Journal article

1. Teachers’ concerns about inclusive education in
Ahmedabad, India
Rina Shah1
, Ajay Das2
, Ishwar Desai 3
and Ashwini Tiwari 4
1
Educare Learning Links Foundation; 2
Murray State University; 3
Inclusive Education Consultant; 4
Penn State University
Key words: Concerns, inclusion, teachers, disabilities, India.
This study was undertaken to determine the
concerns of primary school teachers about the
inclusion of students with disabilities in Ahmedabad,
India. A total of 560 teachers, working in
government-run schools, returned the completed
survey. A two-part questionnaire was used in this
study. Part 1 gathered information relating to per-
sonal and professional characteristics of the teach-
ers. Part 2 was a 21-item Likert scale titled
Concerns about Inclusive Education – Gujarati. The
major finding of the study was that the teachers in
Ahmedabad were moderately concerned about
including students with disabilities in their class-
rooms. The teachers were most concerned about
lack of infrastructural resources and least con-
cerned about lack of social acceptance of students
with disabilities in inclusive education classrooms.
Significant differences existed in teacher concerns
based on the following background variables:
gender, qualifications in special education, teaching
experience and number of students with disabilities
in class. A number of implications are discussed to
address teacher concerns for inclusive education in
India.
During the past three decades, countries around the world
have progressively been more concerned in ensuring the
rights to education of all children irrespective of any disad-
vantage or disability. India too, gradually welcomed this
trend towards inclusive education. This has been reflected in
its various policy measures and initiatives since the 1970s,
culminating in the enactment of the historic legislation The
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Subsequently, a
number of other policy, programmes and legislation initia-
tives of Indian government, most notably Sarva Siksha
Abhiyan [Education for All Movement] in 2001, Action
Plan for Inclusive Education of Children and Youth with
Disabilities in 2005, and Right to Education (RTE) Act in
2010 further strengthened this imperative.
These initiatives, in enshrining the right of children with
disabilities to be educated in regular classroom settings,
make it obligatory on the part of regular classroom teachers
to be aware of the implications of inclusion as a responsi-
bility of their normal teaching task. They need to not only
be ready and willing to include students with disabilities
into their classrooms, but also to acquire the requisite skills
and competencies to deal with the practical aspects of an
inclusive education situation (Bhatnagar and Das, 2013a;
Bindal and Sharma, 2010; Das, Gichuru and Singh, 2013).
Because of the central role the teachers play in the imple-
mentation of policy relating to inclusive education, con-
cerns of teachers regarding the process of change associated
with such an innovation become crucial and need to be
identified and systematically addressed. Such a step will
engender teacher support for inclusive education pro-
grammes and make teachers forthcoming in effectively con-
fronting and overcoming the challenges and obstacles that
typically occur during the implementation of educational
reforms. Concomitantly, if teacher concerns and needs for
implementing inclusive education programmes are not
identified and addressed, it would place a considerable
strain on teachers (Ince, 2012). Furthermore, if fears, anxi-
eties, doubts and concerns about inclusive education remain
unresolved, it will constitute a major impediment for teach-
ers and students to be successful in inclusive settings
(Bhatnagar and Das, 2013b).
The experiences from countries where inclusive education
has been implemented has shown that bringing about sys-
temic changes in education is difficult. It is especially dif-
ficult when such changes are mandated by ‘external forces’
and require a redefinition of roles and responsibilities on the
part of those charged with the implementation of these
changes (Ince, 2012). With regard to the Indian context,
recent initiatives by the central government have made it
incumbent on all schools falling under state government
jurisdictions to move beyond a separate, parallel structure
towards a unified, inclusive system of education that serves
all students together. In such a unified model, regular edu-
cation teachers are required to assume a major role in the
development and implementation of instructional pro-
grammes for all students, including those with disabilities.
As Mamlin (1999) states, although the implementation of a
school reform such as inclusion might occur at the state,
district and building level, the most important of these
needs to happen at the classroom level. Bhatnagar and Das
(2013a) also assert that it would be naïve to assume that an
bs_bs_banner
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume •• · Number •• · 2013 ••–••
doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12054
1© 2013 NASEN

2. enabling legislative framework for inclusion would ensure
the development and implementation of appropriate inclu-
sive education programmes. They maintain that the critical
factors for its success are the positive attitudes and compe-
tencies of classroom teachers, who are directly involved in
the implementation of inclusive education programmes.
Likewise, the beliefs of teachers regarding acceptance of
inclusive practices will affect the degree to which the teach-
ers will carry out that duty (Forlin, Keen and Barrett, 2008).
Literature has consistently shown that it is the willingness
of regular classroom teachers that has ensured successful
inclusion programmes. On the other hand, if regular class-
room teachers have negative perceptions regarding inclu-
sion, then such perceptions will act as serious barriers
(Cawley, Hayden, Cade et al., 2002; Das, Kuyini and Desai,
2013) and jeopardise their effective implementation (Van
Reusen, Shoho and Barker, 2001). Therefore, it is important
that teachers’ concerns about the implementation of such
reforms be taken into account.
An analysis of comments made by teachers in surveys on
inclusion suggests that many teachers admit to having feel-
ings of anxiety and inability to meet the demands of stu-
dents with disabilities who had been placed in their
classrooms (Bhatnagar and Das, 2013b; Forlin, Keen and
Barrett, 2008). The common concerns that are recurrently
expressed by educators regarding inclusion include the fol-
lowing: concerns about negative attitudes (Bhatnagar, 2006;
Bhatnagar and Das, 2013b), concerns about physical acces-
sibility (Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden, 2000), concerns
about behaviour problems (Forlin and Chambers, 2011),
concerns about class size (Oswald and Swart, 2011; Singal,
2008), concerns about meeting the educational needs of
students with and without disabilities (Avissar, 2003;
Daane, Beirne-Smith and Latham, 2000), concerns about
designing and implementing curriculum and instructional
adaptations (Katsiyannis, Ellenburg and Acton, 2000;
Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996), concerns about evaluation,
grades and diplomas (Hargrove, 2000), concerns about
additional work and responsibility (Forlin, Keen and
Barrett, 2008), concerns about teacher stress (Williams and
Gersch, 2004), concerns about financial support (Bhatnagar
and Das, 2013a), concerns about inadequate teaching mate-
rials and equipment (Oswald and Swart, 2011), concerns
about lack of specialised personnel (Pivik, McComas and
LaFlamme, 2002), concerns about lack of support from
school administrator/school principal (Werts, Wolery,
Snyder et al., 1996), concerns about time and scheduling
issues (Simpson, de Boer-Ott, & Smith-Myles, 2003) and
concerns about lack of training in special education
(Bhatnagar, 2006; Ghesquière, Moors, Maes et al., 2002).
