Asia Pacific Educ. Rev.
(2015) 16:653–662
DOI 10.1007/s12564-015-9405-6
Understanding teachers’ concerns about inclusive education
Monika Yadav1 • Ajay Das2 • Sushama Sharma1 • Ashwini Tiwari3
Received: 24 January 2015 / Revised: 30 October 2015 / Accepted: 5 November 2015 / Published online: 12 November 2015
Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2015
Abstract This study examined the concerns of regular
elementary school teachers in Gurgaon, India, in order to
work with students with disabilities in inclusive education
settings. A total of 175 teachers responded to a two-part
questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. The data indicated that the teachers in
Gurgaon, overall, were a little concerned about imple-
menting inclusive education in their schools. Significant
difference existed in teacher concerns whether they taught
in government versus privately managed schools. Impli-
cations are discussed to address teacher concerns for
inclusive education in India.
Keywords Concerns
Inclusion
Teachers
Disabilities

India
Introduction
Educational systems across the world have been experi-
encing major changes in the last four decades. One of them
is related to the increase in the diversity of school popu-
lations (Hettiarachchi and Das 2014). Classrooms are
becoming more heterogeneous as a result of a worldwide
movement toward the inclusion of students with special
educational needs within ordinary or general education
settings. It should be noted that although the inclusion
& Ajay Das
adas@murraystate.edu
1
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, India
2
3239 Alexander Hall, College of Education and Human
Services, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071, USA
3
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA
movement exists in both developed and developing coun-
tries, the implementation of this school change varies not
only among nations, but also within nations (i.e., states and
districts). This is especially the case in India where there
are vast differences in urban and rural areas, states that
have per capita incomes significantly higher than those
where a vast majority of the population lives below poverty
line and the states in north-eastern part of India that have
not benefitted as much with the recent economic boom.
While inclusion as a theory has been largely welcomed,
there is a school of thought which expresses reservations as
to whether the ordinary classroom can provide optimal
quality education for children with disabilities. A decisive
issue is how students can be ensured optimal education in
accordance with her/his capabilities and needs. But it is
widely recognized that segregated education that was being
largely followed the world over during the eighties and
early nineties has not brought about the desired results
(Ince 2012). Although an earlier common misconception
was that inclusion is just about placement of students with
diverse learning needs in general education classrooms,
more recently, researchers argue that it is much more than
placement (e.g., Winter 2006). It is about the quality of the
school experience and about how far they are helped to
learn, achieve and participate fully in the life of the school
(Pachigar et al. 2011). The success of the inclusion
movement depends on many factors, including needed
revisions and changes in policies, regulatory systems and
administrative structures, and the availability of materials
and resources. In particular, it depends on the foot soldiers,
namely skilled classroom teachers.
The hallmark of inclusive education is the teachers’
willingness to accept students with special needs. Imple-
menting inclusive education is not an easy task and
requires significant changes to facilitate improvements in
123
654
the way teachers work in the classrooms. Literature indi-
cates that success in implementing effective inclusive
teaching practices is contingent on teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs. In addition, their concerns need to be systemati-
cally addressed before the foundation of a successful
inclusion program can be laid (Bradshaw and Mundia
2006; Oswald and Swart 2011).
Inclusive education movement in India
The origin of inclusive education in India can be traced
back to 1974 when for the first time the scheme of Inte-
grated Education of Disabled Children (IEDC) was
implemented by the central Government of India (GOI) in
selected blocks of the country. A decade later, the National
Policy on Education (NPE) in 1986 stressed the removal of
disparities in education, while attending to the specific
needs of those who had been denied equality so far
(Ministry of Human Resource Development 1986). The
objective was to integrate individuals with the physical and
cognitive impairment with the general community as equal
partners and to prepare them to reach their full potential.
To fulfill the provisions for children with disabilities in
the NPE, the government launched the Project for Inte-
grated Education Development (PIED) with assistance
from UNICEF in 1986. The implementation of PIED in 10
demonstration sites in rural and urban contexts encouraged
policy-makers to include children with disabilities in 1992.
In practice, children with multiple and severe disabilities
were also integrated in project areas as a consequence of
the lack of special schools, and through the commitment to
providing education for all. Evaluation of PIED showed
higher retention rates of children with disabilities, and a
positive change in teacher practices.
The GOI enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act in 1995 which called for the education of children with
disabilities up to the age of 18 years in an appropriate
environment. The Act granted ‘equal opportunities, pro-
tection of rights and full participation’ to people with dis-
abilities. It included a number of provisions to promote the
inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools.
Although there was no specific mention of inclusive edu-
cation in the PWD Act, it was referred to be a breakthrough
legislation relating to education and economic rehabilita-
tion of people with disabilities in India (Das et al. 2013;
Bhatnagar and Das 2014; Shah 2005). The economic
rehabilitation section under this act stipulated that certain
positions in various government departments and in the
public sector was to be identified, and 3 % seats were to be
reserved for people with disabilities. In 1999, the
Government passed the National Trust for Welfare of
123
M. Yadav et al.
Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation
and Multiple Disabilities Act especially for the rehabilita-
tion of people with disabilities.
A massive nationwide program Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
(SSA) was launched in 2002–2003, which aimed to achieve
universal elementary education for all. Efforts within SSA
were underscored by effective decentralization, sustainable
financing, cost-effective strategies for universalization,
community-owned planning and implementation, and
focus on girls, marginalized caste groups and ethnic
minorities. Inclusive education was an integral component
of SSA. SSA program was upgraded to Rashtriya Mad-
hyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) in 2009 with the objec-
tive to enhance access to secondary education and to
improve its quality. It was envisaged to achieve an
enrollment rate of 75 % at secondary stage within 5 years
of implementation of the scheme by providing a secondary
school within a reasonable distance of any habitation. The
