting children with physical and sensory disabilities, but have a tendency to oppose the inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities or behavioral and emotional disorders (Čagran & Schmidt, 2011).

For early childhood settings, there is insufficient research to ascertain any pattern. For instance, several studies in the United States found that teachers were unwilling to work with children with severe and behavioral disabilities (e.g., Mulvihill, Shearer, & Van Horn, 2002). Wong and Cumming (2010) revealed that teachers in Australia considered some disabilities (autism, severe physical disability) too difficult to manage in early childhood settings. Interestingly, the disabilities identified as being challenging were related to physical disabilities, which are more widely accepted in primary and secondary settings. In any case, it is critical to understand the types of disabilities that are perceived to be challenging to provide clear directions for professional development to facilitate best teaching practices to benefit students.

Knowledge of Special Needs

The success of inclusion partially depends on the teachers’ awareness of children’s specific needs (Kuyini & Desai, 2007). Teachers need to have adequate knowledge of the cognitive, behavioral, and social characteristics associated with special needs to design appropriate learning experiences and teaching strategies for these children (Fox, Dulap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003). Bruns and Mogharreban (2007) found support for the notion that understanding of individual student characteristics and awareness of appropriate teaching strategies are important determinants for acceptance. Similar findings are reported by Appl and Spenciner (2008). A lack of knowledge about effective instructional strategies may result in negative attitudes (Sze, 2009). Hong Kong teachers in regular schools may have acquired some basic knowledge about special needs in their teacher preparation program or short-term inclusive education courses (Chong, Forlin, & Au, 2007). However, they generally do not hold optimistic views toward children with special needs (Yeung, 2011) because the training lacks practical instructional strategies (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2012). Hence, Van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2000) emphasize the importance of teachers’ knowledge for inclusion.

Experience in Teaching Children With Special Needs

Experience with learners with special needs may influence teachers’ acceptance of inclusion. Fayez, Dababneh, and Jumiaan (2011) found that preservice teachers who had experience in teaching children with physical disability had a more positive, accepting attitude. Similarly, educators with experience in teaching children with special needs are more supportive than those with no experience (Lee et al., 2014), including those in child care settings (Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012).

In contrast, other studies have reported no significant correlation between teachers’ prior experience with children with special needs and their attitudes toward inclusion (e.g., Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003). Lancaster and Bain (2010) concluded that the mixed findings of teachers’ exposure to children with special needs and their attitudes toward these children may be explained by other factors, such as the content of the training programs.

Professional Role of the Teacher

Research seeking to document the advocacy for inclusion at a school level has turned its attention to the attitudes of teachers with different professional roles in schools. Studies found that administrators, lead teachers, or principals hold the most positive attitudes (Avissar, Reiter, & Leyser, 2003; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012). It appears that those who are more distant from children with special needs expressed a more positive view of inclusive education compared with those closer to the classroom context (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

Research has further indicated that principals’ attitudes may be influenced by several factors. In their review of 30 studies between 1985 and 2003, Hadjikakou and Mnasonoa (2012) found no clear pattern of prevailing attitudes among principals. Across the studies, the research findings were mixed. In general, principals agreed that children with special needs should be included in regular classrooms; however, they may not agree that all these children should be included (Avissar et al., 2003; Praisner, 2003). Given the influence and leadership responsibilities encompassed in the role of a head teacher (Forlin, 2010), it is fruitful for research to examine their perceptions in an early childhood context.

In sum, studies that investigate early childhood educators’ acceptance in Asian regions are limited. Even less research has investigated how preschool teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are related to the specific nature of the child’s special need. The current study is a preliminary effort to examine early childhood teachers’ knowledge, experience, professional roles, and attitudes related to the inclusion of young children with special needs.

The Present Investigation

The purpose of our survey is to examine preschool teachers’ attitudes toward including children with special needs in regular classrooms in Hong Kong. The study aims to further investigate the factors contributing to teachers’ acceptance of children with special needs and determine whether acceptance varies depending on the type of the children’s special needs.

The specific research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the attitudes of the preschool teachers regarding the inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms, and does this vary depending on the nature of the child’s special need?

Research Question 2: How does teachers’ acceptance of inclusion relate to their knowledge of special needs and their experience teaching children with special needs? Do these relationships vary depending on the nature of the child’s special need?

Research Question 3: Do teachers’ training and professional role matter when it comes to teacher attitudes of inclusion?