These concerns provide a framework to policy-makers and
administrators to address potential teacher concerns in
India. A systematic exploration, however, is warranted in an
Indian context as most of these concerns were identified in
a western setting.
Theoretical framework
The conceptual model of ‘Practical Theory and Action’,
espoused by Handal and Lauvas (1987), was adopted for
this study to explain teacher concerns for inclusive educa-
tion. This theoretical model was devised to clarify the work
of teachers by identifying various factors which influence
teachers’ decisions to behave in particular ways when car-
rying out their tasks as part of their teaching practice (see
Figure 1). The contents of the theory include elements
derived from teachers’ value or belief systems, knowledge
about teaching (both theory and practice), personal experi-
ences, and experience derived from others and from the
wider ethical, political and cultural context. These ele-
ments, which are closely interrelated, determine the
‘behavioural intentions’ of teachers regarding particular
phenomena (in this study, various ‘elements’ constitute the
‘background variables’, and the ‘behavioural intentions of
teachers regarding a particular phenomenon’ constitute
‘concerns about inclusive education’). ‘Behavioural inten-
tion’is a distinct psychological construct which represents a
Figure 1: Practical theory and action
Source: Adapted from G. Handal and P. Lauvas, Promoting Reflective Teaching: Supervision in Action, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987. In Controversies in
Management: Issues, Debates, Answers. A. B. Thomas. London: Routledge, p. 93.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
2 © 2013 NASEN

3. person’s motivation or desire to exert effort to carry out a
behaviour.
Handal and Lauvas (1987) identified various factors, which
influence teachers’ decisions to behave in particular ways
when carrying out their tasks as part of their teaching prac-
tice (see Figure 1). The theory suggests that every teacher is
equipped with a ‘practical theory’ of teaching, which deter-
mines how that teacher teaches. This theory is a kind of
map, which enables the teacher to locate current problems
and situations in a meaningful context (daily classroom
context) and so enable them to teach effectively.
The contents of the theory, as indicated earlier, include
elements derived from personal experiences as well as those
derived from others and from the wider cultural context. It
may include, for example, various elements, such as: (1)
lessons learned from one’s own attempt at teaching; (2)
assumptions about the role of the teacher, which are wide-
spread in society; (3) ideas drawn from formal scientific
theories; (4) suggestions made by colleagues about how to
teach; (5) insights from the latest conceptual and research
literature; and (6) ethical elements, including beliefs about
authority, co-operation and competition, honesty, fairness
and justice, power and punishment, importance of money,
fair-dealing, caring for all students and the environment,
etc. (Thomas, 2003).
Applying this theory to the issue of inclusive education, the
researcher suggests that not only the values, knowledge and
experiences (personal/background factors) of regular
school teachers but also, as a natural corollary, their con-
cerns about inclusive education, which are influenced by
these teachers’ personal/background factors, will have a
significant impact on their teaching practice. It can, there-
fore, be concluded that the ‘practical theory of a teacher’
informs the teacher’s decisions and its potential contribu-
tion to the formation of actual teaching practice (which
includes the classroom practice of including students with
disabilities into their regular classrooms).
Teacher concerns about inclusive education in India
There have been some attempts to identify teacher concerns
about inclusive education in India. Our literature review
yielded three research projects that systematically explored
teacher concerns about inclusion in India. In the earliest
study, Sharma (2001) examined the concerns of 310
primary school principals and 484 teachers working in gov-
ernment schools in Delhi. He found that both principals and
teachers were concerned about the lack of resources (such
as special education teachers and para-professional staff),
the non-availability of instructional materials, the lack of
funding and the lack of training to implement inclusive
education. In another research paper, Bhatnagar (2006) con-
ducted a survey of 470 regular school teachers in Delhi and
reported ‘moderate levels of concerns’ among these teach-
ers for the implementation of inclusive education. The
teachers reported a number of concerns including poor
infrastructure, financial limitations, large class sizes, lack of
trained teachers and negative attitudes of teachers among
others. The third study was conducted by Sharma, Moore
and Sonawane (2009) with 478 pre-service teachers
enrolled at Pune University in the state of Maharashtra.
Respondents in this study indicated moderate level of con-
cerns about including students with special needs in their
classrooms. The authors further reported that ‘participants
were most concerned about lack of resources (e.g., lack of
funds, lack of para-professional staff and inappropriate
infrastructure)’ (p. 326).
In addition to these three research studies that specifically
explored teacher concerns for inclusion, a number of
researchers including Das (2001), Jangira, Singh and Yadav
(1995), and Singal (2008) explored teacher readiness for
inclusion and reported that the regular school teachers in
India did not consider themselves to be competent in
meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Das (2001)
conducted a needs assessment of 223 primary and 130
secondary regular school teachers in Delhi and reported that
the teachers did not perceive themselves to be competent in
a majority of the skills needed in teaching students with
disabilities, for example, knowledge of disabling condi-
tions, procedures required in developing and implementing
individualised education programs (IEPs), and government
policies and programmes for children with disabilities.
Jangira, Singh and Yadav (1995) conducted a nationwide
survey of teachers in seven states and reported that the
teachers needed training in the following skills such as
multi-grade teaching and play-way techniques for teaching
among others. Singal (2008) explored variables associated
with inclusion and reported their impact on the implemen-
tation of inclusive education in India. She conducted a
qualitative study utilising teacher interviews in schools
located in Delhi. Participants in her study reported large
class size as a major barrier in the implementation of inclu-
sion programmes in their schools.
