Kira Beuse, Kerstin Merz-Atalik and Chris O´Brien :Sentiments, concerns and attitudes towards inclusive education – A comparison between teacher education students at the University of North Carolina (Charlotte, USA) and the University of Education (Ludwigsburg, Germany)

Abstract: Internationally there has been a great deal of research since the 1990s related to the question of how pre-service and in-service teachers think about the “new task” of dealing with diversity and inclusion in schools and classrooms. Many surveys have considered the influence of attitudes towards inclusive education of teachers for successful practice, as they are relevant action-regulating factors and influence perceptions (Beuse 2015, 55). It is not unequivocally certain, “how far on an individual basis the extent of a discrepancy between expressed attitudes and the actual action can be considered” (Kunz et al. 2010, 84), but it is believed, that there is a positive correlation between attitudes and action. The following article is trying to give a brief insight into the development of inclusion and inclusive education in the teacher education programs in Germany and the United States, with a focus on Baden-Württemberg and North Carolina. Based on this contextual framework, a comparative survey that took place in summer 2015 at two teacher education institutions – University of Education Ludwigsburg and University North Carolina in Charlotte – will be introduced. The long-term idea of this cooperative research is to compare the effects of different curriculum changes and programs on the sentiments, concerns and attitudes of teacher education students at both institutions in follow-up surveys over the next years.

Stichworte: Inclusive Education, attitudes, USA, Germany, Teacher Education

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. Contextual information about inclusive education and teacher training in Germany and the United States of America
2. Teacher education programs and the subject of inclusion
3. Sentiments, concerns and attitudes towards inclusive education – Survey results
4. Preliminary conclusions
5. References

“One of the most difficult challenges in preparing teachers to work in
diverse classrooms is that of ensuring that they have a positive attitude
toward learners with different backgrounds and special educational
needs (SEN) and that they are willing participants in
the inclusion movement” (Forlin 2010, 165).

1. Contextual information about inclusive education and teacher training in Germany and the United States of America

1.1 Historical, philosophical and legal foundations for Inclusive Education in Germany and the United States

The tradition of having a special school system in Germany has a long history. The special schools are historically situated in a very selective and segregated school system in Germany. “Instead of a comprehensive secondary school as in the United States, in Germany, a range of hierarchically ordered school types exists to serve students, grouped according to varying abilities” (Powell, 2011, p. 151). Mainly, segregation is based on the intellectual outcome related to the school curriculum, on the homogeneity-oriented educational system, and with a severe effect on the social segregation of marginalized groups of the German society (e.g., migrants). It seemed to be a logical consequence that students with special needs would also be served better in a special track or system. Powell considers Germany as a “pioneer in special education” (ibid., 152), “with the history spanning more than two centuries.” The first special education class was founded in 1859 and the first schools followed soon after. “Schools were founded with the conviction that focusing specially on particular categories of children would be most efficient in providing support. Their hope was that targeted assistance might compensate for learning difficulties such that some of these students could return to general schools. However, this has remained a myth, since such permeability has not been prevalent in Germany, with only a tiny fraction ever returning to general education” (ibid, 154). The Standing Conference of the Federal Ministries of Education (KMK) in the “1960th recommendation“ mentioned the joint instruction[1] of disabled and nondisabled children only twice because the necessity of special schools was taken for granted” (Powell, 2011, p. 162). In these State recommendations for Special Education the following 12 types of special education schools were committed:
–          School for the blind (Blindenschule)
–          School for the visually impaired (Sehbehindertenschule)
–          School for the deaf (Gehörlosenschule)
–          School for the hearing impaired (Schwerhörigenschule)
–          School for speech-therapy (Sprachheilschule)
–          School in hospital or at home (Krankenhausschule, Hausunterricht) –
–          Support school (Hilfsschule) 
–          School for monitoring (Beobachtungsschule)
–          School for the educational difficult (Erziehungsschwierigenschule)
–          School in youth-penal-system (Schule im Jugendstrafvollzug)
–          Special school for vocational-education (Sonderberufsschule)
–          Special education living community (Heilpädagogischer Lebenskreis).
Teacher training programs have in the past been and continue to be related to the types of special schools for children with special needs and we have a separate training program for the “special education teacher” with 9 different tracks, related to the field of special needs. Every student has to select two different fields of special needs in almost all Bundesländer[2].