Method

Participants

A total of 520 printed surveys were sent to the principals and teachers of regular preschool education organizations in Hong Kong. The principals and teachers were requested to complete the survey. A total of 498 completed surveys were returned (the return rate was 95.8%). Due to missing data, the analysis presented in this article used N = 410. More than 90% were females, which is typical of the teaching population in preschool education in Hong Kong. Their ages ranged from 20 to 50 years, mostly between 20 and 40 years (68%), 34 on average. Half of the participants had 6 to 15 years of teaching experience (53%), 13.3 years on average. Among them, 76% had received some kind of training in special education. All of the participants had received a certificate in early childhood education, which is the basic teacher qualification of preschool teachers in Hong Kong and 15% held a degree. Among them, 76% had received some kind of training in special education in their teacher preparation program. For purposes of the analysis, this cohort was categorized as the teachers who had been “trained in special education.” About 13% had administrative roles and did not have direct responsibility for teaching children (e.g., principal, head teacher).

Material and Procedure

Based on the literature review and research questions, the researchers constructed a newly designed survey to investigate the attitudes of early childhood teachers in Hong Kong. The questionnaires were sent to a number of experienced preschool teachers to seek their comments on terms and words used in the survey. The participants were asked to indicate their attitudes (on a 5-point Likert-type scale, coded 1 = low to 5 = high) toward 9 types of special needs in relation to 3 aspects: (a) Acceptance: the extent to which they accepted the children with special needs to be included in regular classrooms; (b) Knowledge: how much they understood the special needs of children; and (c) Experience: the extent to which they had encountered children with various types of special needs. The nine types of special needs chosen in the present study were adapted from the “Operation Guide on Whole School Approach to Integration Education,” which is the government document published by the Education Bureau (2008). The participants were asked to provide information such as their age, teaching experience, training in special education, and professional role in the school.

Nine types of special needs

The nine types of special needs included in the present investigation were as follows: intellectual disability, physical disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning difficulties, speech and language impairment, and gifted and talented. They are hereinafter referred to as intellectual, physical, visual, hearing, ASD, ADHD, learning, speech, and gifted, respectively.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were obtained using the statistical package of SPSS. Frequencies of responses to the question about the respondents’ acceptance of students with special needs in regular schools were recorded for each type of special needs (Research Question 1). By observing the correlations among three aspects (knowledge, experience, and acceptance), the association among these aspects could be examined (Research Question 2). To answer Research Question 3, a 2 (professional role: teacher, administrator) × 2 (training: trained, untrained) MANOVA was conducted with the mean scores of the responses to the question about acceptance of inclusion in nine areas of special needs. Main effects of training would imply that training in specific types of special needs could make a difference in perceptions on inclusion (Research Question 3). A main effect of professional role would imply that educators occupying different roles may hold different views toward inclusion (Research Question 3). Professional role × Training interaction effects would imply that perceptions on inclusion may vary due to both the professional role of the staff and whether the person had been trained in that area.

Results

To answer Research Question 1, the frequencies of responses to the item pertaining to teachers’ acceptance of including children with special needs are reported in Table 1. It is apparent that the teachers’ acceptance of children with special needs in a regular classroom varies greatly depending on the nature of the child’s special need. Teachers reported more acceptance of children with specific learning difficulties, speech and language difficulties, or children who were gifted and talented, with approximately 70% either agreeing or strongly agreeing with their inclusion into regular classrooms (72.4%, 69.9%, and 74.2%, respectively). Children with other types of special needs, however, did not attract the support of teachers to be included into regular classrooms. Typically, only about half of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that children with intellectual disability, physical disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, ASD, or ADHD would be accepted into their regular classroom. Children with visual impairments obtained the least support with only 39.1% of teachers either agreeing or strongly agreeing to accept them into their regular classroom.

Table 1.

Responses to Acceptance Item in %.

I accept students with the following special needs in regular schools:	SD	D	N	A	SA
1. Intellectual disability	2.4	27.5	21.1	44.3	4.6
2. Physical disability	2.2	20.5	26.0	44.6	6.6
3. Visual impairment	1.8	25.1	34.1	34.3	4.8
4. Hearing impairment	1.8	21.6	29.8	41.3	5.5
5. ASD	3.3	23.5	29.0	42.4	1.8
6. ADHD	1.1	20.2	29.4	46.1	3.3
7. Specific learning difficulties	0.7	10.4	16.6	67.5	4.9
8. Speech and language	0.0	11.5	18.7	65.9	4.0
9. Gifted and talented	0.0	10.8	15.0	66.1	8.1

Note. SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; N = neutral; A = agree; SA = strongly agree; ASD = autism spectrum disorder.

