Introduction
The institution of education is the foundational cornerstone of our society. Education is a conscious effort to improve oneself both intellectually, physically, and morally, and the school remains the primary shaping force for the learners to develop their full potential (Sudarsana, 2016, p. 306). Educational ethics constitute a framework of standards for judging conduct and ensuring the protection of freedom to learn (Litwack, 2003, p. 36). The two primary principles of educational ethics for teachers include commitment to the students and commitment to the profession (Litwack, 2003, p. 36). Each student has the potential of becoming a valuable, useful, and respected member of society. The purpose of the code of ethics is to help every student to achieve that goal.
Students with disadvantages are notorious for being neglected by the educational system. Some teachers fail to provide the appropriate accommodations and modifications to assist these students. While the reasons for such negligence differ, these actions compromise fairness, disadvantaged students, and undermine the integrity of the profession.
Ethical Issue: Underwhelming Treatment of Disabled Students by Teachers
The modern code of professional educational ethics is based on the concepts of equity and equality. Education evolved from an elitist and segregated institution reserved only for the rich, able, and powerful, towards an inclusive and integrated model. The addition of disabled children into public schools is a worldwide phenomenon, as the rights and contributions of disabled individuals to society become more recognized (Lamture & Gathoo, 2017, p. 809). In the US, this trend became prominent with the adoption of a landmark federal legislation called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, which entitled individuals with various physical and mental disabilities to the use of public classrooms (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge-Rogers, 1998, p. 219). Ever since, schools and teachers were required to provide special accommodations for students with various disabilities in order to help them fulfill their educational needs (Yell et al., 1998, p. 219).
Because of the IDEA act, the number of students with disabilities in the US has tripled in the past 20 years, reaching a number of 6.7 million individuals (Hong, 2015, p. 209). Although they receive special services from school authorities and education facilities, they spend the majority of their time alongside non-impaired individuals. The improved studying conditions enable many individuals to succeed in general education classrooms. The introduction of least restrictive environment (LRE) greatly improved the autonomy of students and helped them increase their academic performance, participate in classroom and community activities, while also reducing the stigmatizing effects of special education (Salend & Duhaney, 1999, p. 115; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009, p. 67).
Despite these accommodations, the individuals report a lower level of academic success as a result of a multitude of stressors associated with the school environment (Hong, 2015, p. 209). Some of these stressors include faculty perception, fit of advisors, college stressors, and the quality of support services (Hong, 2015, p. 213). Lack of knowledge, social stigmatization, and intimidation by support personnel remain some of the most common issues encountered by disabled students.
The ethical issue of teachers being unable or unwilling to accommodate students with disadvantages was brought to the forefront of public discussions. According to Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, and Acosta (2005), special education students do not receive the appropriate instruction and curriculum that accommodates their educational needs (p. 41). One of the primary concerns that undermine the federal government’s efforts in educating disadvantaged students is teacher neglect in special education (Butrymowicz & Mader, 2018, p. 26). As it stands, 13% of all schools receive federal funds to provide special education services, which should be able to prepare disabled students for future studies and career opportunities with estimated graduation levels of 90% (Butrymowicz & Mader, 2018, p. 27). The actual numbers are much lower, with a 65% graduation rate for disabled students versus the 83% being the US average (Butrymowicz & Mader, 2018, p. 27).
Many parents feel that special education in public schools is a waste, as the individual teachers and institutions as a whole did not pay attention to their requests and complaints. The public opinion is that schools are not doing enough to accommodate disabled learners and help them reach academic success (Butrymowicz & Mader, 2018, p. 27). In the majority of these cases, the main portion of the blame lies on teachers in the classrooms. The power and importance of the generalist teacher in today’s diverse educational environment cannot be underestimated. According to Forlin and Chambers (2017), “Inclusive education requires generalist teachers to be able to cater for the needs of the most diverse student populations academically, socially and culturally” (p. 563). Therefore, when teachers do not engage in their respective duties, for whatever reasons, it presents an ethical issue.