Historical trends in the treatment of individuals with disabilities in the United States up to and including most of the 20th century were also characterized by segregation, oppression, and institutionalization. Most significant in trends toward inclusion were shifting attitudes toward equity and integration along with strong parent advocacy (Hehir, 2006). Relevant to an analysis of the current status of services for children with disabilities through a historical lens is consideration of the volatile period of civil rights reform in the United States during the 1950s and 60s (Hardman & Nagle, 2004). Brown v. Board of Education[3] is generally considered to be the landmark court case, which dismantled the segregationist policy of “separate but equal” in the United States asserting that in contrast, separate is “inherently unequal” (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954). This case had far-reaching consequences when one considers the true nature of this finding—no children can be fairly excluded from public education. Clearly, the bold mandates of this case did not effect change in schools immediately, and certainly, those involved did not initially have the needs of children with disabilities in mind at the time (Smith, 2004). Further involvement at the federal level would ultimately be required to make the next steps toward equitably educating students with disabilities. Given the deep-rooted segregation practices employed during the institutionalization era, it should not be surprising that families with children with disabilities were commonly denied access to local public schools. In fact some school districts were required to deny access to children with disabilities prior to the inaction of federal legislation, although most school districts simply did not believe they had the resources to provide educational opportunities for children with disabilities (Hehir, 2006).
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was the first major effort by the federal government to develop federal oversight in public education, an institution that previously was left up to state authority. This particular act was amended shortly after its initial passage to include federal funding to support students with disabilities. Following this action was a long period of emerging legislation and significant litigation rooted in parent concerns about the dramatically inequitable educational opportunities for children with significant disabilities (e.g. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia) which led to the creation by congress of the Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped. The landmark court case PARC vs. Pennsylvania (1972) established the critical precedent of free, appropriate, public education for children with disabilities. Ultimately in 1975 the United States congress passed the legislation that would eventually serve as the foundation for special education services in American public schools, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Yell, Drasgow, Bradley, & Justesen, 2004). This legislation marked an important transition in the manner in which schools would be required to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Prior to P.L. 94-142, public schools came far short of meeting the needs of children with disabilities, with most children either receiving an inadequate, inappropriate level of support in their regular school or being forced into a segregated, often institutional educational setting (Katsiyannis, Yell, & Bradley, 2001). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 and reauthorized most recently in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The law that supports special education implementation is most commonly referred to simply as I.D.E.A.
The IDEA has been periodically reviewed by the United States legislative bodies and subsequently reauthorized (amended) with sometimes subtle and sometimes dramatic changes related to the concerns of parents and advocacy groups, and changing political currents. One consistent shift in the most recent reauthorizations of IDEA has been the ever-increasing emphasis on serving the needs of students with disabilities in the most inclusive environment (Gable & Hendrickson, 2000). A first step in this process was the Regular Education Initiative sponsored by the Department of Education in the late 1980s (Olson & Platt, 2004).
IDEA 1990 affirmed the notion of the general education classroom as the “least restrictive environment” (LRE). This clarification of the LRE language meant that schools were to consider on a case by case basis which setting was optimal for each student — with the trend toward placing students in the closest placement possible to a general education classroom. Previously, students with disabilities were likely to be served in residential settings, special schools, and special classes. Special educators consistently refer to the continuum of services when considering the many steps possible to bring each student closer to the ultimate goal of education in the general curriculum. This trend toward placement in the general education classroom, typically a process in which a student’s strong performance in a special education class is seen as indicative of their preparedness for a regular class, has typically been referred to as mainstreaming. The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA further emphasized this trend. However, in contrast to the notion of gradually moving students with disabilities into the general education classroom, the philosophical notion of inclusion presumes that the general education classroom is the most natural setting for all children (Gable & Hendrickson, 2000).
As legislation has changed over the years, schools have increasingly been held to a higher standard regarding the quality of educational services provided for students with disabilities (Katsiyannis et al., 2001). The most recent version of IDEA 2004 more closely aligns with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, taking one more significant step toward the education of students with disabilities in the general curriculum and holding schools accountable for their education (Gable & Hendrickson, 2000).

1.2 Policies related to special education and inclusive education in teacher education programs

Former director of the Office of Special Education Programs, Thomas Hehir in his analysis of inclusive schooling and the role of special education in supporting children with disabilities echoes the philosophical orientation of inclusion, but positions issues of implementation in a practical context. In examining the relative strengths of different goals and trends in special education, Hehir (2006) considers “What should be accomplished by special education?” He suggests several considerations for decisions regarding inclusion:

• General education environments should be the presumed placement for all students with disabilities.
• Removal should only occur if important learning goals cannot be achieved in the general education environment.
• Removal should not occur simply because general education refuses to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities.
• Social integration is important.
• Inclusion should be purposeful.

Notable in his guidelines is the idea that inclusion itself should not be the goal. Inclusion is a presumption, but the goal of special education, inclusive or not, is a strong academic/school experience for all children with purposeful attention to the needs of children with disabilities. Given the balance of a philosophical foundation which presumes inclusion to have intrinsic value and an explicit focus on the necessary practical issues relative to effectively educating children with disabilities, we begin to envision a flexible perspective on how “… to minimize the impact of disability and maximize the opportunities for children with disabilities to participate in general education in their natural community” (Hehir, 2006, p. 49).

In the US following the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) the “Inclusion Movement” (Gerber 2012) further developed with regards to the “least restrictive environment.”
[T]wo major changes have occurred in how individual classroom teachers must try to manage inclusion. First, inclusion is now understood to mean substantive inclusion not only in learning activities but also learning outcomes. Second, teachers are to focus concretely on all students deemed to be “at risk” because of their relatively lower achievement test scores, regardless of the perceived cause for their lack of achievement (Gerber, 2012, p. 74).

Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
Professional teacher education programs similarly changed to align with these new expectations, providing more opportunity for general education teachers to learn about students with disabilities and how they might be involved in general classroom activities, and more emphasis in the professional preparation of special education teachers on strategies and methods for supporting inclusion, both for students with disabilities and classroom teachers, as opposed to providing direct instructional services. Thus, special education teachers were taught “strategies” and methods to facilitate “cooperation” and “partnership” and “co-teaching” with their general education colleagues, to manage IEPs when students with disabilities were distributed among many classrooms rather than concentrated in a single, special education classroom, and to mediate relationships between school authorities, families, and teaching colleagues” (Gerber, 2012, p. 74).