To answer Research Question 2, a series of correlation analyses were conducted (see Table 2). For each type of special needs, the correlations among the three aspects (knowledge, experience, and acceptance) were small, the largest being r = .32 (see Table 2). The associations among these aspects were therefore not strong. That is, whether an individual had a favorable view toward inclusion may not be strongly related to their knowledge or experience with children with various special needs. In any case, because of the low correlations among the three aspects (knowledge, experience, and acceptance), it is unlikely for any strong prediction of either knowledge or experience on the acceptance of inclusion to operate in any of the areas of special needs.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Three Aspects for Nine Special Needs.

Special needs	Acceptance	Knowledge
Intellectual disability
Knowledge	.18*
Experience	.21*	.16*
Physical disability
Knowledge	.16*
Experience	.17*	−.03
Visual impairment
Knowledge	.09*
Experience	.09*	.08
Hearing impairment
Knowledge	.08
Experience	.15*	.14*
ASD
Knowledge	.08
Experience	.11*	.22*
ADHD
Knowledge	.15*
Experience	.03	.20*
Specific learning difficulties
Knowledge	.12*
Experience	−.01	.17*
Speech and language
Knowledge	.18*
Experience	.18*	.32*
Gifted and talented
Knowledge	.11*
Experience	.11*	.14*

Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

p < .05.

To answer Research Question 3, the results of the 2 (professional role: teacher, administrator) × 2 (training: trained, untrained) MANOVA are shown in Table 3. The main effect of training was statistically significant for intellectual disability, F(1, 406) = 6.56, mean square error (MSE) = 0.91, p < .05, η² > .01. Also statistically significant were for visual (F = 6.39), hearing (F = 8.48), and speech (F = 8.28), p < .05, η² > .01. An inspection of the mean scores (see Table 3) found that for these four areas, teachers trained in special education had higher acceptance than untrained teachers (3.56 vs. 3.11 for intellectual, 3.36 vs. 3.11 for visual, 3.66 vs. 3.18 for hearing, and 3.90 vs. 3.56 for speech). A similar pattern was found for administrator, favoring the trained respondents (3.71 vs. 3.32 for intellectual disability, 3.79 vs. 3.24 for visual, 3.93 vs. 3.51 for hearing, and 4.00 vs. 3.62 for speech). Hence, for these four areas, being trained in special education was associated with a higher acceptance of inclusion, irrespective of their professional roles in school. It is important to note, however, that for all 9 types of special needs, the mean scores of teachers’ acceptance of inclusion were rated between 3 and 4 (on a 5-point scale where 3 represents a neutral response). This suggests that overall, teachers do not appear to strongly support the inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms, but rather, only offer modest support.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Acceptance of Nine Special Needs by Training and Professional Role.

		Teacher		Leader		MANOVA results, F(1, 406)
	Total (N = 410)	Untrained (n = 300)	Trained (n = 59)	Untrained (n = 37)	Trained (n = 14)	Training (T)		Professional role (P)		T × P
Special needs	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F	η²	F	η²	F	η²
Intellectual	3.21 (0.98)	3.11 (0.96)	3.56 (0.97)	3.32 (0.94)	3.71 (0.83)	6.56*	.016	1.28	.003	0.04	.000
Physical	3.36 (0.94)	3.27 (0.93)	3.54 (1.01)	3.70 (0.78)	3.71 (0.91)	0.80	.002	3.59	.009	0.68	.002
Visual	3.18 (0.92)	3.11 (0.89)	3.36 (1.08)	3.24 (0.80)	3.79 (0.89)	6.39*	.016	3.27	.008	0.88	.002
Hearing	3.31 (0.92)	3.18 (0.88)	3.66 (1.01)	3.51 (0.77)	3.93 (0.92)	8.48*	.020	3.82	.009	0.05	.000
ASD	3.19 (0.90)	3.16 (0.93)	3.39 (0.81)	3.11 (0.81)	3.00 (0.88)	0.14	.000	2.05	.005	1.16	.003
ADHD	3.31 (0.86)	3.31 (0.85)	3.48 (0.88)	3.14 (0.86)	3.07 (0.83)	0.12	.000	3.79	.009	0.62	.002
Learning	3.66 (0.75)	3.58 (0.78)	3.97 (0.64)	3.78 (0.53)	3.64 (0.63)	0.90	.002	0.23	.001	4.22*	.010
Speech	3.63 (0.73)	3.56 (0.75)	3.90 (0.69)	3.62 (0.68)	4.00 (0.39)	8.28*	.020	0.43	.001	0.03	.000
Gifted	3.71 (0.76)	3.63 (0.75)	4.05 (0.73)	3.78 (0.67)	3.71 (1.07)	1.84	.005	0.50	.001	3.58	.008

Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

p < .05.

The main effect of professional role was not statistically significant for any of the nine types of special needs, Fs(1, 406) = 1.28, 3.59, 3.27, 3.82, 2.05, 3.79, 0.23, 0.43, and 0.50, respectively for intellectual, physical, visual, hearing, ASD, ADHD, learning, speech, and gifted, ps > .05, η² < .01 (see Table 3). Hence, answering Research Question 3, the professional role held by the staff did not make a significant difference to their attitudes.

The Professional role × Training interaction effect was statistically significant for specific learning difficulties, F(1, 406) = 4.22, MSE = 0.55, p < .05. However, the effect size was clearly small (η² = .01) and may not have any noteworthy practical implication. An inspection of the mean scores found that although teachers trained in special education scored higher (M = 3.97) than untrained teachers (M = 3.58) in Acceptance, school administrators trained in special education did not score as high (M = 3.64) as untrained administrators (M = 3.78). The interaction effects for all the other eight special needs areas were not statistically significant, Fs(1, 406) = 0.04, 0.68, 0.88, 0.05, 1.16, 0.62, 0.03, and 3.58, respectively, ps > .05, η² < .01 (see Table 2).

In sum, the analysis revealed (a) most respondents held neutral to positive views toward inclusion, (b) knowledge about special needs and experience with children with special needs did not seem to have specifically consistent influences on teachers’ acceptance of inclusion, (c) training seemed to make a difference in promoting more favorable views toward inclusion for some areas of special needs (e.g., intellectual, visual, hearing, and speech) but not all, and (d) professional role did not make any difference in such views. Furthermore, professional role and training effects seemed to be quite consistent across eight of the nine areas of special needs, except for some subtle differences that were not statistically significant.

Discussion

The inclusion of children with special needs into regular educational settings is a worldwide trend. Successful implementation of effective inclusion very much depends on the attitudes of educationalists and the critical agent for successful inclusion is undoubtedly the teachers. Consequently, it is critical to understand teachers’ acceptance of inclusion so that effective practices for promoting inclusion are elucidated. This investigation is particularly important within the context of early childhood settings in Hong Kong as there is a dearth of research and only an emerging commitment toward inclusive education.

The study found that early childhood teachers in Hong Kong reported modest support for including children with special needs in inclusive classrooms. It appears that attitudes held by early childhood teachers either match or are slightly more positive than that reported by their primary and secondary counterparts in other recent studies (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2012; Forlin, 2010; Forlin et al., 2014; Leung & Mak, 2010). As substantiated by research (e.g., Rajovic & Jovanovic, 2013), the longer an individual has been involved with implementing inclusion, the more accepting he or she becomes. It may be that initial attitudes toward inclusion were neutral or negative, but over time, they become increasingly positive. Our finding of moderately positive attitudes to inclusion is noteworthy given that in Hong Kong, the government has only mandated inclusion since the 1990s. As mandatory directives from the authority may not always result in compliance or support (e.g., Yeung, Taylor, Hui, Lam-Chiang, & Low, 2012), the somewhat positive views of the early childhood teachers in our study is a pleasing finding.

Our results highlight, however, that this relative support for inclusion does not apply to children with the full spectrum of diverse learning needs, and more research attention is needed to ascertain why teachers are hesitant to support the inclusion of children with intellectual disability, physical disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, ASD, or ADHD. Our findings suggest that early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion may be governed by the children’s type of special need. The highest consent for inclusion was for specific learning difficulties and speech and language disabilities, whereas the lowest consent was for behavioral disorders, and this pattern is somewhat consistent with the views of primary and secondary teachers. Future research should examine whether the reasons given by primary and secondary teachers for why particular types of special needs are perceived to be more challenging are also views held by early childhood teachers.