Teachers ignore the needs of students with disabilities in a multitude of ways. It includes the non-provision of instructional material, accommodations, and specialized training for disadvantaged students. In the majority of cases, teachers adopt a reactive approach and confuse suitable education with inclusive education (Lawrie et al., 2017, p. 7). However, conscious bias is also present, as demonstrated by Hong (2015) who stated that intimidation by personnel happens on a frequent basis (p. 213). These issues compromise the codes of ethics, care, and justice on several parameters. Firstly, they prevent students from accessing the material in equal measure. The quality of education for disabled students without special accommodations drops dramatically.
The ethics of care are violated on several occasions. Firstly, education is supposed to recognize every student’s individual educational, academic, and personal needs (Litwack, 2003, p. 37). In addition, educators are supposed to take personal responsibility in providing quality teaching. In the failure to provide proper instructions and accommodations, teachers do not recognize the personal needs of the student, while in claiming ignorance of the matter, they fail to take personal responsibility for the quality of their work.
Rights and justice ethics were breached in several aspects as well. In the failure to accommodate disabled students’ needs, teachers fail to respect their dignity, worth, and uniqueness, which is a universal right, according to the code of teaching ethics (Litwack, 2003, p. 37). As a result, the students fail to learn in accordance with their educational ability and potential. Teaching strategies, learning and assessment plans, and differentiated learning patterns are supposed to be planned with respect to the capabilities of all students.
The Assumptions at the Heart of the Dilemma
The major assumptions behind the issue of the failure to accommodate disabled students in the classroom can be classified into four major groups:
- The lack of training and knowledge;
- The lack of experience;
- The lack of time and resources to accommodate special needs students;
- Conscientious objections to the practice.
The lack of training and knowledge comes at the forefront of most researches dedicated to the subject of decreased academic performance in disabled students. Myreddi and Narayan (2000) see a correlation between the inability to deal with disabled students and the limited knowledge of practical strategies to be applied to the curriculum (p. 2). As a result, the teachers are hesitant to make accommodations and modifications, as they do not fully understand the student’s needs and the array of tools available to them. In the instances when they do apply certain techniques and programs to try to help disabled students, these tools are used improperly.
The majority of interviewed teachers have positive feelings about inclusion and understand the need for inclusive education as a means of progressing society. At the same time, they stress out the absence of proper training, administrative support, and interprofessional collaboration in order to successfully deal with the challenges presented by disabled students (Leatherman, 2007, p. 594). The root of the issue, according to O’Gorman and Drudy (2010), lies in the limited professional pre-service training (p. 158). Future teachers do not have access to professional development opportunities and the majority of learning the material on disabled students learning.
Among the teachers that do have some sort of specialized training in educating disabled individuals, a good portion of them lacks the hands-on experience in the classroom. The total number of individuals with various disabilities, as mentioned by Hong (2015), is 6.7 million, whereas the total number of students attending schools and kindergartens in the US exceeds 80 million a year. D’Alonzo, Giordano, and Cross (1996) having little experience in actually applying the learned tools and strategies to real people and situations require a degree of flexibility and adjustment (p. 310). In addition, various physical and mental disabilities create a discrepancy in knowledge and experience in dealing with certain types. Hong (2015) provides a list of various disabilities ranging from asthma to Tourette’s syndrome (p. 212). This list is not an exhaustive one. As a result, many teachers are simply not prepared to deal with exceptional cases of student diagnoses, which results in exclusion and a lack of equity in studying.