other objectives include improving quality of education
imparted at secondary level through making all secondary
schools conform to prescribed norms, removing gender,
socio-economic and disability barriers, providing universal
access to secondary level education by 2017 and achieving
universal retention by 2020 (Das and Shah 2014).
Another significant legislation, The Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act was passed in
2009. It offered every child between 6 and 14 years of age
a right to an appropriate full-time education. The RTE Act
proposed free and compulsory education, making it binding
on all public and private schools to reserve 25 % of their
seats for children from ‘‘disadvantaged sections’’. Sec-
tion 3 of the Act stated that ‘‘disadvantaged sections’’
include children with disabilities. A bill was passed by the
parliament of India in 2012 amending the RTE Act. This
bill allowed children with autism, cerebral palsy, mental
retardation and multiple disabilities the benefit of choosing
to study from home. The bill also emphasized that the
‘‘home schooling option’’ should not become an instrument
for schools to not accept children with disabilities.
Theoretical framework
This study was guided by Ajzen’s theory of reasoned
action (Azjen 1991). This is a widely used theoretical
model to determine behavior arising from attitudes and has
been used in research involving attitudes or perceptions
toward individuals with disabilities (Hodge and Jansma
2000). The theory of reasoned action suggests that an
individual’s behavior is determined by his or her intention
to engage in the behavior. In the case of classroom teachers
in Gurgaon including students with disabilities in their
classrooms, it will be the result of the individual’s: (1)
Understanding teachers’ concerns about inclusive education
attitudes: an individual’s beliefs about the attributes and
outcomes of including students with disabilities in their
classrooms weighted by their evaluations of these attri-
butes or outcomes. (2) Subjective norms: an individual’s
beliefs regarding important others’ approval or disap-
proval of inclusive education, weighted by their motiva-
tion to comply with these important others’ beliefs. (3)
Perceived behavioral control: an individual’s perceived
control over the implementation of inclusive education
(knowledge of strategies). It can therefore be said that the
more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the
greater the perceived control, the stronger should be the
person’s intention to perform the behavior (inclusive
education in this case). Teacher concerns can be under-
stood as primarily a product of the first and the third
factor and will impact the implementation of inclusive
education programs.
Teacher concerns about inclusive education
There have been several attempts to identify teacher con-
cerns about inclusive education in India. Our literature
review yielded four research articles that attempted to
identify teacher concerns about inclusion in India. In the
earliest study, Sharma (2001) examined the concerns of
310 primary school principals and 484 teachers working in
government schools in Delhi. He found that both principals
and teachers were concerned about the lack of resources,
the lack of funding and the lack of training to implement
inclusive education. Shah (2005) conducted a survey of
560 school teachers working in government schools in
Ahmedabad and reported a moderate level of concerns
among these teachers. The teachers were most concerned
about lack of infrastructural resources and least concerned
about lack of social acceptance of students with disabilities
in inclusive education classrooms. Significant differences
existed in teacher concerns based on the following back-
ground variables: gender, qualifications in special educa-
tion, teaching experience and number of students with
disabilities in class. Another research was conducted by
Bhatnagar (2006) with a sample of 470 regular school
teachers drawn from schools run by a private management
in Delhi. The researcher reported a ‘moderate levels of
concerns’ among the teachers for the implementation of
inclusive education. The teachers reported a number of
concerns including poor infrastructure, financial limita-
tions, large class sizes, lack of trained teachers and nega-
tive attitudes of teachers among others. The fourth study
was conducted by Sharma et al. (2009) with 478 pre-ser-
vice teachers enrolled at Pune University in the state of
Maharashtra. Respondents in this study also indicated a
moderate level of concerns about including students with
655
special needs in their classrooms. The authors further
reported that ‘participants were most concerned about lack
of resources (e.g., lack of funds, lack of para-professional
staff and inappropriate infrastructure)’ (p. 326).
In addition to the review of literature conducted in this
area in India, an extensive review of literature was con-
ducted to locate similar research on teacher concerns in
overseas countries. The search yielded a number of
research studies that have been done using CIES or a
modified version of it. For example, Sharma et al. (2006)
identified the concerns of the pre-service teachers in four
countries. The researchers reported concern mean scores of
2.21, 2.25, 2.62 and 2.68 for the teachers from Canada,
Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong respectively. In
another study, Bradshaw and Mundia (2006) found the
concern mean score of 2.70 among 166 pre-service
teachers in Brunei. Ahsan et al. (2012) reported a concern
mean score of 2.67 among pre-service teachers in Ban-
gladesh. Forlin and Chambers (2011) reported that pre-
service teachers in Hong Kong indicated least level of
concerns about non-acceptance of students with disabilities
by their peers without disabilities in general education
classrooms followed by their lack of knowledge of
instructional techniques in meeting the needs these stu-
dents. The teachers were most concerned about inadequate
resources and a lack of staff to support inclusion. After
conducting a survey of 126 physical education pre-service
teachers regarding inclusive education in Botswana, Man-
gope et al. (2013) reported that the teachers were con-
cerned about the lack of knowledge and skills required for
inclusion, lack of time, lack of resources and the negative
impact on students without disabilities. Fayez et al. (2011)
conducted interviews of 20 preservice early childhood
teachers in Jordan and reported that the teachers ‘‘were
concerned about the poor building facilities and the lack of
resources, support, and adequate services for inclusion.’’
(p. 334).
In addition to the research studies that specifically
explored teacher concerns, a number of researchers in India
have explored teacher preparedness for inclusive educa-
tion. For example, Jangira et al. (1995) conducted a survey
of teachers in seven states and reported that the teachers
lacked specific skills in meeting the unique needs of stu-
dents with disabilities. Das (2001), after conducting a
survey of 223 primary and 130 secondary regular school
teachers in Delhi, reported that a vast majority of the
teachers had limited or low level of competence in working
with students with disabilities. Further, nearly 70 % of the
teachers indicated not receiving training in special educa-
tion. Singal (2008) explored variables associated with
inclusion and reported their impact on the implementation
of inclusive education in India. The researcher conducted a
qualitative study utilizing teacher interviews in schools
123
656 M. Yadav et al.