In so far as the state of Gujarat is concerned, there seems to
have been no research on the perceptions of teachers regard-
ing their views on various aspects of inclusive education,
including their concerns, even though much of the future
success of inclusion will depend on the willingness of
teachers to implement such programmes in their schools.
Given that the Government of Gujarat has established a
number of inclusive schools and is continually expanding
these across the state in line with the spirit of the RTE Act
2010, seemed timely therefore to conduct this study on the
concerns of primary school teachers regarding the inclusion
of students with disabilities into their classrooms in Ahmed-
abad, a major city in Gujarat. The objectives of this study
were:
1 To identify the concerns of primary school teachers in
Ahmedabad regarding the inclusion of students with
disabilities into their regular classrooms;
2 To determine if significant relationships exist between
these teachers’ concerns about inclusive education and
selected factors in their personal and professional
backgrounds. The factors included gender, age, caste,
academic qualifications, professional teaching
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
3© 2013 NASEN

4. qualifications, qualifications in special education,
teaching experience, length of experience in teaching
students with disabilities, class size and number of
students with disabilities in class.
Method
Participants and setting
The respondents in this study were primary school teachers
working in regular inclusive schools in Ahmedabad,
Gujarat. The city of Ahmedabad is divided into six admin-
istrative zones. Of these, five are administered by the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC): East, West,
North, South and Central. The sixth zone falls under the
administration of the Ahmedabad Urban Development
Authority (AUDA). All schools within each of the five
AMC zones are managed by either The Municipal School
Board or The District Primary and Secondary Education
Department (urban area). Schools located in the AUDA
zone are managed by The District Primary and Secondary
Education Department (rural area).
Acluster sampling method was used to select participants for
this study. A two-step process was utilised for this purpose.
Step 1 involved the identification of all regular inclusive
primary schools falling within the six zones. The total
number of these schools was 187: East Zone, 22; West Zone,
79; North Zone, 26; South Zone, 12; Central Zone, 17; and
AUDA Zone, 31. The schools within each of these zones
were placed in alphabetical order. In order to ensure that a
representative sample of schools was chosen from each of
the six zones, a decision was made to select approximately
50% of schools from which to draw the study population.
Using a table of random numbers, a sample of inclusive
schools from each zone was identified. This procedure
resulted in the identification of a total of 98 inclusive primary
schools from where the study population was to be drawn.
In step 2, all teachers working in the randomly selected
inclusive primary schools (n = 98) were invited to complete
the survey questionnaires. The number of teachers working
in these 98 schools was 1040. Of the questionnaires distrib-
uted to the teachers, 630 were finally returned. Seventy
survey questionnaires were not included in the final sam-
ple because of insufficient or missing vital information.
Therefore, 560, or 60.58% of the total population of
primary school teachers who responded, were recognised as
respondents and included in the final sample (see Table 1).
Research design and instrumentation
A survey design was used in this study. A two-part survey
questionnaire was used to collect data from the respondents.
Part 1 was designed to gather information relating to per-
sonal and professional characteristics. Part 2, entitled ‘Con-
cerns about Inclusive Education-Gujarati version (CIE-G)
Scale’, was a 21-item Likert scale designed to collect data
on the teachers’ concerns regarding inclusive education.
The Likert-type classification was labelled extremely con-
cerned (4), very concerned (3), a little concerned (2) or not
concerned at all (1) to measure the level of educators’
concerns. The scale yields score values ranging from 21 to
84 points, with higher scores indicating greater levels of
concerns. The content validity of the scale was assessed by
a panel of educators and experts in the field of special
education. This scale was adapted from the original con-
cerns about integrated education scale (CIES) which was
developed by Sharma and Desai (2002).
The adaptation procedure of the original CIES for this study
comprised of four steps, namely, step 1: translation of the
CIES into Gujarati; step 2: review of the Gujarati draft of
the CIES; step 3: pilot study; and step 4: final scale. Sub-
sequent to data collection, reliability and factor analysis
were undertaken for the CIE-G Scale. The reliability analy-
sis of the CIE-G scale showed an alpha coefficient of 0.91,
suggesting that it was a reliable scale to be used for further
analysis (DeVellis, 2003). In order to determine the factor
structure of the CIE-G scale, the responses obtained from
the final study sample of teachers (N = 560) were subjected
to factor analysis. This process yielded five factors, which
indicated that teacher concerns were a multi-dimensional
construct. The composition of item loadings clearly indi-
cated that the emerging dimensions were factor I (concerns
about academic achievement and standards), factor II (con-
cerns about infrastructural resources), factor III (concerns
about self-efficacy), factor IV (concerns about motivation)
and factor V (concerns about social acceptance). The
factors were named according to the nature of item loading
on each factor.
Table 1: Sample of teachers surveyed and their response and selection rates (N = 560)
Educational
zone
Total number of integrated
primary schools
Number of schools randomly
selected for the study
Number of
teachers surveyed
Number of
teachers responded
Number of teachers selected
for the final study
East 22 13 101 81 72
West 79 38 255 183 165
North 26 17 206 102 96
South 12 6 101 48 35
Central 17 9 124 47 31
AUDA 31 15 253 169 161
Total 187 98 1040 630 560
AUDA, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
4 © 2013 NASEN

5. Results
Personal and professional characteristics of
the participants
The study population constituted 560 teachers working in
inclusive primary schools located in six administrative
zones of Ahmedabad. The background information on the
teachers was obtained from their responses to the 10 ques-
tions contained in part 1 of the survey questionnaire. A
‘composite’ profile of the 560 respondents would present
the following ‘typical teacher’ a relatively young female
teacher below the age of 35 years belonging to the general
caste and holding a basic academic qualification. In addi-
tion, she would have acquired at least an initial teaching
qualification in general education. Since completing her
formal study programme in education, she would probably
have taught for over 10 years. This would have included at
least 4 or more years of teaching students with disabilities.
In general, she would be in charge of a class that has no less
than some 41 students. Table 2 provides information on the
teachers’ background variables.