The lack of time and resources play an important part in causing the object of the ethical dilemma. Generalist teachers work within a limited timeframe and have a number of duties to uphold, such as teaching, controlling homework, devising lessons, filling out the paperwork for curriculum progression, handling issues with parents, self-improving, attending various seminars, and so forth. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) find a correlation between burnout and overworked schedules, which contribute to high turnover rates among educators (p. 1060). Handling the additional needs of certain students in many cases is something that teachers have neither time nor will for, especially with the administration being unwilling or unable to provide support. In comparison, Hussien and Qaryouti (2014) claim that self-efficacy levels among special needs teachers are higher than those of generalist teachers (p. 618). It must be noted that special needs teachers usually have smaller classes and more personalized schedules, which could be the contributing factor to higher self-efficacy levels.
The factor of time and resource constraints also plays a role in enmity between generalist teachers and special education teachers. The hero-centric type of leadership that places the teacher in the middle of any classroom-related activity does not promote collaboration between different educators (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). Requesting counsel from another specialist may be seen as undermining to their authority or take too much time that could be spent dealing with class issues. As a result, generalist teachers often reject the use of administrative resources if they see doing so as unproductive.
The last issue revolves around conscious objections against inclusivity and the focus on disabled individuals during classroom studies. Gilmore, Campbell, and Caskelly (2003) state that historically, the teaching community has been less than positive about working with students with special needs (p. 370). There is a multitude of reasons for that. Some teachers find the concept of inclusion to be a flawed concept, and that the purpose of a teacher is to ensure that the brightest minds could shine, rather than helping the disabled individuals pick up the slack. Others state that dedicating additional time and resources to certain students, often at the expense of others, is against the aforementioned principle of equality of learning opportunities (Gilmore et al., 2003, p. 370). Lastly, Westwood and Graham (2003) state that primary teachers are concerned with time constraints, finding it difficult to balance the increased needs of disabled students with the needs of other individuals in the room (p. 3).
As it is possible to see, the majority of assumptions behind the topic of teachers’ exclusion of disabled individuals and their failure to provide a healthy and encouraging learning environment lies in the dimensions of time, resources, knowledge, and moral rights. All of these issues must be addressed in order to facilitate a better environment and improve the conditions for all students.
Potential Solutions to the Dilemma
The proposed solutions to the issue will be based on several theories that directly address organizational matters, human behavior, and human development. The first proposed solution is based on the transformational leadership theory. Transformational leadership is an approach to management and organization, where leaders seek to create positive changes in their followers. It works by demonstrating four factors, such as individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, charismatic leadership, and idealized influence upon the subordinates (Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014, p. 161). As the main figure in the hierarchical structure, it falls upon the principal to influence teachers, and allow them to affect students in a similar manner. The role of the principal is key to improving the situation for disabled students, teacher, and educational organizations in general. The research indicates that transformational leadership is useful in facilitating training programs, which could be used for teachers and disabled students alike (Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014, p. 178).
As it was already mentioned, many teachers and students feel that the administration is not doing enough to accommodate them. The principal should focus on creating a welcoming school culture, where teachers can focus on improving the attitudes, believes, knowledge, personal skills, and self-efficacy. This notion is supported by Riehl (2000), who states that “when wedded to a relentless commitment to equity, voice, and social justice, administrators’ efforts in the tasks of sense-making, promoting inclusive cultures and practices in schools, and building positive relationships outside of the school, may indeed foster a new form of practice” (p. 56). Under the proposed solution, the principal should ensure that there are learning strategies in place to support learning in all students. The purpose of the principal is to serve as an initializer of the proposed changes and the supporter of quality instructional practices. For that, the principal must have good relations with the teachers, the disabled student community, and a good working knowledge of the strategies used to help disabled students learn.
The second approach revolves around facilitating professional development in teachers. As it was already stated, many teachers do not have the required levels of self-efficiency, nor do they conduct individual research for improving their own skills in regards to handling disabled students. While the concerns regarding issues with administrative efforts, funding, and the lack of information are valid, changing the system in the US would take time. Meanwhile, teachers must take the initiative in their own hands. Instilling Bandura’s tenets of self-efficacy can be a viable solution in that regard.