located in Delhi. Participants in this study reported large 3. Teachers’ concerns for academic standard of the
class size as a major barrier in the implementation of classrooms (Factor III), and
inclusion programs in their schools. 4. Teachers’ concerns for the workload in inclusive
In so far as the state of Haryana is concerned, our lit- settings (Factor IV).
erature review did not yield any research that systemati-
cally focused on identifying teachers’ perceptions
Adaptation of the survey instrument
regarding various aspects of inclusive education, including
their concerns. This study was conducted to fill that void in
The CIES was adapted for the use in this study. Initially, 20
the literature. The objectives of this study were:
items were added to the scale aligning it to the recent
1. To identify the concerns of elementary regular school literature and socio-politico-educational situations in India.
teachers in Gurgaon regarding the inclusion of students The majority of the items that were generated focused on
with disabilities into their classrooms; concerns of educators to include all learners by using
2. To determine whether significant relationships exist inclusive strategies rather than a narrow focus on one or
between the teachers’ concerns and selected factors in more disabilities.
their personal and professional backgrounds. The ratings of the scale were also modified. The new
scale consists of four point rating ranging from 0 to 3,
where 0 = Not at all concerned, 1 = A little concerned,
2 = moderately concerned, and 3 = Extremely concerned.
Method
For each item, respondents could indicate their level of
concern by choosing a response, which best reflected their
A survey design was utilized in this study. A two-part
feelings, ranging from Not at all Concerned to Extremely
questionnaire was used for data collection. Part-one of the
Concerned. Hinkin and Tracey’s (1999) approach was
questionnaire gathered information about background
followed to determine the content validity of the modified
variables of the respondents. Part-two employed a modified
instrument. This approach involved gauging agreement
version of the Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale
among experts about the applicability of an item to mea-
(CIES) developed by Sharma and Desai (2002). CIES is a
sure a construct. A number of experts including university
21 item Likert scale. The CIES is designed to measure the
professors and practitioners working in the classroom (e.g.,
concerns of school principals and teachers regarding the
special education teachers and general education teachers)
inclusion of students with disabilities. The scale consists of
were asked to comment on the usefulness of each item in
a four point Likert-type classification with responses
measuring concerns of teachers in implementing inclusive
labeled extremely concerned (4), very concerned (3), a
practices. The experts rated 33 items as of high and 8 items
little concerned (2) not concerned at all (1) to measure the
as of moderate or low importance. They also suggested a
level of educators’ concerns. The validity of the CIES was
few terminological changes and the rephrasing of a few
addressed by Sharma and Desai (2002) through a panel of
items in the scale. A second draft of the Concerns scale,
experts. The reliability coefficient for the scale was found
consisting of the 33 items which were rated highly by the
to be 0.91.
experts, was produced. The scale was returned to the
The concern score for an individual is calculated by
experts for final review and confirmation. The revised scale
adding all of the responses on each item. The CIES yields a
was administered to the participants from 35 school of
total-scale score that is obtained by adding the value of
district Gurgaon. The data from 175 participants were
responses on each item. An educator’s concern score on
analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
CIES may range from 21 to 84; with a high score on CIES
(SPSS) software. Factor analysis was conducted for the
indicating that the respondent is highly concerned about
entire scale. At this stage, 10 more items were dropped as
including the students with disabilities in the classrooms
the item loadings were extremely weak to the factors.
compared with those respondents with lower scores. The
Therefore, the final scale consisted of 23 items (Please see
respondent who marks ‘not concerned at all’ in all the 21
‘‘Appendix’’). The final scale was renamed Concerns about
questions gets a score of 21; while a respondent who marks
Inclusive Education Scale—Revised (CIES-R). Reliability
‘very concerned’ in all the 21 items obtains a score of 84.
of the scale was computed using Cronbach’s alpha as a
Sharma and Desai (2002) indicated that the CIES has four
measure of internal consistency. The reliability of the scale
factors that include:
was found to be 0.88 which suggested that the scale had an
1. Teachers’ concerns for resources (Factor I), acceptable level of reliability for research purposes
2. Teachers’ concerns for acceptance of special students (DeVellis 2003). The following five factors were obtained
(Factor II), and used in data analysis:

123
Understanding teachers’ concerns about inclusive education 657

1. Classroom-related concerns (9 items) Table 1 Concern factor scores of CIES-R

2. School-related concerns (4 items) Factor Concern score SD
3. Self-related concerns (4 items)
4. Academic achievement related concerns (3 items) Classroom-related concerns 13.73 5.37
5. Management-related concerns (3 items) School-related concerns 6.19 2.41
Self-related concerns 6.20 2.78
Academic achievement related concerns 4.87 1.68
Participants and settings
Management-related concerns 3.99 2.03

Participants in this study were general education teachers

working in elementary schools (government and private) in
Table 2 Mean factor scores of CIES-R
Gurgaon district of Haryana state in India. Twenty-one
government schools and 14 private schools were randomly Factor Mean factor score Rank
selected to be included in this study. Five teachers from Classroom-related concerns 1.52 4
each school were invited to participate in the study. Per- School-related concerns 1.54 3
mission from central administration (e.g., government Self-related concerns 1.55 2
schools) was sought to conduct the study in their schools. Academic achievement related concerns 1.62 1
In case of private schools, permission was obtained from
Management-related concerns 1.33 5
school administration to conduct a survey of the teachers in
their schools. The assistance of school administrators was
then sought in the selection of the teachers. Informed It can, therefore, be concluded that the teachers in Gurgaon
consent was obtained from the teachers prior to them were a little concerned about including students with dis-
completing the questionnaires. Teachers completed the abilities in their classrooms (Table 1).
questionnaire at a place convenient to them; usually in In order to further understand teachers’ relative concerns
teacher work rooms. The questionnaires were made avail- on various factors of CIES-R, the means and standard
able to the teachers in either Hindi or English. In some deviations for the five factors were computed and rank
instances, the survey questionnaires were given to the ordered from the highest mean scores to the lowest mean
principal or to the principal’s designee and collected by the scores. Table 2 indicates that the teachers in Gurgaon
first author at a later mutually agreed upon date. Data indicated lowest level of concerns for the factor ‘‘man-
collection was completed within a 4 weeks period. The agement-related concerns’’. The highest level of concerns
teachers were assured of the anonymity of their response. A expressed by these teachers was for the factor ‘‘academic
total of 175 completed questionnaires was obtained yield- achievement related concerns’’.
ing a return rate of 100 %. Such high rate of return was
possible since the first author spent a great deal of time at Teachers’ concerns according to background
each school site ensuring all teachers completed their variables
survey.
A concern mean score was obtained for each of the sub-
categories of the background variable. A t test or analysis
Results of variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine whether
a significant difference existed in teachers’ concerns
Data obtained in this study were analyzed using descriptive according to the background variables.
and inferential statistics. Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) was used for data analysis. In order to Gender
determine the teachers’ concerns regarding inclusive edu-
cation of students with disabilities, their responses on Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations (SD) of
CIES-R were examined. The means for each of the items of concerns for male and female teachers in Gurgaon. The
the CIES-R were computed. A mean score of 1.0 or above
would indicate teachers’ concerns for an item; whereas a Table 3 Comparison of teachers’ concerns based on their gender
mean score below 1.0 would indicate that the teachers are
Gender N Mean SD t
not concerned about that item. A mean score between 1 and
2 would indicate a little concern and a mean score between Male 28 33.39 10.297 -0.845
2 and 3 would indicate a higher level of concern. The Female 147 35.36 11.471
concerns mean score of the teachers in this study was 1.51.