In Germany the recommendations of the KMK in 1994 for the development of special education in the educational system had at least some influence on teacher education programs, but the impact was definitely not as strong as the IDEA in the US. With these recommendations the Standing Conference of the Ministries of Education of all German Bundesländer replaced the classification system from an individual category of “need of special schooling[4]” to the new classification “special educational needs”, that was independent from a special school location or system. These recommendations were often characterized with the slogan “As much integration as possible, as little segregation as necessary!” But the effect on the segregation quota in the education system was very low in most Bundesländer. Until now and even still today, the quota of pupils in special schools varies between 2,4 % (in Schleswig-Holstein) and 6,8 % (in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Sachsen-Anhalt) of all school children in the Bundesländer in 2013/14 (Bertelsmannstiftung 2015). It has been obligatory if the universities were developing their teacher training programs to address competencies for mainstreaming or integration. In Berlin for example they decided to have a compulsory course for “Joint instruction of children with and without disabilities” for all teacher training programs. Berlin was also the first Federal State, in which they had project schools with mainstreaming for children with a “so called” mental disability[5] (Flämingschule 1975). Other states, like Baden-Württemberg didn´t change the different programs for general teachers and special education teachers, but added a few competencies of diagnostic and learning support into the curriculum.

Today we see a huge impact of the UN Convention in Germany. The pressure following the signing and ratification of the UN-Convention to the Federal States, Policy and Administration and their school legislation including the proclaimed concepts of inclusive education (provided and in development), is immense. Germany has signed the UN-Convention in 2007 and ratified in 2009. The debate about the ratification of the UN CRPD in the US is ongoing.

Picture 1: Signing of the UN CRPD in Germany and the US. Presentation at UNC Charlotte in March 2015 by Merz-Atalik.

In 2014 a study on behalf of the Monitoring-Body of the Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) in the German Institute for Human Rights was published, with the title: "Inclusive education: School laws to the test" (Mißling/ Ückert 2014). Only a few Bundesländer have extensive educational integration of people with disabilities with more than 50% in mainstreaming or general schools. The transformation process requires a legal standard frame. Valentin Aichele, an expert for Human Rights issues and head of the official monitoring body for the implementation of The UN CRPD in Germany (at the German Institute of Human Rights n Berlin) requires: “School education needs an appropriate legal framework.” But concerning the results of the study in 2014 with the comparison of the 16 Federal States Germany, so far none of them has transferred the ideals and vision of the UN-CRPD into their school-legislation. The implementation of inclusion in schools should no longer be a question of asking and “grace” in the future. Rather, the school laws would have to be designed so that children and young people with disabilities have the law on their side. In 2015 the German State Report to the UN has been evaluated by the Committee on the Rights of persons with disabilities (UN), followed by a hearing in Geneva with more than 30 political representatives from the German government and one of the critical areas of feedback to the implementation of the UN CRPD since the signing in 2009 in Germany has addressed the issues in inclusive education very clearly:
“Education (art. 24)
45. The Committee is concerned that the State party has an education system where the majority of students with disabilities attend segregated special-needs schools.
46. The Committee recommends that the State party:

• Immediately develop a strategy, action plan, timeline and targets to provide access to a high-quality, inclusive education system across all Länder, including the required financial resources and personnel at all levels;
• Scale down segregated schools to facilitate inclusion and ensure that the law and policies uphold the duty that mainstream schools enroll children with disabilities with immediate effect if that is their choice;
• Ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided at all levels of education and that the right to such accommodation is legally enforceable and justiciable before the courts;
• Ensure the training of all teachers in inclusive education, increased accessibility of the school environment, materials and curricula, and the provision of sign language in mainstream schools, including at the post-doctoral level.” (UN Committee of the rights of persons with disabilities 2015; Emphasis added by the author)”.

Besides the UN Convention, a big challenge is not only with the need of pupils with disabilities, Germany and it´s Bundesländer still have to change the “homogeneity-oriented” to a “diversity-oriented” structure and practice in the whole formal educational-system to reduce the negative effects on the educational equality, especially for marginalized groups and minorities. Pupils with a migration background are continuously overrepresented in the special schools. This could also be an effect of the teacher training, which is not efficiently professionalizing teachers for the diversity in German schools today.

Although “…the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was the model for the CRPD, which values independence and respect and the concept of reasonable accommodation” (USIDC - United States International Council on Disabilities; see comment on the Homepage), the CRPD couldn´t reach the same influence as it has yet to be ratified in the US. The US-Government signed the CRPD in 2009. On December 4, 2012 the US Senate considered the ratification of the CRPD but fell 5 votes short of the super-majority vote required (ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate). The media coverage of the US Senates failure to ratify the disability treaty was rather poor and the CRPD’s Senate leaders, the disability community and its allies remain committed to bringing the treaty up in the 113th Congress. (Homepage USIDC). Today in the US a highly qualified teacher is defined as “…a teacher who meets the standards of the definition in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation” (see Forlin 2010).

Demands for professional knowledge in special and inclusive education in the educational systems in Charlotte (US) and Ludwigsburg (Germany)

To see how different the demands of inclusive education are in the environment of the two teacher training universities in Ludwigsburg (Baden-Württemberg) and in Charlotte (North Carolina), see the following table:

Picture 2: Comparison of educational settings of pupils with special needs/ disabilities in Baden-Württemberg and North Carolina (2013/2014). Data Sources: Landesamt für Statistik BW and US Department of Education, ED Facts (SY 2013-2014)[6]. Calculations by Merz-Atalik 2015.