The education policy in Hong Kong states that every child has the right to receive a high-quality education and realize his or her full potential, and teacher attitudes are central to this endeavor. According to the Basic Education Curriculum Guide—Building on Strengths (Education Bureau, 2014), catering for students with all types of special needs is the responsibility of all teachers. As such, the apparently differential support offered by teachers based on the nature of special needs is a critical issue of our time.

In answering the research question about the relations of knowledge and experience to acceptance of inclusion, common across all areas of special needs are low correlations among the three factors (knowledge, experience, and acceptance; see Table 2), indicating that they may not have direct bearing on one another. This result differs from previous suggestions that a teacher’s advocacy for inclusion is bolstered by both their knowledge of special needs (e.g., Bruns & Mogharreban, 2007; Sze, 2009) and their prior experience teaching children with special needs (e.g., Fayez et al., 2011; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012). Perhaps due to varying staff-to-student ratios, higher parent participation, younger age range, different face-to-face student contact hours, varying physical layout as well as resourcing and curriculum demands, knowledge, and experience are not as strong predictors of favorable attitudes in early childhood settings as in primary and secondary school settings. Perhaps for early childhood settings, as Hastings and Oakford (2010) suggested, providing teachers with appropriate support and resources may be more influential in shaping their attitudes.

The finding that teachers and administrators who had received special education training tended to be more positive about inclusion is consistent with a large body of international research (e.g., Feng & Sass, 2013; Haycock & Smith, 2011; Lee et al., 2014; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010; Yang & Rusli, 2012). However, the differences due to training were modest and should not be overstated. Training in special education seemed to have a significant association with attitudes for some special needs, but not for others. Teachers with training in special education had more positive views for children with intellectual disability, visual and hearing impairment, as well as speech and language impairment than teachers and administrators without training in special education (see Table 3). However, for the remaining five areas (physical, ASD, ADHD, specific learning difficulties, and gifted), administrators who were trained in special education may not always hold similarly positive views.

Few studies have examined the effect of professional roles with increased responsibilities, expertise, and often more experience, compared with general teaching staff. In contrast to existing studies pointing to a higher level of advocacy for those in administrative roles (e.g., Avissar et al., 2003; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012), our study found no significant difference between administrators and teachers. Administrators in Hong Kong early childhood settings may be cognizant of the complex challenges of inclusion as a result of their increased knowledge, responsibilities, and experience. This may result in a lowered advocacy in a region like Hong Kong where government support is still scarce (Zhang, 2011). As the key person with overall responsibility for what happens in school, the principal must be able to foster the development of understanding regarding inclusive education and to promote inclusive practices within schools (Schmidt & Venet, 2012). For promoting the principals’ attitudes toward inclusion, further investigation is needed to identify ways to address various factors that may affect their perceptions (Schmidt & Venet, 2012).

Limitations of the Study

A limitation of our study is the use of self-reports. To elucidate a more in-depth understanding of the complex relations of experience, knowledge, and attitude, future studies may consider other sources of data, such as interviews and direct observations of practices. Further research needs to examine other factors within and beyond teacher attributes, such as school culture, parent expectations, school resources (e.g., class size), and teachers’ perceived competency, which may enhance our understanding of the critical issue of teacher attitude.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

To advance inclusion in early childhood settings in Hong Kong, our findings encourage future research and practice to pursue the following strategies and investigations.

Examine why inclusion is supported for some children and not others

Further research should elucidate why teachers report stronger support for the inclusion of some children, but not all. Perhaps some teachers perceive some types of special needs as less severe, less of an impact on other children, and more easily accommodated and thus less challenging to support (Yan & Sin, 2014). Research should seek to identify the drivers behind these divergent views to recommend specific strategies for a more comprehensive inclusion.

Promote training in special education for teachers and administrators

Training in special education offers the greatest prospect of promoting inclusion. Preparing teachers to meet the challenges of inclusive settings is a worldwide concern (Tait & Mundia, 2014), which is increasingly relevant to Hong Kong. While initial special education training in teacher education should be strengthened (Sharma et al., 2008), appropriate teacher access to support and resources for various types of special needs should be provided (Hastings & Oakford, 2010). An important step for further research is to examine how training may be conducted to promote more positive perceptions in areas that are less advocated.