123
658 M. Yadav et al.

Table 4 Comparison of teacher concerns based on their employment Table 6 Comparison of teachers’ concerns based on teaching
setting experience
Type of school N Mean SD t value Sum of squares df Mean square F

Government 100 32.76 12.376 -3.173* Between groups 217.355 2 108.677 0.852
Private 75 38.09 8.840 Within groups 21948.279 172 127.606
* P \ 0.01 Total 22165.634 174

mean concern score for male teachers was 33.39, and for significant. Table 6 shows that the F value is 0.852. This
female teachers it was 35.36. Female teachers in Gurgaon value is non-significant at both 0.05 and 0.01 levels of
were more concerned than male teachers. Also, Table 3 significance. Therefore, there is not a significant difference
shows the t value (-0.845) which is not significant either at in the teachers’ concerns based on the length of their
0.01 or 0.05 levels of significance. This means there is no teaching experience.
significant difference in the concerns of male and female
elementary school teachers in Gurgaon regarding the Educational qualifications
inclusion of students with disabilities.
Table 7 shows that the mean concerns of the teachers with
Type of school taught different educational qualifications, e.g., below graduate,
graduate, post graduate and above post graduate were
Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations of 34.06, 34.44, 35.15 and 40.40, respectively.
teachers’ concerns employed in government or private Table 8 shows that the F value is 0.864 which is not
schools in Gurgaon. The mean concern score for govern- significant at either 0.05 or 0.01 levels of significance.
ment school teachers was 32.76, and for private school Therefore, there is no significant difference in the teachers’
teachers it was 38.09. This shows that private school concerns based on their educational qualifications.
teachers are more concerned than government school
teachers. A t test was conducted to determine whether the
observed difference was statistically significant. A t value Discussion
(-3.173) was significant at 0.01 level of significance. This
means that the observed difference in the teachers’ con- The GOI has been emphasizing inclusive education for
cerns was statistically significant. students with disabilities in its policy and programs in the
last four decades. The result of these efforts has been an
Length of teaching experience increasing number of students participating in mainstream
classrooms. These efforts also aimed for infusing research-
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of based knowledge of special education and the systematic
teachers’ concerns based on the length of their teaching
experience. The mean concern score of all 175 teachers Table 7 Teachers’ concerns based on their educational qualifications
was 35.05 whereas that of teachers in different teaching
Educational qualification N Mean SD
experience groups of 0–10, 11–20, and above 21 years
were 36.06, 34.08 and 33.46, respectively. This shows a Below graduate 18 34.06 13.162
gradual decline in teacher concerns as they obtain more Graduate 72 34.44 11.425
experience in teaching. Post graduate 75 35.15 10.595
ANOVA was conducted to determine whether observed Above post graduate 10 40.40 12.085
differences in teachers’ mean concerns were statistically Total 175 35.05 11.287

Table 5 Teachers’ concerns based on their teaching experience

Table 8 Comparison of teachers’ concerns based on their educa-
Experience in years N Mean SD tional qualifications

0–10 years 94 36.06 10.210 Sum of squares df Mean square F

11–20 years 53 34.08 11.876 Between groups 331.125 3 110.375 0.864
Above 21 years 28 33.46 13.498 Within groups 21834.509 171 127.687
Total 175 35.05 11.287 Total 22165.634 174