In Baden-Württemberg still about 71.9% of all children with the classification “special needs” are in special schools (with a small number of 3000 of all 52176, who are taught in special classes in the general schools[7]). This could be used as a rationalization for keeping the teacher training structure with the different school-form-related tracks and the individual track for special education teachers. While in North Carolina about 97.5% of all children with special needs are in inclusive settings in the general schools. Based on this high quota, the need of a teacher education reform, and an integration of special education and inclusive education in all teacher-training programs seems to be more obvious. In NC about 12.07% of all children receive special education support, whereas in BW it is only about 6.98% of all children. But the quota of children receiving special education support is rising over the last 10 years in Baden-Württemberg, too. The actual government therefore has decided to increase the amount of study places at all teacher education institutions with special education programs (these programs are offered at two of the six Universities of Education).

2. Teacher education programs and the subject of inclusion

2.1 Teacher Education in Germany, the federal State of Baden-Württemberg and at the University of Education Ludwigsburg

Teacher education in Germany is largely oriented in the structure and content on "type of school". The structures of the selective school system determine the structures of teacher education (see Merz-Atalik, 2014). “In Germany the teacher training is underlined by organizational and structural principles that often act as barriers to facing the pending reforms for a future-proof and inclusive educational system” (ibid.). So the Special Education programs are often still oriented at the goal, to educate “teachers for special schools.” First-year students of today in the teacher training courses will start their teaching careers earliest in about 6-7 years in school practice. “To professionalize for schools in the 21st century, educational structures, content and competencies shouldn´t be founded too deeply on the status quo of the 20th century” (ibid.).
Still, in many German Bundesländer teachers are trained in separate and very less inter-connected programs for the different teaching careers in the tri-apartheid-system[8]. The study programs reflect consistently the structures in today´s educational system. At the University of Education in Ludwigsburg teacher education programs are offered for: Primary-Schools, Lower Secondary Schools (with different profiles for the ones who are going to be teachers in Hauptschulen and Realschulen) and Special Schools[9]. The students meet each other in the courses of general education[10] and of the (school) content areas[11]. Even before the recording of their studies, the prospective student teachers are implicitly asked (with the application in one of the teaching positions offered) (see Merz-Atalik, 2014),
1. At what type of school do you want to start your professional career?
2. Which student population do you want to teach?
3. What is the scope in content areas and content area methods or educational science of the competencies you would like to acquire in the courses of your initial teacher training?
4. What kind of material and professional resources would you like to count on, at the schools you are going to work[12]?
5. What kind of status and what kind of salary are you aiming at[13]?
These more or less implicit selection-criteria for a teacher education program are contradictory to the expectation to focus on a diverse student-population or a setting of my professional work in inclusive schools, with a wider frame of heterogeneity in the classroom (especially in the learning progress, the performance and the needs) and the demand of an adapted curriculum and individualized support. Unsurprisingly a lot of teachers, who are educated in these teacher programs complain that “they are not professionalized for students with special needs and for dealing with diversity in learning”. For an understanding of the teacher profession as an individualized learning companion for all children and young pupils in an inclusive classroom, regardless of their learning status and needs, and a general openness to work in heterogeneous learning groups with a variety of abilities, we have to rethink and overcome the structures related to the segregated educational system today.
These negative training-effects can be illustrated with the special education teachers in the following picture (Determination of teacher education structures by the school structures and the different types of special school discipline structures in special education; Inspired by a poster for a poster-session during a conference for teacher education for inclusion in Brussels: Franzkowiak & Merz Atalik, 2011).

The two questions, “Which student-population?” and “Which school-type?” for example lead into the situation, that the whole study-program is focused on the special field. At the end the pre-service teacher in the picture “feels well prepared for teaching children with special needs

Picture 3: Teacher Education in Germany (Merz-Atalik 2014, 269; English version under Franzkowiak/ Merz-Atalik 2011).

in motor and intellectual development.” He lacks sufficient content area knowledge to teach the pupils related to the general curriculum, is missing the teacher-certification for teaching the “so called” general education students, and doesn´t feel prepared for the advantages in inclusive settings (without the cooperation with a general education teacher), like larger class sizes in general schools[14].

Many students decide on the basis of their limited content area skills to go into teaching positions and related programs of the initial teacher training of the so-called “lower education programs” and fail to recognize that teaching these “so-called” students with "a lower academic performance” or a “learning difficulty" definitely also requires a profound professional scientific and didactic training[15] in core content areas. In addition with the imaged structures of the educational system in teacher preparation programs the motives for the career choice which are influenced by secondary aspects (such as the provision of schools, the status of the certificate, salary and the associated performance requirements in the type of school, etc.) have often a greater impact, than primary and authentic motives or the individual personal competencies of the candidates. Thus, for example, factors like the reconciliation of work and family life (often a choice for the primary school career favor, because mainly primary schools are half-day-institutions in Germany), the lower performance orientation, more on individual support strategies oriented teaching of individuals in special schools (an argument for choosing the special education career) or the lower relevance of educational/ psychological skills in dealing with educational problems (in the upper secondary education) lead into the application for the different programs. The teacher education programs in Germany provide a kind of a “one-way-ticket,” who once finished a degree in a teacher program (with the final two State Exams or BA, MA), is reluctant to switch to another program again. The programs are about 4-5 years at the University and to get the final Second State certification as a teacher you would additionally have to go into the preparatory service for 18 months. Especially, when you have already started to teach in your field and you are employed as a Civil Servant you wouldn´t take the switch into another teaching-career into consideration (Merz-Atalik, 2014).
The KMK has published new standards for the teacher education programs in Germany during the last two years. These standards include the recommendation to integrate at least 6 ECTS[16] inclusive or special education related courses into the initial teacher education. So far most Universities in Germany have developed or are going to start implementing a special course based on the concept of the infusion model (see Stayton & McCollum, 2002) or the discrete model (Pugach & Blanton, 2009). These
…models refer to teacher education programs where minimal interaction takes place between teacher education faculty in general and special education and where the preservice curriculum in both general and special education contains coursework and clinical experiences that are most part unrelated to one another. In discrete programs, a student studying to obtain a general education teaching license might be required to take a stand-alone course in special education (ibid, 577).
Also in these models, there is little or no expectation for faculty to collaborate (ibid.).