Teacher concerns
In order to determine the teachers’ concerns regarding
inclusive education, their responses on CIE-G were exam-
ined. The means for each of the items of the CIE-G were
computed. A mean score of 2.0 or above would indicate
teachers’ concern for an item, whereas a mean score below
2.0 would indicate that the teachers are not concerned about
that item. A mean score of 3 or above would indicate a
higher level of concern among teachers, whereas a mean
score between 2 and 3 would indicate a moderate level of
concerns. The concerns mean score of the teachers in this
study was 2.31. It can, therefore, be concluded that the
teachers in Ahmedabad had a moderate level of concerns
about implementing inclusive education practices.
In order to further understand teacher concerns on various
factors of CIE-G, the means and standard deviations for the
five factors were computed and ranked in order from the
highest mean scores to the lowest mean scores (see
Table 3). Higher mean factor scores are indicative of a
greater level of concern. An inspection of the results repre-
sented in Table 2 indicates that the teachers expressed their
highest level of concern about ‘infrastructural resources’
(factor II), followed by ‘self-efficacy’ (factor III), ‘motiva-
tion’ (factor IV) and ‘academic achievement and standards’
(factor I), and their lowest level of concern is about ‘social
acceptance’ (factor V).
Teachers’ concerns according to their
background variables
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the
teachers’ composite scores on the CIE-G, broken down by
the background variables. High mean values are indicative
of a higher level of concerns about inclusive education.
Examination of the data presented in Table 4 show that
those teachers who had four to seven students with disabili-
ties in their class appear to have the highest level of con-
cerns about inclusive education. The data also reveals that
those teachers, who were aged 46 years and over held an
undergraduate academic qualification, had extensive teach-
ing experience (over 10 years) and had not taught children
with disabilities, were also concerned about including stu-
dents with disabilities into their classrooms.
An inspection of the mean scores obtained for the catego-
ries related to ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘caste’ and ‘professional
teaching qualifications’ indicates that female teachers,
teachers falling in the 36–45 years age group, teachers
belonging to the scheduled tribes and general castes, and
teachers who held professional teaching qualifications
reflected relatively slightly less concerns than their col-
leagues described earlier. Nonetheless, they appeared to be
more concerned than the rest of their colleagues who fell
Table 2: Distribution of teachers by their background
variables
Category N Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 95 17.0
Female 465 83.0
Age
35 years and under 263 47.0
36–45 years 169 30.1
46 years and over 128 22.9
Caste
Scheduled tribes (ST) 33 5.9
Scheduled castes (SC) 35 6.2
Academic qualifications
Undergraduate 225 40.2
Graduate 246 43.9
Postgraduate 89 15.9
Professional teaching qualifications
Yes 331 59.1
No 229 40.9
Qualifications in special education
Yes 102 18.2
No 458 81.8
Table 3: Teachers’ mean rank order scores on the five
factors of the CIE-G
Factors of the CIE-G M SD N
Concerns about infrastructural resources 2.56 0.84 560
Concerns about self-efficacy 2.38 0.77 560
Concerns about motivation 2.34 0.93 560
Concerns about academic achievement
and standards
2.15 0.79 560
Concerns about social acceptance 2.13 0.65 560
Total score 2.31 0.65 560
CIE-G, Concerns about Inclusive Education-Gujarati version; M, mean;
SD, standard deviation.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
5© 2013 NASEN

6. into the following categories: male teachers, teachers below
35 years of age, teachers belonging to the scheduled and the
Bakshipanch (Social educational backward caste) castes,
teachers holding graduate and postgraduate academic quali-
fications but who did not hold professional or special edu-
cation teaching qualifications, teachers having teaching
experience of less than 10 years, teachers having experience
in teaching students with disabilities, teachers who had less
than 20 students in their class, and teachers who did not
have students with disabilities in their class.
In order to determine whether any of these observed dif-
ferences between teachers’ mean scores on the CIE-G
were significantly related to the background variables,
analyses of variance (anovas) were computed. Table 5
presents a summary of the anovas with teachers’ back-
ground factors as the independent variables and teachers’
mean scores on the CIE-G as the dependent variable. An
examination of the data summarised in Table 5 reveals
that:
1 There were significant differences between male and
female teachers regarding their concerns about
including students with disabilities into their classes
(F = 4.80; P < .05). Female teachers had a significantly
higher level of concern than male teachers.
2 There was a significant difference in the level of
concerns between those teachers who had qualifications
in special education and those who did not (F = 7.44;
P < .05). Teachers without a special education
qualification had significantly higher levels of concerns
about including students with disabilities into their
classes than teachers with a qualification in special
education.
3 There were significant differences in concerns about
inclusive education between the teachers who had
varying lengths of teaching experience (F = 2.73;
P < .05). However, the post hoc analysis using
Scheffe’s test did not yield significant differences
between the mean rating scores for any of the four
groups of teachers. (group 1 includes teachers with less
than 2 years of teaching experience, group 2 refers to
teachers with 3–5 years teaching experience, group 3
includes teachers with 6–9 years teaching experience
and group 4 includes teachers with 10 or more years
teaching experience). Nonetheless, the trend was for
group 4 to have a higher level of concern about
integrated education than groups 1, 2 and 3 as may be
observed from the means and standard deviations for
the four groups contained in Table 5.
4 There were significant differences in concerns among
the teachers that had a class size of less than 20 students
(group 1), 21–40 students (group 2) and more than 40
students (group 3) (F = 4.67; P < .05). The Scheffe’s
test yielded a significant difference at the .05 level
between the mean rating scores of groups 1 and 2 and
groups 1 and 3, with groups 2 (Mean = 49.68) and 3
(Mean = 49.25) showing a higher level of concern than
group 1 (Mean = 42.93). There was also a significant
difference between the mean rating score of group 2 and
group 3 with group 2 showing a higher level of concern
about inclusive education than group 3.
No significant differences in concerns about inclusive
education were found for any of the other background
variables.