Our findings have raised some concerns about the content and quality of training in special education for administrators. School administrators after training may observe considerable accountability and increased responsibilities, leading to less favorable views of inclusion. As Forlin (2010) has emphasized, inclusion requires “greater accountability on school administrator to oversee the suitability of the curriculum and pedagogy being applied, and provide internal quality control mechanisms within their schools” (p. 181). Hence, it may be beneficial to provide school administrators with an ongoing support network so they can seek help when needed. Also, as suggested by Ho (2011), teachers can be further equipped through mentorship provided by school administrators. This kind of active school-based mentoring is probably an efficient and cost-effective way to support teachers.

The uniqueness of this study is its focus on early childhood teachers’ views of inclusive education in an Eastern education setting. The results attest to emerging positive views of inclusion in Hong Kong but consistent with primary and secondary teachers in Western countries, the relative support for inclusion does not apply to all children with various special needs. Training influences teacher attitudes and therefore, it is important to identify what forms of training make a difference and how training should target the types of special needs perceived to be the most challenging for the successful implementation of inclusion.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the school principals and staff involved, especially Ms. Jesmond Fan and Ms. Florence Ng who have contributed to various components of the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

References

Ainscow

Cesar

(2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting the agenda. European Journal of Psychology for Education, 21, 231–238.

Alghazo

E. M.

Dodeen

Algaryouti

I. A.

(2003). Attitudes of pre-service teachers towards persons with disabilities: Predictions for the success of inclusion. College Student Journal, 37, 515–523.

Appl

Spenciner

(2008). What do pre-service teachers see as their roles in promoting positive social environments? I see myself as a facilitator of acceptance. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 445–450.

Avissar

Reiter

Leyser

(2003). Principals’ views and practices regarding inclusion: The case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 355–369.

Avramidis

Bayliss

Burden

(2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special education needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.

Baker-Ericzén

Mueggenborg

M. G.

Shea

M. M.

(2009). Impact of trainings on child care providers’ attitudes and perceived competence toward inclusion: What factors are associated with change? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 196–208.

Bruns

D. A.

Mogharreban

C. C.

(2007). The gap between beliefs and practices: Early childhood practitioners’ perceptions about inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 229–241.

Čagran

Schmidt

(2011). Attitudes of Slovene teachers towards the inclusion of pupils with different types of special needs in primary school. Educational Studies, 37, 171–195.

10.

Cheuk

Hatch

J. A.

(2007). Teachers’ perceptions of integrated kindergarten programs in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 177, 417–432.

11.

Chong

S. C. S.

Forlin

M. L.

(2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 161–179.

12.

Cook

B. G.

Cameron

D. L.

Tankersley

(2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 230–238.

13.

Cross

A. F.

Traub

E. K.

Hutter-Pishgahi

Shelton

(2004). Elements of successful inclusion for children with significant disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 169–183.

14.

Damore

S. J.

Murray

(2009). Urban elementary school teachers’ perspectives regarding collaborative teaching practices. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 234–244.

15.

Dessemontet

R. S.

Bless

Morin

(2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 579–587.

16.

Dupoux

Wolman

Estrada

(2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration of students with disabilities in Haiti and the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52, 43–58.

17.

Education Bureau. (2008). Operation guide on whole school approach to integration education. Hong Kong: Author.

18.

Education Bureau. (2014). Basic education curriculum guide—Building on strengths. Hong Kong: Author.

19.

Engelbrecht

Oswald

Swart

Eloff

(2003). Including learners with intellectual disabilities: Stressful for teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 293–308.

20.

Equal Opportunities Commission. (2012). Equal Opportunities Awareness Survey 2012. Hong Kong: Author.

21.

Fayez

Dababneh

Jumiaan

(2011). Preparing teachers for inclusion: Jordanian preservice early childhood teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 322–337.

22.

Feng

Sass

(2013). What makes special-education teachers special? Teacher training and achievement of students with disabilities. Economics of Education Review, 36, 122–134.

23.

Forlin

(2010). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 177–184.

24.

Forlin

Loreman

Sharma

(2014). A system-wide professional learning approach about inclusion for teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 247–260.

25.

Fox

Dulap

Hemmeter

M. L.

Joseph

G. E.

Strain

P. S.

(2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging behavior in young children. Young Children, 58, 48–52.

26.

Gavish

Shimoni

(2011). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the inclusion of children with special needs in their classrooms. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 14, 49–59.