123
Understanding teachers’ concerns about inclusive education
application of sound instructional practices for the educa-
tion of students with disabilities in general education
classrooms. A natural corollary of these developments is
that general education teachers would be required to pos-
sess the appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills in order
to fulfill their new roles and responsibilities. A number of
researchers argue that teachers who are favorably disposed
toward the inclusion of students with disabilities employ
more effective instructional strategies than those who hold
negative attitudes (Forlin and Chambers 2011; Forlin et al.
2008; Oswald and Swart 2011; Pivik et al. 2002). Other
researchers have also indicated that there is a positive
correlation between supportive teacher attitudes and
enhanced performance by students with disabilities who
were included in regular education classrooms (Ahsan et al.
2012; Shah 2005). Shah et al. (2014) further argue by
saying:
The positive attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of
teachers regarding implementation of inclusive edu-
cation programs in their classrooms, therefore,
become a potent force if schools are to reduce the
disparities between the statutory mandate to provide
for the education of all children and their actual level
of current service delivery. (p. 9)
The purpose of this study was to determine regular
elementary school teachers’ perceived concerns about
including students with disabilities in their classrooms.
Using CIES-R, it was found that the participants in this
study were a little concerned (mean = 1.51) about
including students with disabilities in their classrooms. The
results of this study were in line with the findings of earlier
research conducted on this topic (Ahsan et al. 2012; Forlin
and Chambers 2011).
It should be noted here that CIES-R consists of a four-
point rating scale ranging from 0-3, where 0 = not at all
concerned, 1 = a little concerned, 2 = moderately con-
cerned, and 3 = extremely concerned. Other researchers
that have used either CIES or a modified version of it in
India namely Sharma (2001), Shah (2005), Bhatnagar
(2006) and Sharma et al. (2009) also consist of a four-point
rating scale. However, the survey instruments ranged on a
scale of 1–4, where 1 = not concerned at all, 2 = little
concerned, 3 = very concerned, and 4 = extremely con-
cerned. The following total-scale mean concern scores
were obtained by the researchers listed in the previous
sentence, respectively: 2.20, 2.31, 2.37 and 2.25. There-
fore, although a lower numerical score was obtained in this
study, realistically it was a little higher than the previous
findings. Causes for these increased levels of concerns
among teachers in Gurgaon, therefore, need to be explored.
In addition, Shah (2005) used a modified version of
CIES namely Concerns about Inclusive Scale—Gujarati
659
(CIES-G) and reported that the teachers in Ahmedabad had
a moderate level of concerns. She obtained a concern mean
score of 2.31. She also obtained the following mean scores
for each of the factors of CIES-G: concerns about infras-
tructural resources (2.56), concerns about self-efficacy
(2.38), concerns about motivation (2.34), concerns about
academic achievement and standards (2.15) and concerns
about social acceptance (2.13). As it can be seen from these
findings that the teachers in Shah (2005) study, indicated a
lower level of concern about academic achievement,
whereas in the present study that was ranked as number one
concern among teachers in Gurgaon.
Bhatnagar (2006) used CIES and reported that the
teachers working in schools run by a private management in
Delhi had a moderate level of concerns as well. The
researcher surveyed a total of 470 teachers working in 12
schools in Delhi and obtained a concern mean score of 2.37.
Upon further analysis, the researcher found that the teachers
in Delhi were most concerned about the lack of resources
(2.76) followed by decline in academic standard of the
classrooms (2.33), lack of acceptance of students with spe-
cial needs (2.32). Factor 4 (concerns about increased work-
load in inclusive settings, mean = 1.99) failed to meet the
minimum requirement for it to be considered as a concern.
Ahsan et al. (2012) reported that preservice teachers in
Bangladesh were less concerned about peer acceptance
toward children with disabilities and about their stress
levels. The teachers were more concerned about their
increased workload and most concerned about providing
appropriate attention to diverse group of children in general
education classrooms.
The teachers in this study seemed to be most concerned
about ‘‘Academic achievement related concerns’’
(mean = 1.62). This shows that the teachers are most
concerned about falling achievement levels of their stu-
dents in class. This finding was consistent with findings of
other researchers (e.g., Bhatnagar 2006; Shah 2005). It
should be noted here that teachers in private schools in
India are under increased pressure and scrutiny to prepare
students for rigorous competitive examinations leading to
careers in engineering or science related fields. In this
regard Sharma and Das (2015) argue that many teachers
and administrators in India especially ‘‘those at privately
managed schools, succumb to academic and test-score
pressures and neglect the education of disadvantaged
groups, including those with disabilities (p. 65).’’ It almost
warrants a change of culture in schools if the needs of
students with disabilities are to be truly met in inclusive
classrooms. Teachers need to be supported in their
endeavor in meeting the needs of all students, not just in
meeting the needs of a few high achieving students. On the
other hand, it is pleasing to see teachers expressing their
lowest level of concerns for ‘‘management-related
123
660
concerns’’ (mean = 1.33). This shows that the teachers
have confidence in their school administration in support-
ing them with necessary services or resources when they
have a child with a disability in their classroom. This
finding was in sharp contrast with findings of other
researchers such as Mangope et al. (2013) and Fayez et al.
(2011) who reported physical and personnel resources as
major source of concern for the teachers.
With regard to the background variables and their
impact on teacher concerns, the results of this study were
compared with other studies mentioned earlier. Female
teachers (mean = 35.36), in this study, were found to be
more concerned about inclusive education than their male
counterparts (mean = 33.39). Although this difference was
not statistically significant, it does align with the findings
of Bhatnagar (2006) and Shah (2005). Bhatnagar and Das
(2013) explains this by saying:
the reason for female teachers being more concerned
than their male counterparts because in Indian society
females mostly bear responsibility for rearing the
children. The males in Indian society do not usually