Bandura’s principles of self-efficacy derive from social cognitive theory, which attributes human behavior to a variety of personal and environmental factors. Self-efficacy affects human behavior by influencing its cognitive, affective, motivational, and decision-making processes (Bandura, 1977). Based on these parameters, teachers can look at particular issues in a positive or a negative manner. Self-efficacy has a large influence on the teaching process as well. The more self-efficient a teacher is, the more likely it is for them to use their time more effectively. This time could be spent on providing students with the individualized instructions they need as well as on studying new information and practicing different techniques. As a result, not only would the disadvantaged students receive the time and the quality of the instructions they need (Jordan & Stanovich, 2014).
According to Ahsan and Burnip (2007), self-efficacy is an important predictor to teachers’ performance in the classrooms, translating into better preparedness, better material understanding, and superior teaching techniques adjusted to fit the learners’ needs. Self-efficacy is also connected to self-confidence, as individuals with high self-efficacy skills also possess a greater belief in his or her own capability to organize the class and utilize innovative measures for improving the students’ understanding of the material (Tschannen-Morran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
The focus of this intervention, thus, is aimed at improving the teacher’s self-efficacy and self-perception as a way of encouraging them to learn and apply their knowledge and skills to improve the situation for disabled learners (Gorrell & Capron, 1990). As children also look up to their teachers as role models, self-efficacy may translate to them in the form of powerful educational outcomes, such as persistence, enthusiasm, commitment, and instructional behaviors, resulting in a higher amount of motivation and more significant academic achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p. 783).
One of the primary means of improving self-efficacy in a teacher is training (Horne & Timmons, 2009). Hashim, Ghani, Ibrahim, and Zain (2014) state that professional training can show a modicum of effectiveness even without adequate support from the administration, making it an eligible solution for inclusive teachers working in unsupported schools and environments. This falls in line with Bandura’s theory, as it suggests that the main source of power for self-efficacy is to be found within, and not without (Bandura, 1977). In addition, the theory endorses adaptation and evolution, as the dynamic of self-efficacy changes with experience. Short-term and long-term training would, thus, enhance the teachers’ capabilities for self-efficacy as well as their skills in dealing with children with disabilities. The newfound confidence would also facilitate a change of attitude towards these children.
Another method of improving the conditions for disabled students and solving the ethical dilemma for the teachers involves the implementation of differentiated learning. This solution is based on the sociocultural theory by Vygotsky, which states that individuals learn not only through direct absorbance of information but also by interacting with others. Individuals who interact with skillful peers have a better chance of developing to a higher learning level (Gauvain & Cole, 1997). According to Vygotsky, individuals learn better by being placed in the zone of proximal development, which is an environment where the student is placed in a group of individuals slightly more skilled than they are. The environment is expected to change as the student progresses and becomes more skillful (Walqui & Lier, 2010).
In order to connect this theory to the concepts of equity in education, one must remember that each student learns at their own pace. In order to accommodate different learning styles and capabilities, a uniform approach would not be possible. The teacher must balance different speeds of progress in different individuals in order to maximize their opportunities for potential growth (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). Differentiated instruction will enable teachers to respect the diversity in students while maintaining a standard of academic prowess. To succeed in applying the tenets of the theory, students would need to be placed in groups in accordance to their level of learning, understanding, and capabilities, while enabling the flow of information between individuals in order to facilitate peer interactions, responsiveness to instructions, and content knowledge scaffolding (Subban, 2006).
Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid (2005) suggest the introduction of differentiated instructions as a replacement for problematic special education practices (p. 197). According to the researchers, homogeneity in the classroom is a faulty construct that decreases the expectations of teachers for the entire group. This notion is supported by Tomlinson (2002), who stated that disabled students constitute for only one of many facets in student heterogeneity (p. 47). Broderick et al. (2005) suggest an innovative planning and implementation approach, which constitutes of the following parts:
– Planning the class by carefully studying the students and estimating their knowledge levels, learning styles, and various psycho-emotional factors that can contribute or mitigate the effectiveness of studying (Broderick et al., 2005, p. 197).