Data were further analyzed by applying Pearson Product
Moment Correlations to determine if the teachers’ concerns
were significantly related to their selected personal and
professional characteristics. First, a series of correlations
was computed between the scores on the CIE-G and
each of the 10 background variables. Table 6 presents the
intercorrelations among the 10 background variables as
well as their correlations with teachers’ concerns about
inclusive education as measured by the CIE-G. The data
indicates varying degrees of relationships between teach-
ers’ concerns about inclusive education and the selected
personal and professional characteristics. As can be seen,
the factor correlating highly with teachers’ concerns about
inclusive education was gender of the teachers (r = .092;
Table 4: Teachers’ mean concern scores according to
selected background variables (N = 560)
Background variable N CIE-G (mean) SD
Gender
Male 95 46.09 14.92
Female 465 49.43 13.25
Age
35 years and under 263 47.89 12.90
36–45 years 169 49.32 13.96
46 years and over 128 50.27 14.43
Caste
Scheduled tribes (ST) 33 49.42 12.89
Scheduled castes (SC) 35 48.31 10.43
Bakshipanch (SEBC) 61 48.68 11.97
General 431 48.89 14.11
Academic qualifications
Undergraduate 225 50.36 14.23
Graduate 246 47.91 13.17
Postgraduate 89 47.73 12.88
Professional teaching qualifications
Yes 331 49.65 13.92
No 229 47.72 13.04
Qualifications in special education
Yes 102 45.56 12.65
No 458 49.60 13.70
Total number of years of teaching experience
2 years and under 117 48.35 13.59
3–5 years 85 46.41 11.31
6–9 years 55 46.21 13.48
10 years and over 303 50.24 14.07
CIE-G, Concerns about Inclusive Education-Gujarati version; SD, stan-
dard deviation.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
6 © 2013 NASEN

7. P < .05), with male teachers tending to be significantly less
concerned about having students with disabilities in their
classes than their female counterparts. Teachers’ concerns
were also positively correlated, though not as highly, with
the number of students in class (class size) (r = .084; P <
.05). There was also a significant negative correlation
between teachers’ concerns and their qualifications in
special education (r = −.115; P < .05). In the light of the
assigned values given to this variable (see Table 6), this
finding indicates that those teachers who had qualifications
in special education tended to have lower levels of concern
than teachers who did not have such qualifications. None of
Table 5: anova summary of CIE-G scores according to teachers’ background variables
Background variable Source SS d.f. MS F Significance
Gender Between Ss 880.958 1 880.958 4.797 .029*
Within Ss 102466.526 558 183.632
Age Between Ss 537.935 2 268.967 1.457 .234
Within Ss 102809.549 557 184.577
Caste Between Ss 23.290 3 7.763 .042 .989
Within Ss 103324.194 556 185.835
Academic qualifications Between Ss 837.742 2 418.871 2.276 .104
Within Ss 102509.742 557 184.039
Professional teaching qualifications Between Ss 503.847 1 503.847 2.734 .099
Within Ss 102843.637 558 184.308
Qualifications in special education Between Ss 1358.995 1 1358.995 7.435 .007*
Within Ss 101988.489 558 182.775
Total number of years of teaching
experience
Between Ss 1501.469 3 500.490 2.732 .043*
Within Ss 101846.015 556 183.176
Length of experience in teaching
students with disabilities
Between Ss 498.643 3 166.214 .899 .442
Within Ss 102848.841 556 184.980
Number of students in class (class size) Between Ss 1702.608 2 851.304 4.665 .010*
Within Ss 101644.876 557 182.486
Number of students with disabilities in
class
Between Ss 401.957 3 133.986 .724 .538
Within Ss 102945.527 556 185.154
*P < .05.
CIE-G, Concerns about Inclusive Education-Gujarati version; d.f., degrees of freedom; MS, mean of squares; SS, sum of squares.
Table 6: Pearson product moment correlations for scores on CIE-G and selected background variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Teachers’ concerns about integrated
education
1.000 .092* .072 −.001 −.081 .070 .115** .079 −.035 .084 * .018
2. Gender 1.000 .001 .000 .000 .001 −.046 −.053 .015 .011 .030
3. Age 1.000 .075 .245** .303** .170** .479** .078 .112** −.037
4. Caste 1.000 .036 .000 .059 .023 .080 .107 * .059
5. Academic qualifications 1.000 −.060 .175** .355** .079 −.034 .026
6. Professional teaching qualifications 1.000 −.342** .442** .165** .096 * .013
7. Qualifications in special education 1.000 .199** −.024 .128** .023
8. Total number of years of teaching
experience
1.000 −.018 .209** −.062
9. Length of experience in teaching
students with disabilities
1.000 −.053 .104*
10. Number of students in class (class size) 1.000 −.039
11. Number of students with disabilities
in class
1.000
*P < .05; **P < .01.
CIE-G, Concerns about Inclusive Education-Gujarati version.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
7© 2013 NASEN

8. the other background variables were significantly related to
teachers’ concerns about inclusive education.
Discussion
This study investigated the concerns of primary school
teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities
into their regular classrooms in Ahmedabad, India. Interest-
ingly, only three studies appear to have systematically
investigated this issue in India to date. The studies con-
ducted by Sharma (2001), Bhatnagar (2006), and Sharma,
Moore and Sonawane (2009) emphasised that in order for
inclusive education programmes to be successful, it is
crucial that the needs and concerns of educators be identi-
fied and systematically addressed. An understanding of
reported teacher concerns regarding implementation of an
inclusive education programme, especially in the local
context, may be critical to its effective implementation.
However, there appears to be no equivalent data on teacher
concerns in Ahmedabad or in the state of Gujarat.
The mean factor concern score in this study was 2.31 which
was higher than the mean factor score obtained by Sharma
(2001). He reported a mean score of 2.20 when he
employed the CIES with school teachers in Delhi. The
sample of teachers in both of these studies was drawn from
government-run schools in India. It was found that teachers
in Ahmedabad were significantly more concerned than
teachers in Delhi. This finding is not surprising considering
that, generally, educators in Delhi probably have greater
awareness and knowledge regarding inclusive education
policies and special education laws as many national-level
organisations in the field of disability (e.g., Rehabilitation
Council of India) are based there. Furthermore, research has
indicated (Riley, 1997; Sharma, 2001) that when teachers
have knowledge about laws and regulations related to inclu-
sive education, it reduces their concerns.