spend as much time with child rearing and household
activities. They are mostly bread winners for the
family and focus their time and energy on activities
outside the day-to-day management of the household.
These aspects can have impact on male teachers
being less concerned about including students with
special needs in their classrooms (p. 110).
It was also found in this study that those teachers who
worked in schools run by a private management
(mean = 38.09) had a significantly higher level of concerns
than those who worked in government run schools
(mean = 32.76). It should be noted that administrators in
privately managed schools in India have more autonomy in
personnel decisions. Also, parents in India tend to exert more
pressure toward private school administrators or teachers to
prepare their children for science, technology or manage-
ment-related careers (Tiwari et al. 2015). This in turn
translates into teachers teaching students to successfully pass
rigorous entrance examinations while compromising the
needs of struggling learners. Shah et al. (2014) explain this
by stating ‘‘An elevated level of concerns by these teachers
may be explained by the administration’s expectations and
contextual variables of the private organization (p. 8).’’
The teachers who had qualifications of above post-
graduate degree expressed the highest levels of concerns
among other sub-groups in this category (mean = 40.40).
This finding was different from previous research con-
ducted by Bhatnagar (2006) and Shah (2005). In both of
these studies, teachers with qualifications of ‘‘below post
graduate degree’’ indicated higher levels of concerns.
There is a need for further exploration to understand why
123
M. Yadav et al.
this happened. Perhaps, a qualitative research involving
semi-structured or focus group interviews may inform us
what is causing these elevated levels of concerns among
teachers with higher levels of academic qualifications.
It was also found that the teachers who had less than
10 years of teaching experience expressed highest levels of
concerns among other sub-groups in this category
(mean = 36.06). It may be that these teachers consider
themselves under increased pressure to implement inclu-
sive education due to recent emphasis of GOI.
The study has some limitations that should be noted
while interpreting the results. First, the study is limited to
the concerns of elementary school teachers teaching in 21
government and 14 private schools in Gurgaon. Therefore,
caution should be exercised in generalizing the results of
this study to other populations. Second, there are limita-
tions of self-report surveys and there will always remain
some doubt as to what degree the participants’ responses
reflect their true concerns. Third, variables other than those
investigated in this study might have had a significant
influence on teacher concerns regarding inclusive educa-
tion in Gurgaon. Fourth, the term ‘concern’ is generally
considered to have inherent negative connotation attached
with it. Additionally, survey items can be positively wor-
ded in future research, e.g., I am able to maintain discipline
in the classroom, I have the knowledge and skills required
to teach students with disabilities, my school has enough
resources for implementing inclusion successfully and so
on. Nonetheless, the study does offer some important
pointers to understand difficulties faced by primary stake-
holders such as classroom teachers. It may also assist
policy makers and program planners who are charged with
the responsibility of planning and realizing the goals of
inclusive education in the state of Haryana.
Conclusion
This was the first known systematic investigation of regular
school teachers’ concerns about inclusive education in the
state of Haryana in India. Although the respondents in this
study were a little concerned about the implementation of
inclusive education; it should be noted that the sample was
drawn from predominantly an urban area which has a
proximity to New Delhi. Implementation of key initiatives
by the central GOI initially tends to focus largely on major
urban centers such as New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and
Kolkata. It is assumed that these teachers received some
training in special education or might be familiar with the
implementation of inclusive education. Another important
point is that the respondents in this study were elementary
school teachers. Literature indicates that secondary class-
rooms present greater challenges to general education
Understanding teachers’ concerns about inclusive education
teachers for the implementation of inclusive education. The
results of this study, nonetheless, provide a starting point in
the direction of meeting the needs of classroom teachers
that are charged with the implementation of inclusive
education. Further research is warranted to fully understand
the extent of their concerns and what can be done to alle-
viate those concerns.
The results of this study have implications for the edu-
cational administrators and policy makers in India. The
inclusive education programs in India could be success-
fully implemented if appropriate measures are taken in
order to reduce teachers’ concerns. Therefore, first of all,
professional development opportunities need to be made
available especially for those general education teachers
that lack training in special education. To ensure long-term
support for teachers, it would require the full commitment
of educational systems to mentoring new teachers and in
providing continual and appropriate professional learning.
In addition, appropriate measures would need to be taken
especially in privately managed schools so that the
administrators and teachers do not succumb to parental
pressure leading toward ‘‘teaching to test’’ mentality. The
classroom teachers should be afforded with both material
and human resources necessary to adequately meet the
needs of students with disabilities. A collaborative and
systematic effort between universities and local educa-
tional systems is also warranted to ensure a cohesive
transition from undergraduate teacher preparation to
becoming a competent and effectively trained inclusive
teacher. These efforts could help to reinforce a cooperative
spirit in implementing inclusive education in India.
Appendix: Concerns about Inclusive Education
Scale: Revised
Factor 1: classroom-related concerns
1. It would be difficult to maintain discipline in class.
2. It will be difficult to give equal attention to all students
in an inclusive classroom.
3. I will not be able to cope with students with a disability
who do not have adequate self-care skills (e.g.,
students who are not toilet trained).
4. It will be difficult to manage students with disruptive
behavior.
5. I will not be able to cope up with the challenges posed
by the diversity in the class room in terms of various
disabilities.
6. In my school, pupil-teacher ratio is larger than what it