2.2 At University of Education Ludwigsburg
At the University of Education Ludwigsburg the following teacher education programs are offered:

• Primary Education (since 2011 in a shared curriculum with Secondary education/ Hauptschule);
• Secondary Education (either Hauptschule or Realschule);
• Special Education;
• Elementary Education (is not considered as a teacher education program).

In Ludwigsburg with the new teacher training curriculum beginning in October 2015 there will be 3 ECTSP in the General Education Course I and another 3 ECTSP in the Educational Science III obligatory for all teacher education students. This is a new step, as in the last curricula Inclusion was not explicitly included as a subject. Also, related to the new standards of the KMK for all school-subjects/content areas, you´ll find competencies related to individualization, differentiation, and inclusive teaching in almost all content areas.
The idea of the survey is to do a follow-up-study over the next years and reflect the effects of the courses and inclusion-related competencies on the sentiments, concerns and attitudes of students in the teacher education programs in a comparison with students at UNC Charlotte, North Carolina.

2.3 In the US, the State of North Carolina and at University of North Carolina in Charlotte

Guidance for the preparation of teachers for students with special needs is provided by IDEA, state regulations, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and international standards of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). IDEA 2004 moved to align with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandating that special education teachers be highly qualified in their role. This high qualification refers to subject area expertise—an outcome of students with special needs being predominately served in general curriculum courses. CEC standards (approved by NCATE in 2012) provide tremendous guidance to teacher preparation programs. Although the actual word “Inclusion” does not appear in the language, CEC Initial Level Special Educator Preparation Standards are clear about the need for teachers to possess core subject area knowledge and skills in the area of specialized instruction. CEC establishes that the primary function of special education teachers “lies in the specialized professional knowledge and skills to individualize access to learning in both specialized and general curricula for individuals with exceptionalities” (p.2).
Due to severe shortages in qualified special education teachers, the United States has witnessed massive growth in alternative pathways to teaching students with special needs including alternative programs outside of universities and state-led initiatives to prepare teachers on “emergency” license status (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005). Despite the emergence of multiple paths to teaching students with special needs, CEC is clear that special education teachers must hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, demonstrate necessary pedagogical knowledge and skills in alignment with knowledge of appropriate subject matter and specialized curricula, and participate in an induction/mentoring process (Council for Exceptional Children, 2008).

2.4 At UNC Charlotte
The UNC Charlotte College of Education’s conceptual framework is explicit about the role of all future teachers in supporting inclusive classrooms and the needs of students with varying abilities and disabilities. With emphasis on teaching effectiveness, the College of Education provides guidance to future educators to have commitment to and knowledge of human development including factors associated with disability. Further, teachers are expected to demonstrate high expectations for all learners by building upon the strengths of students during instruction and making reasonable accommodations for students with special needs. The conceptual framework articulates that while all educators do not have or need to have equivalent expert knowledge of specialized instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities, all teachers must be willing to work collaboratively with teams of professionals to meet the needs of all individual students (O’Brien & Beattie, 2011).
Along with an introduction to teaching and schooling in the United States, all education majors in the College of Education take a required course on special education as an entry requirement to their selected major. The course (SPED 2100) is broadly defined as an introduction to students with special needs and emphasizes a foundational knowledge of the special education system in U.S. schools including the use of the I.E.P. to ensure the rights and service provision of students with disabilities. Further, pre-teaching majors are given a general overview of the disability categories served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the defining characteristics of those served disabilities. Finally, the course provides a philosophical and practical introduction to inclusive education with emphasis on accommodations in the general classroom and the basic foundations of supporting children with more significant academic and behavioral challenges.

ELED: Elementary majors at UNC Charlotte are exposed to themes of differentiated and inclusive education throughout their course of study as they progress toward licensure. This includes requirements to demonstrate evidence of differentiated instruction in their lesson planning activities throughout the program. The College of Education formalizes the training of these future elementary level teachers to address diverse needs by offering two full courses on the subject: Modifying Instruction for Diverse Learners: Urban Education (a course emphasizing inclusion in the context of multicultural education) and Modifying Instruction for Learners with Diverse Needs (a course focused on instructional strategies to support students with special education needs in inclusive classrooms). Each class places a strong emphasis on differentiated instruction. The special education course particularly emphasizes strategies for responding to the needs of students who fail to make progress in reading and those students who exhibit more significant behavioral challenges. 

Middle Grades Education: Like elementary education, majors in middle grades education are prepared for inclusive classrooms with the foundations course SPED 2100 and then further their experience with differentiated instruction in the course Modifying Instruction for Learners with Diverse Needs.