In another study on teacher concerns in India, Bhatnagar
(2006) collected data drawn from the sample of regular
school teachers employed at a large private organisation in
Delhi and reported a mean scale score of 2.37. An elevated
level of concerns by these teachers may be explained by the
administration’s expectations and contextual variables of
the private organisation. Bhatnagar (2006) further reported
the following scores for various CIES factors: lack of
resources (2.76), decline in academic standard of the class-
rooms (2.33) and lack of acceptance of students with
special needs (2.32). The teachers’ concerns on these three
factors ranged from a mild to moderate category. Factor 4
(concerns about increased workload in inclusive settings,
mean = 1.99) on the other hand failed to meet the minimum
requirement for it to be considered as a concern.
Another study by Sharma, Moore and Sonawane (2009)
explored the concerns of pre-service teachers enrolled at
Pune University in the state of Maharashtra using CIES.
These researchers obtained a mean score of 2.25 and
reported the pre-service teachers having a moderate level of
concern. With regard to the mean scores on individual
factors of CIES, the respondents indicated the highest level
of concerns about lack of resources (2.35) followed by
concerns about increased work load (2.29), lack of accep-
tance of students with disabilities (2.26) and declining aca-
demic standards associated with the inclusion of children
with disabilities in their classes (2.12).
Similar results were found in studies that were conducted
on teacher concerns in overseas countries using CIES. For
example, Sharma, Loreman, Forlin et al. (2006) identified
the concerns of the pre-service teachers in four countries.
They reported concern mean scores of 2.21, 2.25, 2.62 and
2.68 for the teachers from Canada, Australia, Singapore and
Hong Kong, respectively. In another study, Bradshaw and
Mundia (2006) found the concern mean score of 2.70
among 166 pre-service teachers in Brunei.
In order to further explore the relationship between teach-
ers’ concerns about inclusive education and their back-
ground variables, factor analyses were conducted. Analysis
identified five discrete dimensions of teacher concerns
thereby revealing that ‘teacher concerns about inclusive
education’ is a multidimensional construct. The five inter-
preted factors indicating the measurement of concerns of
teachers about inclusive education were as follows: (1) con-
cerns about academic achievements and standards; (2) con-
cerns about infrastructural resources; (3) concerns about
self-efficacy; (4) concerns about motivation; and (5) con-
cerns about social acceptance. In line with this finding in the
present study, Sharma’s (2001) study also found teacher
concerns to be a multidimensional construct which revealed
four factors: concerns about resources, concerns about
acceptance, concerns about academic standards and con-
cerns about workloads. The finding that teacher concerns
may be represented as a multidimensional construct may
provide a basis for a better structured investigation of intri-
cate relationships of teachers’ concerns about including
students with disabilities into their regular classroom pro-
grammes. The results of this study revalidate that the CIES
possesses adequate reliability and validity to justify its use
in assessing educators’ concerns about inclusive education.
Estimates about sub-scale reliabilities show a level of inter-
nal consistency which is adequate to permit the use of factor
scores for inter-group comparisons.
Concerns about infrastructural resources
Concerns about infrastructural resources (financial, human
and physical) have been the highest in all of the studies on
this topic in India including this one. The mean score for
this factor in the present study was 2.56, whereas it was 2.76
for Bhatnagar (2006) and 2.35 for Sharma, Moore and
Sonawane (2009).
In addition, research conducted in overseas countries also
reported lack of resources as a major impediment to the
implementation of inclusion programmes (Fayez and
Kholoud, 2011; Sigafoos and Elkins, 1994). There are
obvious implications for policy-makers in India who are
charged with resource allocation. Without an allocation of
appropriate resources, inclusion initiatives of the Govern-
ment of India will not be sustained.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
8 © 2013 NASEN

9. Moreover, teachers’ perceptions that they can have an
impact on the educational outcomes of students with dis-
abilities strengthen with access to appropriate resources and
support to implement inclusive education programmes.
Teachers’ perceived level of availability of infrastructural
resource support may affect their confidence in working
with students with disabilities. In this regard, Bhatnagar
(2006) points out that teacher confidence and the provision
of support are significantly related to teachers’ willingness
to include students with disabilities into their classrooms.
Lack of additional support led to low level of confidence in
writing IEPs, adapting teaching materials and curriculum,
managing behavioural problems, giving individual assis-
tance and writing behavioural objectives. These skills are
not only critical for inclusion to be successful but are nec-
essary to efficiently teach all students (Buell, Hallam,
Gamel-McCormick et al., 1999). In addition, sufficient
resource support increases positive teacher attitudes
(Bhatnagar and Das, 2013b).
The provision of educational services in inclusive class-
rooms necessitates modifications in the teaching practices
of classroom teachers. A range of resources and support is,
therefore, often necessary to assist teachers in formulating
and implementing the requisite modifications and in pro-
viding quality services to students with disabilities. Stu-
dents with disabilities need specialised instructions, tools,
techniques, assistive devices and equipment, which not only
calls for increased financial resources, but also suggests the
need for policy analysis related to distribution of such
resources. A number of researchers have affirmed the criti-
cal importance of resource allocation for successful inclu-
sion (Bhatnagar, 2006; Forlin and Chambers, 2011).
Inclusion programmes require the availability of a cadre of
specialists, including special educators who provide consis-
tent support and comprehensive services to students with
disabilities and their families. Therefore, schools need per-
sonnel with the necessary training and experience to work
effectively with students who have disabilities. School
policy changes can facilitate a more holistic and interdisci-
plinary approach to education if roles and responsibilities of
school personnel are redefined in the context of inclusion.
Several studies have indicated the necessity of special edu-
cation teachers, para-professionals and other related profes-
sionals (Bradshaw and Mundia, 2006; Forlin and
Chambers, 2011) to support regular classroom teachers in
the implementation of inclusion programmes. Conse-
quently, policy-makers and school administrators in India
must direct their efforts based on research outcomes and
adaptation of effective models of inclusion within the local
context to restructure the policy framework and school
organisation in a manner which is conducive to providing
the necessary resources to ensure an effective and an equi-
table educational experience for students with disabilities.