27.

Guralnick

M. J.

(2005). The developmental systems approach to early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

28.

Hadjikakou

Mnasonoa

(2012). Investigating the attitudes of head teachers of Cypriot primary schools towards inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 66–81.

29.

Hastings

R. P.

Oakford

(2010). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23, 87–94.

30.

Haycock

Smith

(2011). To assist or not to assist? A study of teachers’ views of the roles of learning support assistants in the provision of inclusive physical education in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 835–849.

31.

D. C. W.

(2011). Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14, 47–59.

32.

Hsieh

W. H.

Hsieh

C. M.

(2012). Urban early childhood teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Early Child Development and Care, 182, 1167–1184.

33.

Kuyini

A. B.

Desai

(2007). Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, 104–113.

34.

Lancaster

Bain

(2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 117–128.

35.

Lee

F. L. M.

Tracey

Barker

Fan

J. C. M.

Yeung

A. S.

(2014). What predicts teachers’ acceptance of students with special educational needs in kindergarten? Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 14, 60–70.

36.

Legislative Council. (2013). Paper on pre-school rehabilitation services (LC Paper No. CB(2)1275/12-13(08)). Hong Kong: Author.

37.

Leung

C. H.

Mak

K. Y.

(2010). Training, understanding, and the attitudes of primary school teachers regarding inclusive education in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 829–842.

38.

Mulvihill

B. A.

Shearer

Van Horn

M. L.

(2002). Training, experience, and childcare providers’ perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 197–215.

39.

Murphy

P. K.

Delli

L. M.

Edwards

M. N.

(2004). The good teacher and good teaching: Comparing beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 69–93.

40.

Pearson

Rao

(2006). Early childhood education policy reform in Hong Kong: Challenges in effecting change in practices. Childhood Education, 82, 363–369.

41.

Peters

Forlin

(2011). Chinese children with ASD in Hong Kong (SAR): Development of inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11, 87–98.

42.

Poon-McBrayer

K. F.

(2004). To integrate or not to integrate: Systemic dilemmas in Hong Kong. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 249–256.

43.

Praisner

L. C.

(2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 135–145.

44.

Rajovic

Jovanovic

(2013). The barriers to inclusive education: Mapping 10 years of Serbian teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 14, 78–97.

45.

Rakap

Kaczmarek

(2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 59–75.

46.

Rao

Koong

(2000). Enhancing preschool education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Early Childhood, 32, 1–11.

47.

Schmidt

Venet

(2012). Principals facing inclusive schooling or integration. Canadian Journal of Education, 35, 217–238.

48.

Sharma

Forlin

Loreman

(2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773–785.

49.

Smith

M. K.

Smith

K. E.

(2000). “I believe in inclusion, but . . .”: Regular education early childhood teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 161–180.

50.

Social Welfare Department. (2008). Integrated programme in kindergarten-cum-child care centre. Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_rehab/sub_listofserv/id_integrated2/

51.

Sze

(2009). Learning style and the special needs child. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36 360–362.

52.

Tait

Mundia

(2014). A comparison of Brunei and Hong Kong—SAR student teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education practices: Implications for teacher education. Asian Social Sciences, 10, 51–60.

53.

Van Reusen

Shoho

Barker

. (2000). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High School Journal, 84, 7–13.

54.

Vaughn

Gersten

Chard

D. J.

(2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.

55.

Wong

Cumming

(2010). Family day care is for normal kids: Facilitators and barriers to the inclusion of children with disabilities in family day care. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 35, 4–12.

56.

Yan

Sin

K. F.

(2014). Inclusive education: Teachers’ intentions and behavior analyzed from the viewpoint of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 72–85.

57.

Yang

C. H.

Rusli

(2012). Teacher training in using effective strategies for preschool children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9, 53–64.

58.

Yeung

A. S.

Taylor

P. G.

Hui

Lam-Chiang

A. C.

Low

E. L.

(2012). Mandatory use of technology in teaching: Who cares and so what? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 859–870.

59.

Yeung

A. S. W.

(2011). Exploring organizational perspectives on implementing educational inclusion in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16, 675–690.

60.

Yuen

Westwood

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration: Validation of a Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS). Psychologia, 45, 1–11.

61.

Zhang

K. C.

(2011). Early childhood education and special education: How well do they mix? An examination of inclusive practices in early childhood educational settings in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 683–697.