SPED: Special Education majors complete a rigorous sequence of courses dedicated to diagnostic and formative assessment of special needs in public schools, intensive intervention in reading, writing, and mathematics, and management of challenging behavior. In terms of preparation for inclusive classrooms, special education programs have been in transition for many years attempting to adapt the emerging role of special education teachers as part of a collaborative team of professionals serving the needs of students with disabilities primarily in general education classrooms as opposed to the traditional role of small group, separate classroom interventionists. In preparation for this contemporary role, special education majors take a course in consultation and collaboration as well as a course in content area instruction, which attempts to specifically address the role of special education teachers who co-teach core academic classes and serve as the source of specialized instruction that students might otherwise receive more directly in a “resource classroom.”

SPEL: An innovative response to current educational trends, the UNC Charlotte College of Education offers a dual program in Elementary Education and Special Education for the general curriculum in grades Kindergarten to 6th.  Majors in the SPEL program actually complete the core coursework for each of the majors allowing them to take those courses in special education that represent the true specialization—assessment, behavioral management, reading, writing, and math intervention—while still completing the traditional coursework to be a general elementary education teacher. Majors in this program experience both areas of preparation giving them knowledge of the traditional approach to teaching the elementary classroom for typically developing children along with the skills to adapt to the needs of students with special needs. The program was designed to prepare teachers for inclusive classrooms.

Secondary Education: In North Carolina, teachers of secondary schools are not required to be education majors to prepare for the teaching role. The emphasis of training for secondary teachers is the subject specialization whether that be chemistry, biology, English, history, mathematics, etc. Those interested in pursuing a role as a secondary teacher at UNC Charlotte actually complete a minor in secondary education. Even those future teachers pursuing a minor in education, however, will have relatively extensive preparation for students with special needs and inclusive classrooms. These students may opt to take the SPED 2100 course or take a general introduction to secondary schools course that includes considerable foundations in teaching diverse classrooms. As a notable follow-up, the College of Education created a special section of Modifying Instruction for Learners with Diverse Needs specific to secondary schooling. The course is a rigorous preparation for inclusive classrooms including topics in multicultural, urban education and special education. Students are introduced to a considerable breadth of academic strategies for reaching children struggling academically and behaviorally in secondary schools.

3. Sentiments, concerns and attitudes towards inclusive education – Survey results

In spring 2015, a comparative survey about teacher education students at the PH Ludwigsburg and at UNC Charlotte took place[17]. The aim and main focus was to record attitudes, opinions, and competencies or rather (self-)efficacy beliefs of prospective teachers with regard to inclusive education. The two main research questions have been: Which basic attitude toward educational inclusion do teacher education students have? To what extent do they feel prepared to teach in an inclusive setting and how do they estimate their own competencies in that case?
This matter should be elaborated with this empirical survey. Furthermore, factors should be established which influence attitudes, opinions, and (self-)efficacy beliefs. In the end, it became relevant whether there were differences concerning the question between both locations. The target group of the survey was teacher education students in their first two academic years. For the purpose of a longitudinal survey, it is planned to question both groups again at another point of time, to follow up the development over several semesters.

For the survey, two English scales “TEIP-R – The teacher efficacy for inclusive practices scale/ Revised” and the “SACIE-R – The sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education scale/ Revised” (Sharma, Loreman & Forlin 2011) were used. They have already been used internationally, for example in Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Ireland, Mexico, Hong-Kong, Pakistan, Indonesia and India (see: Feyerer 2014). For an Austrian research project in 2012-2013, a German version of those scales was worked out which was also used for this survey. The scale SACIE-R, the revised version with a four-stage answer scale test the following areas:

• Positive attitudes towards an inclusive school
• Concerns regarding the concrete realization of inclusive education as well as
• Negative sentiments concerning impairments

The scale TEIP-R (Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice) with a six-stage answer scale may cast light on following points: Belief in

• Efficacy to use inclusive instructions
• Efficacy in collaboration
• Efficacy in managing behavior

In both scales, a high score indicates a high characteristic value. Additionally, an additional page of items was added to both scales which asks for personal data (chosen teaching preparation program, age, gender, educational background) and personal experiences: e.g. level of coursework and training for educational work with students with disabilities, knowledge of local legislation or policy concerning children with disabilities or inclusive lessons at school, level of confidence in teaching children with disabilities or different levels of learning development as well as the level of experience teaching students with a disability or in heterogeneous groups.
For the survey in Ludwigsburg and Charlotte the TEIP-R was expanded by questions not only related to the teaching of children with special needs, the focus was the experience and the preparedness for inclusive teaching in heterogenous classrooms itself. These are not going to be concrete subject in this article, but will be focused during the follow-up survey.
The following table provides an overview of the spot checks of both universities (see Beuse 2015).

Preliminary summary: For some of the examined dimensions, the authors of this article assumed significant differences between the groups at both universities, for example in the concerns related to the future practice of inclusive teaching. Surprisingly there were much less differences between the students in Germany and the United States as originally assumed.

The evaluation of the additional page of the questionnaire with the added items led to the following results:
The students of UNC Charlotte considered the extent to which their teacher education related to the work with children with disabilities a bit higher than the German students. They also considered themselves to have slightly better knowledge about the local law, political guidelines regarding children with disabilities and about inclusive lessons at schools. Furthermore, American students rated their experience in teaching children with disabilities higher than the Germans did.

Significant differences existed in concerns regarding the concrete realization of inclusive education as well as in their sentiments (attitudes) towards impairments (disability). These are shown in the examined areas of SACIE scale. At both universities the reached average result was over the theoretical mean of 2.5 for the concerns. This indicates there are widespread concerns regarding the concrete realization, at least to a certain extent, even if they are not extremely distinctive. With regard to negative sentiments (attitudes), both averages are obviously under the theoretical mean of 2.5, so here a rather positive attitude can be expected.