– Differentiating content. This phase ignores the traditionalist approach of basic-intermediate-advanced levels of knowledge, instead stating that the student should be taught with a presumption of competence, exposing them to the rich and rigorous array of knowledge rather than trapping them in the basics (Broderick et al., 2005, p. 199).
– Differentiating processes and products. Different students have different preferences for learning, either by using computers, videos, audio recordings, or the more traditional methods of learning. As such, the teachers are supposed to use adaptive technologies in order to improve the results in disabled students (Broderick et al., 2005, p. 200).
These solutions are all in line with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and address the issue of heterogeneity of the classroom, placing the responsibility of creating a communal learning space not only on the teacher but also on other students in the classroom. Peer-influenced education and fostering of a culture of knowledge and acceptance should improve the quality of education for disabled students.
Lastly, there is the issue of facilitating cooperation and interdependence between generalized teachers and special needs teachers in the classroom. As it was mentioned earlier, there is often a rivalry present between these types of teachers, which result in the former avoiding consultations for the sake of maintaining an image of competence. This issue comes from the currently upheld independence model, where every teacher is considered a separate unit rather than a part of the whole. Lingo, Barton-Arwood, and Jolivette (2011) state that teaching collaboration should be built on social interdependence theory (p. 6). This theory suggests that positive interdependence could be achieved only when the end result is impossible without any individual agents in a system earnestly participating and being interested in the end result of the process.
As it stands, the situation lacks interdependence, as both the teacher and the special needs educator operate separately, with the student being referred to the latter only once the classroom teacher had exhausted the time and patience to adjust the learning process on their own (Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983, p. 136). Instead of being rivals, generalized teachers and special needs educators should treat one another as part of the process.
As Lingo et al. (2011) suggest, teachers can conduct classes together and cooperate to devise grading rubrics, tests, and tasks to accommodate the needs of special learners (p. 8). Each educator has a specific role to fit, with the generalized teacher providing field notes and on-site observations whereas the special needs educator could use their expanded knowledge on the subject to provide the generalized teacher with a necessary framework and a list of tools to be used in a particular student. It is important to note that neither of the educators is in a subordinate position, as the theory of social interdependence relies on respect, communication, parity, and trust for relationship collaboration (Johnson et al., 1983, p. 135).
The classroom teacher is free to utilize the frameworks provided as guidelines, but with room for interpretation depending on the situation. As a result, the quality of education and professional knowledge in teachers ought to increase, leading to innovative methods of studying to be implemented in the classroom. The dilemma of professional incompetence in teaching disabled individuals would disappear as a result.
Intractable Concerns of the Dilemma
While the provided solutions deal with the organizational and knowledge aspects of the issue, the intractable concerns that remain unanswered are the economic issues most schools face as well as the personal beliefs that pedagogues have in regards to inclusivity. While fostering a culture of self-improvement, endorsing collaboration between teachers, and having teachers improve their self-efficacy are all valid solutions, they do not fully make up for the lack of resources available to schools. Self-improvement cannot be achieved without access to the latest practices and studies in the research fields. The use of adaptive technologies requires a computerized classroom with various electronic elements to facilitate different kinds of learning. Having special needs educators on the roster requires funding. Establishing an LRE classroom also needs finances in order to accommodate low-mobility individuals.
According to Parrott et al. (2018), Trump’s budget for healthcare and education cuts the already existing social services and education programs, meaning that the situation for schools that provide education to disabled individuals is going to get worse (p. 5). In order to see improvement in graduation rates and successfully adapt the school environment to fit the needs of all students, as per the IDEA act, teacher-led initiatives and principal leadership are not going to be enough. Additional funding, thus, is an absolute must.