The study has some limitations that should be noted when
interpreting the results. First, the study is limited to the
concerns of primary school teachers teaching in inclusive
schools located in the six administrative zones of Ahmed-
abad. Therefore, caution should be exercised in generalising
the results of this investigation to other populations.
Second, variables other than those investigated in this study
might have had a significant influence on teacher concerns
regarding inclusive education in Ahmedabad (e.g., teachers
having a special needs child in their family, the level of
confidence teachers have in teaching students with a dis-
ability, etc.). Third, there are inherent limitations of self-
report surveys which should be recognised. There will
always remain some doubt as to what degree the partici-
pants’ responses reflect their true concerns. Notwithstand-
ing these limitations, the study does offer several important
implications for those charged with the responsibility of
planning and implementing inclusive education pro-
grammes in Gujarat.
Conclusion
As schools in India become more inclusive because of gov-
ernment initiatives in the last three decades, a greater
number of students with disabilities are being placed in
regular education classrooms (Bindal and Sharma, 2010).
Thus, at the classroom level, redefinition of the roles and
responsibilities of teachers becomes a critical part of the
reform effort to improve the delivery of services to students
with disabilities. However, the degree to which teachers are
ready and willing to support this reform effort is often
determined by the attitudes, concerns and underpinning
values that they hold regarding inclusion. The positive atti-
tudes, beliefs and perceptions of teachers regarding imple-
mentation of inclusive education programmes in their
classrooms, therefore, become a potent force if schools are
to reduce the disparities between the statutory mandate to
provide for the education of all children and their actual
level of current service delivery.
It is apparent from the findings of the present study that
when inclusion of a child with disability into regular class-
rooms has to be realised, the school curriculum, teaching-
learning practices and assessment procedures must be in
alignment. Furthermore, professional support in the form of
in-service training and collaborative networking with
parents and professionals is needed. In addition, supple-
mentary funding resources to provide teacher aides, smaller
class sizes and appropriate teaching resources are essential.
Teachers also need time for collaborating with colleagues,
exchanging information and designing appropriate teaching
methods and materials to support inclusion efforts. On the
contrary, the reality in Ahmedabad is that teachers are strug-
gling to implement inclusion policies without the requisite
resources and professional assistance. In this regard,
Bhatnagar and Das (2013a) posited that if teachers are
largely unprepared and unassisted in implementing inclu-
sion programmes, it may undermine their self-esteem and
cause them undue stress as they may be unable to cope with
implementing such programmes in line with educational
policies. Policy-makers and administrators in India need to
respond to the challenges apparent in this study by devel-
oping appropriate in-service training programmes for
regular school teachers and creating environments in their
schools that support teachers in meeting the needs of stu-
dents with disabilities.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
9© 2013 NASEN

10. Appendix A: Concerns about Integrated Education Scale (CIES)
Integrated education is one form of educational provision that may be made for students with disabilities within the school
system. In the context of your school situation and your personal experiences, indicate whether any of the following items will
be a concern to you if a student with a disability was placed in your class/school.
Instructions
Please indicate your level of concern by circling the most appropriate number that applies to you.
4 3 2 1
Extremely concerned Very concerned A little concerned Not at all concerned
1. I will not have enough time to plan educational programmes for students with disabilities. 4 3 2 1
2. It will be difficult to maintain discipline in class. 4 3 2 1
3. I do not have knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities. 4 3 2 1
4. I will have to do additional paper work. 4 3 2 1
5. Students with disabilities will not be accepted by non-disabled students. 4 3 2 1
6. Parents of children without disabilities may not like the idea of placing their children in the same classroom where there
are student with disabilities.
4 3 2 1
7. My school will not have enough funds for implementing integration successfully. 4 3 2 1
8. There will be inadequate para-professional staff available to support integrated students (for e.g., speech pathologist,
physiotherapist, occupational therapist).
4 3 2 1
9. I will not receive enough incentives (for e.g., additional remuneration or allowance) to integrate students with disabilities. 4 3 2 1
10. My work load will increase. 4 3 2 1
11. Other school staff members will be stressed. 4 3 2 1
12. My school will have difficulty in accommodating students with various types of disabilities because of inappropriate
infrastructure (for e.g., architectural barriers).
4 3 2 1
13. There will be inadequate resources/special teacher staff available to support integration. 4 3 2 1
14. My school will not have adequate special education instructional materials and teaching aids (e.g., Braille). 4 3 2 1
15. The overall academic standard of the school will suffer. 4 3 2 1
16. My performance as a classroom teacher/school principal will decline. 4 3 2 1
17. The academic achievement of students without disabilities will be affected. 4 3 2 1
18. It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an integrated classroom. 4 3 2 1
19. I will not be able to cope with disabled students who do not have adequate self care skills (e.g., students who are not
toilet trained).
4 3 2 1
20. There will be inadequate administrative support to implement the integration programme. 4 3 2 1
21. The integration of a student with disability in my class will lead to higher degree of anxiety and stress in me. 4 3 2 1
Address for correspondence
Ajay Das,
3239 Alexander Hall,
College of Education,
Murray State University,
Murray,
KY 42071,
USA.
Email: adas@murraystate.edu.
References
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), pp. 154–61.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) ‘Student
teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children
with special educational needs in the ordinary school.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 277–93.
Bhatnagar, N. (2006) Attitudes and Concerns of Indian
Teachers towards Integrated Education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Victoria University.
Bhatnagar, N. & Das, A. K. (2013a) ‘Nearly two decades
after the implementation of the Persons with
Disabilities Act: concerns of Indian teachers to
implement inclusive education.’ International Journal
of Special Education, 28, pp. 104–12.
Bhatnagar, N. & Das, A. K. (2013b) ‘Attitudes of
secondary school teachers towards inclusive
education in New Delhi, India.’ Journal of Research
in Special Educational Needs. doi: 10.1111/
1471-3802.12016.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
10 © 2013 NASEN

11. Bindal, S. & Sharma, S. (2010) ‘Inclusive education in
Indian context.’ Journal of Indian Education, 35 (4),
pp. 34–45.