In all three dimensions of the TEIP, both universities reached scale averages well above the theoretical mean of 3.5. The teacher-training students of University of Education Ludwigsburg and University North Carolina at Charlotte therefore seem to have quite a strong belief in their efficacy in the areas of inclusive instructional practice, collaboration and behavior management.

In the first two dimensions of the TEIP Scale (see below), high significant but very low differences exist - the American students consider their efficacy continuously a bit higher than the Germans did.

To reflect on the causes for the detected differences, it is possible that the different amount of people in the sample groups of both universities might play a role in this case. Influential factors on examined dimensions were also of great interest. The following points are a comparative summary.

• Gender, number of years in the program, age, as well as highest level of education completed before the teacher education program couldn’t be identified as important influential factors on the examined dimensions of both scales.  
• At PH Ludwigsburg, the chosen teacher-training program matters as an important influential factor to both scales. The students of Special Education show higher positive attitudes, and less concerns and sentiments than the students of the other teacher training programs. Furthermore they claimed to have more efficacy to use inclusive instruction, in collaboration and in managing behavior. At UNCC significant differences specific to the chosen teacher education program could only be examined for the SACIE scale. The students of Secondary Education reached the highest level concerning the attitudes. The students of Special Education showed the fewest concerns and the group of Middle Grade education showed negative sentiments most of all.
• Substantial previous experiences with persons with disabilities played a big role for the group of the PH Ludwigsburg students. They contain distinctness at all dimensions. So, more previous experiences meant higher positive attitudes, less concerns and sentiments as well as a higher belief in the three efficacy dimensions of the TEIP scale. At UNCC such previous experiences only had an influence on the sentiments.
• The assessed level of course-work regarding working in heterogeneous learning groups had an effect on both universities with regard to the concerns as well as efficacy in collaboration and in managing behavior. A higher assessed level of course work led to: less concerns and a higher belief in efficacy in collaboration and in managing behavior. The assessed level of course-work regarding teaching children with disabilities influenced the concerns at PHL and UNCC, at PHL also the negative attitudes as well as the efficacy in collaboration. If the level of coursework was assessed high, there were less concerns, a more positive attitude and a higher belief regarding efficacy in collaboration.
• Greater knowledge about the local legal legislation or policy to inclusive education at schools had an impact in the group of Ludwigsburg students on all examined dimensions of both scales, excluding efficiency in managing behavior. A greater knowledge meant a more positive attitude towards inclusive education, less concerns regarding the concrete realization and less negative sentiments towards the subject of impairment. Furthermore, a stronger belief in efficacy to use inclusive instruction and in collaboration. The same could be found for knowledge of the local legislation or policy as it pertains to children with disabilities. At UNCC, the extent of knowledge about legislation regarding inclusive education only had influence on two efficiency dimensions. A greater knowledge meant a higher belief in self-efficacy to use inclusive instruction and in managing behavior. The level of knowledge of legislation or policy concerning children with disabilities (besides inclusive education policies) didn’t have any influence on any dimension of SACIE-R or TEIP-R scale.
• Deducing the survey result that at UNCC important competencies regarding inclusive education (e.g. team-teaching, diagnostic and inclusive didactics[18]) are momentarily more often and more extensively discussed than in the courses at the PH Ludwigsburg.

The most influential factors (of all or almost all analyzed dimensions) in both locations were:

• Level of confidence to teach children with disabilities and children with different learning developments and performance in a heterogeneous group.
• Experiences teaching children with disabilities.

A higher level of experience in teaching children with disabilities and/or in heterogeneous learning-groups is accompanied by a higher level of confidence concerning this matters.

4. Preliminary conclusions

Notably in summarizing the data is the fact that some significant, but only low differences could be considered between the teacher-education students at PH Ludwigsburg and at UNC Charlotte concerning the investigated dimensions.

Furthermore, it will be indispensable to discuss more extensive fundamental questions of inclusive education and the different and numerous competencies concerning inclusive teaching – independent of the chosen teacher training program (especially in Germany). Only teachers who feel confident in dealing with this new task can be a guarantor for the upcoming reform of the educational system in accordance with the UN CRPD § 24. We do have to deepen our knowledge about the concrete effects of teacher education (courses) on the attitudes and efficacy of teachers and with it, we do have to find evidences or changes in curriculum and structure of teacher education programs worldwide.
Upon reflection of the somewhat limited differences between the data compiled from the students of UNC Charlotte when compared to the students of the University of Education in Ludwigsburg, it is quite notable that the American data does not reflect the substantial differences one might anticipate given the greater amount of coursework and political history favoring inclusive education in the United States. Perhaps the requirement of basic coursework in “special needs” and “inclusive education” may not be sufficient to produce dramatic differences in the attitudes and self-efficacy of future teachers. Specifically, many U.S. teachers cite meeting the needs of children with special needs, management of challenging behavior in heterogeneous classroom, and differentiation of instruction as the greatest sources of stress in the classroom. Despite considerable trends favoring a philosophical orientation of inclusive education, the U.S. classroom continues to struggle with actualization of this philosophy in practical terms. It should be noted the U.S. students in the secondary minor program expressing greater concerns have less coursework in inclusive education than their peers and reflect a system of American secondary education that has not adapted or changed to mirror the diversity of contemporary society. Secondary schools in general in the U.S. remain quite traditional in their methods. As such, it is logical that U.S. students might rate their efficacy more highly only when they’ve seen differentiation and inclusive education executed with skill within the context of secondary education. Given trends in high-stakes testing and an increasingly uniform standard of performance for secondary school completion reflected in the Common Core Standards, students in teacher preparation may be in the minority to have witnessed truly heterogeneous classrooms in which the philosophy of inclusive, differentiated instruction is in fully in practice. Given these challenges, it may be the case that American students have a greater level of comfort with “inclusion” as a reflection of societal norms, but are not at all so far ahead of their German counterparts in achieving this goal in American schools.