Conscientious objections on the part of certain teachers regarding the purpose of educational systems, timing constraints, and fairness are also a deep-seated problem (Gilmore et al., 2003, p. 370). Fellow teachers must challenge these anti-progressive opinions academically as well as on the individual school level, in order to bring everyone on board with the basic tenets of the IDEA act.
Conclusion
The mistreatment of students with various disabilities by the teachers within the education system is a direct violation of the tenets of the IDEA act and the professional code of ethics. While the majority of the issues are inadvertently caused by factors outside of the teacher’s control, such as budgeting, time constraints, and the lack of material, it does not alleviate them from the responsibility to provide an inclusive learning environment to all students to the best of their ability. Some of the proposed solutions rely on transformational leadership, sociocultural theory, and social cognitive theory, which could be used to improve self-efficacy, school administration, and transform the classroom at the very basic level through differentiated education. While this paper does not answer the question of funding and the greater scope of advocacy for disabled students, it provides a series of solutions that could be implemented in a school setting to solve the ethical dilemma and improve the learning experience for everyone.
References
Ahsan, M. T., & Burnip, L. (2007). Inclusive education in Bangladesh. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 61-71.
Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovation: A comparison study between Iraq’s public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 159-181.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes toward increased mainstreaming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94.
Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reed. D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory and Practice, 44(3), 194-202.
Butrymowicz, S., & Mader, J. (2018). The U.S. education system is failing special needs students. Education Digest, 83(8), 26-35.
D’Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., & Cross, T. L. (1996). Improving teachers’ attitudes through teacher education toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into their classrooms. The Teacher Educator, 31(4), 304-312.
Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 4147.
Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2017). Catering for diversity: Including learners with different abilities and needs in regular classrooms. In R. Maclean (Ed.), Life in schools and classrooms: Past, present, future (pp. 555-571). Singapore: Springer.
Gauvain, M., & Cole, M. (1997). Readings on the development of children. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Gilmore, L., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expectations, personality stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50(1), 65-76.
Gorrell, J., & Capron, E. (1990). Cognitive modeling and self-efficacy: Effects on preservice teachers’ learning of teaching strategies. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 15-22.
Hashim, M., Ghani, M., Ibrahim, S., & Zain, W. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education in Pulau Pinang. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(7), 24-33.
Hong, B. S. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209-226.
Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286.
Hussien, J. H., & Qaryouti, A. I. (2014). Regular education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in Oman. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 8(4), 617-626.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom climate. The Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 135-142.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2004). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 14, 25-46.
Lamture, S., & Gathoo, V. S. (2017). Self-efficacy of general and resource teachers in education of children with disabilities in India. International Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 809-822.
Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis, M., … van Dam, L. (2017). Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(1), 1-13.
Leatherman, J. M. (2007). “I just see children as children:” Teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594-611.
Lingo, A. S., Barton-Arwood, S. M., & Jolivette, K. (2011). Teachers working together. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 6-13.
Litwack, L. (2003). Ethics for educators. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 13(1), 34-37.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
Myreddi, V., & Narayan, J. (2000). Preparation of special education teachers: Present status and future trends. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 10(1), 1-8.
O’Gorman, E., & Drudy, S. (2010). Addressing the professional development needs of teachers working in the area of special education/inclusion in mainstream schools in Ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 157-167.
Parrott, S., Aron-Dine, A., Rosenbaum, D., Rice, D., Floyd, I., & Romig, K. (2018).
Trump budget deeply cuts health, housing, other assistance for low- and moderate-income families. Web.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
Ruijs, N. M., Peetsma, T. T. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67-79.
Salend, S. J., Duhaney, L. M. G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114-126.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947.
Sudarsana, K. (2016). The importance of morals teaching in shaping the students’ characters in school. Dharma Acarya Faculty International Seminar, 306-315.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy. A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Walqui, A., & Lier, L. V. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners a pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: Benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in new South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 3-15.
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., Lodge-Rogers, E. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long strange trip it’s been. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219-228.