Bradshaw, L. & Mundia, L. (2006) ‘Attitudes to and
concerns about inclusive education: Bruneian
in-service and pre-service teachers.’ International
Journal of Special Education, 21 (1),
pp. 35–41.
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M. &
Scheer, S. (1999) ‘A survey of general and special
education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs
concerning inclusion.’ International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 46 (2),
pp. 143–56.
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, E. & Baker-Kroczynski, S.
(2002) ‘Including students with disabilities into the
general education science classroom.’ Exceptional
Children, 68 (4), pp. 423–35.
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), pp. 331–8.
Das, A. K. (2001) Perceived Training Needs of Regular
and Secondary School Teachers to Implement
Inclusive Education Programs in Delhi, India.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Melbourne.
Das, A. K., Gichuru, M. & Singh, A. (2013)
‘Implementing inclusive education in Delhi,
India: regular school teachers’ preferences for
professional development delivery modes.’
Professional Development in Education, 39 (5),
pp. 698–711.
Das, A. K., Kuyini, A. B. & Desai, I. P. (2013) ‘Inclusive
education in India: are the teachers prepared?’
International Journal of Special Education, 28 (1),
pp. 27–36.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003) Scale Development: Theory and
Implications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fayez, M. D. & Kholoud, J. I. (2011) ‘Preparing
teachers for inclusion: Jordanian pre-service
early childhood teachers’ perspectives.’ Journal
of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32 (4),
pp. 322–37.
Forlin, C. & Chambers, D. (2011) ‘Teacher preparation
for inclusive education: increasing knowledge but
raising concerns.’ Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 39 (1), pp. 17–32.
Forlin, C., Keen, M. & Barrett, E. (2008) ‘The concerns
of mainstream teachers: coping with inclusivity in an
Australian context.’ International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 55 (3),
pp. 251–64.
Ghesquière, P., Moors, G., Maes, B. & Vandenberghe, R.
(2002) ‘Implementation of inclusive education in
Flemish primary schools: a multiple case study.’
Educational Review, 54 (1), pp. 47–56.
Handal, G. & Lauvas, P. (1987) ‘Promoting reflective
teaching: supervision in action.’ In A. B. Thomas
(ed.), Controversies in Management: Issues,
Debates, Answers. (2nd edn), pp. 74–96. London:
Routledge.
Hargrove, L. (2000) ‘Assessment and inclusion: a
teacher’s perspective.’ Preventing School Failure,
45 (1), pp. 18–21.
Ince, S. (2012) ‘Preschool teacher candidates’ attitudes
and concerns about inclusive education taking into
consideration whether they took special courses or
not at university.’ International Journal of Early
Childhood Education and Research, 1 (3), pp. 1–19.
Jangira, N. K., Singh, A. & Yadav, S. K. (1995)
‘Teacher policy, training needs and perceived
status of teachers.’ Indian Educational Review, 30 (1),
pp. 113–22.
Katsiyannis, A., Ellenburg, J. S. & Acton, O. M. (2000)
‘20 ways to address individual needs: the role of
general educators.’ Intervention in School and Clinic,
36 (2), pp. 116–21.
Mamlin, N. (1999) ‘Despite best intentions: when
inclusion fails.’ The Journal of Special Education,
30 (1), pp. 36–49.
Oswald, M. & Swart, E. (2011) ‘Addressing South
African pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and
concerns regarding inclusive education.’ International
Journal of Disability Development and Education, 58
(4), pp. 389–403.
Pivik, J., McComas, J. & LaFlamme, M. (2002) ‘Barriers
and facilitators to inclusive education.’ Exceptional
Children, 69 (1), pp. 97–107.
Riley, E. A. (1997) The Attitudes and Concerns of
Catholic Parish Primary School Principals and
Teachers toward the Integration of Students with
Disabilities into Regular Schools. Unpublished
Masters dissertation, The University of Melbourne.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996) ‘Teacher
perception of mainstreaming/inclusion. 1958–1995:
a research synthesis.’ Exceptional Children, 63 (1),
pp. 59–74.
Sharma, U. (2001) The Attitudes and Concerns of School
Principals and Teachers Regarding the Integration of
Students with Disabilities into Regular Schools in
Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Melbourne.
Sharma, U. & Desai, I. (2002) ‘Measuring concerns about
integrated education in India.’ The Asia-Pacific
Journal on Disabilities, 5 (1), pp. 2–14.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Forlin, C. & Earle, C. (2006)
‘Attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive
education: an international comparison of novice
pre-service teachers.’ International Journal of Special
Education, 21 (2), pp. 80–93.
Sharma, U., Moore, D. & Sonawane, S. (2009)
‘Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers
regarding inclusion of students with disabilities
into regular schools in Pune, India.’ Asia Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (3), pp. 319–31.
Sigafoos, J. & Elkins, J. (1994) ‘Concerns of teachers
about the integration of children with physical versus
multiple disabilities.’ Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 18 (2), pp. 50–6.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
11© 2013 NASEN

12. Simpson, R. L., de Boer-Ott, S. R. & Smith-Myles, B.
(2003) ‘Inclusion of learners with autism spectrum
disorders in general education settings.’ Top Lang
Disorders, 23 (2), pp. 116–33.
Singal, N. (2008) ‘Working towards inclusion: reflections
from the classroom.’ Teaching and Teacher Education,
24, pp. 1516–29.
Thomas, A. B. (2003) Controversies in Management:
Issues, Debates, Answers (2nd edn). London:
Routledge.
Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R. & Barker, K. S.
(2001) ‘High school teacher attitudes toward
inclusion.’ The High School Journal, 84 (2),
pp. 7–17.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D., Caldwell,
N. K. & Salisbury, C. L. (1996) ‘Supports and
resources associated with inclusive schooling:
perceptions of elementary school teachers about
need and availability.’ Journal of Special Education,
30 (2), pp. 187–203.
Williams, M. & Gersch, I. (2004) ‘Teaching in
mainstream and special schools: are the stresses
similar or different?’ British Journal of Special
Education, 31 (3), pp. 157–62.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
12 © 2013 NASEN