One conclusion of the survey - among others -was, that in the future it will be very important to increase the level of confidence of the teacher training students of all programs in teaching children with disabilities and pupils with different level of learning development and performance in heterogeneous groups and inclusive settings. For this, it will be necessary to enable numerous and varied experiences in teaching students with disabilities in inclusive settings during the teacher training programs.

5. References

Bertelsmannstiftung (2015) (Hrsg.): Inklusion in Deutschland. Daten und Fakten. Prof. Dr. Klaus Klemm im Auftrag der Bertelsmannstiftung. URL: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Studie_IB_Klemm-Studie_Inklusion_2015.pdf (Download 1.2016)
Beuse, Kira (2015): Einstellungen, Kompetenzen und Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen von Lehramtsstudierenden zur inklusiven Bildung – ein Vergleich zwischen der PH Ludwigsburg und der UNC Charlotte. Wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit an der PH Ludwigsburg; unveröffentlicht.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2012). Council for Exceptional Children Initial Preparation Standards. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.cec.sped.org/.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252.
Feyerer, Ewald et al. (2013): Inklusive Bildung. Einstellungen und Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden und LehrerInnen für die Umsetzung inklusiver Bildung. Deutsche Version SACIE 2013 & TEIP 2013. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript.
Feyerer, Ewald/ Dlugosch, Andrea/ Prammer-Semmler, Eva/ Niedermair, Claudia/ Hecht, Petra (2014): Einstellungen und Kompetenzen von LehramtstudentInnen und LehrerInnen für die Umsetzung inklusiver Bildung. Forschungsprojekt BMUKK-20.040/0011-I/7/2011. Endbericht, April 2014. URL: http://ph-ooe.at/fileadmin/Daten_PHOOE/Inklusive_Paedagogik_neu/Sammelmappe1.pdf (Download 1.2016)
Forlin, Chris (2010): Teacher education for inclusion. Chapter 11. In: Rose, Richard (Ed.): Confronting obstacles to inclusion: international responses to developing inclusive education. New York : Routledge. 155-169
Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte (Ed.) (2014): Inklusive Bildung: Schulgesetze auf dem Prüfstand. Authors: Sven Mißling / Oliver Ückert. URL: http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrech-te.de/uploads/tx_commerce/Studie_Inklusive_Bildung_Schulgesetze_auf_dem_Pruefstand.pdf. (Download 1.2016)
Gable, R. A., & Hendrickson, J. M. (2000). Teaching all the students: A mandate for educators. In J. S. Choate (Ed.), Successful inclusive teaching: Proven ways to detect and correct special needs. (pp. 2-17). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gerber, Michael M. (2012): Emerging issues in teacher education for inclusion in the United States. In: Forlin, Chris: Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective. New York, NY, Routledge. 71-79
Hardman, M. L., & Nagle, K. (2004). Public policy: From access to accountability in special education. In A. M. Sorrells, H. J. Rieth & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability. (pp. 277-292). Boston: Pearson.
Hehir, T. (2006). New direction in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and
practice. Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA.
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the individuals with disabilities education act. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 324-339.
Kunz, André/ Luder, Reto/ Moretti, Marta (2010): Die Messung von Einstellungen zur Integration (EZI). In: Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 2. Jg./ Heft 3, 83-94
Merz-Atalik, Kerstin (2014): Lehrer_innenbildung für Inklusion – „Ein Thesenanschlag[19]“. In: Schuppener, Saskia et al. (Hrsg.): Inklusion und Chancengleichheit. Diversity im Spiegel von Bildung und Didaktik. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, 266-277
Merz-Atalik, Kerstin & Franzkowiak, Thomas (2011): Poster zur Präsentation bei der Abschlußveranstaltung des European Agency Projektes „Teacher Education for Inclusion“ in Brüssel. Unveröffentlicht.
O’Brien, C. & Beattie, J.R. (2011). Teaching students with special needs: A guide for future
educators. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. C. (2004). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Powell, Justin W. (2011): Barriers to Inclusion. Special Education in the United States and Germany. Yale Series in Sociology. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers
Pugach, Marleen C./Blanton, Linda P. (2009): A framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 25. 575-582
Sharma, Umesh/ Loreman, Tim/ Forlin, Chris (2011): Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. In: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Heft 12, 12-21.
Smith, J.D. (2004). The historical contexts of special education: Framing our
understanding of contemporary issues. In A. M. Sorrells, H. J. Rieth & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability. (pp. 1-15). Boston: Pearson.
Stayton, V.D. /McCollum, J. (2002): Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education 25. 211-218
UN United Nations Committee of the rights of persons with disabilities (2015): Concluding observations on the initial report of Germany. Adopted by the Committee at its thirteenth session (25 March–17 April 2015). URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/096/31/PDF/G1509631.pdf?OpenElement (Download 1.2016)
Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E., Bradley, R., & Justesen, T. (2004). Contemporary legal issues in special education. In A. M. Sorrells, H. J. Rieth & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability. (pp. 16-37). Boston: Pearson.