must be in case of inclusion.
7. I am not proficient in operating special devices and
equipment used by the special children.
661
8. I am not familiar with the modifications in teaching
strategies and class environment that enhance the
learning of the disabled children.
9. Students with disabilities will not be accepted by
students without disabilities.
Factor 2: school-related concerns
10. My school will not have enough resources for
implementing inclusion successfully.
11. There will be inadequate para-professional staff
available to support students with disabilities (e.g.,
speech pathologist, physiotherapist, OT).
12. My school will have difficulty in accommodating
students with various types of disabilities because
of inappropriate infrastructure (for, e.g., architec-
tural barriers).
13. There will not be special education teaching staff
available to support inclusion.
Factor 3: self-related concerns
14. I do not have knowledge and skills required to
teach students with disabilities.
15. I am not competent enough to use multi-sensory
approach for students with different disabilities.
16. It will be difficult to keep all the students with or
without disabilities focused during the class.
17. I do not have enough knowledge about inclusive
practices.
Factor 4: academic achievement related concerns
18.
The overall academic standard of the school will
suffer.
19. The academic achievement of students without
disabilities will be affected.
20. Special students create disciplinary problems.
Factor 5: management-related concerns
21. There will be inadequate administrative support to
implement the inclusive education program.
22. It will be very difficult to include disabled students
in co-curricular activities (e.g., including students
with severe physical disabilities in playing sports
such as cricket can be difficult).
23. Parents of children without disabilities may not like
the idea of placing their children in the same
classroom with students with disabilities.
References
Ahsan, M T, Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2012). Exploring pre-
service teachers’ perceived teaching-efficacy, attitudes and
concerns about inclusive education in Bangladesh. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 8(2), 1–18.
123
662
Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Bhatnagar, N. (2006) Attitudes and concerns of Indian teachers
towards integrated education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Victoria University.
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. K. (2013). Nearly two decades after the
implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act: Concerns of
Indian teachers to implement inclusive education. International
Journal of Special Education, 28(2), 104–113.
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. K. (2014). Attitudes of secondary school
teachers towards inclusive education in New Delhi, India.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(4),
255–263. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12016.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about
inclusive education: Bruneian in-service and pre-service teach-
ers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 35–41.
Das, A. K. (2001) Perceived training needs of regular primary and
secondary school teachers to implement inclusive education
programs in Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Melbourne.
Das, A. K., Gichuru, M., & Singh, A. (2013). Implementing inclusive
education in Delhi, India: Regular school teachers’ preferences
for professional development delivery modes. Professional
Development in Education, 39(5), 698–711.
Das, A. K., & Shah, R. (2014). Special education in India. Advances
in Special Education, 28, 561–581.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and implications.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fayez, M., Kholoud, D., & Ibrahim, J. (2011). Preparing teachers for
inclusion: Jordanian preservice early childhood teachers’ per-
spectives. Journal of early Childhood Teacher Education, 32,
322–337.
Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive
education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17–32.
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of
mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian
context. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 55(3), 251–264.
Hettiarachchi, S., & Das, A. K. (2014). Perceptions of ‘inclusion’ and
perceived preparedness among school teachers in Sri Lanka.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 143–153.
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance
approach to content validation. Organization Research Methods,
2, 175–186.
Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (2000). Physical Education majors’
attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 23(3), 211–224.
Ince, S. (2012). Preschool teacher candidates’ attitudes and concerns
about inclusive education taking into consideration whether they
took special courses or not at university. International Journal of
Early Childhood Education and Research, 1(3), 1–19.
123
M. Yadav et al.
Jangira, N. K., Singh, A., & Yadav, S. K. (1995). Teacher policy,
training needs and perceived status of teachers. Indian Educa-
tional Review, 30(1), 113–122.
Mangope, B., Mannathoko, M. C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2013). Preservice
physical education teachers and inclusive education: Attitudes,
concerns and perceived skills needs. International Journal of
Special Education, 28(3), 82–92.
Oswald, M., & Swart, E. (2011). Addressing South African pre-
service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and concerns regarding
inclusive education. International Journal of Disability Devel-
opment and Education, 58(4), 389–403.
Pachigar, V., Stansfield, J., & Goldbart, J. (2011). Beliefs and
attitudes of primary school teachers in Mumbai, India towards
children who stutter. International Journal of Disability Devel-
opment Education, 58(3), 287–302.
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and
facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69(1),
97–107.
Shah, R. (2005). Concerns of Indian educators in Integrated
Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Pune.
Shah, R., Das, A. K., Desai, I. P., & Tiwari, A. (2014). Teachers’
concerns about inclusive education in Ahmedabad, India.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,. doi:10.
1111/1471-3802.12054.
Sharma (2001). The attitudes and concerns of school principals and
teachers regarding the integration of students with disabilities
into regular schools in Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Melbourne.
Sharma, U., & Das, A. K. (2015). Inclusive education in India: Past,
present and future. Support for Learning, 30(1), 55–68. doi:10.
1111/1467-9604.12079.
Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated
education in India. The Asia-Pacific Journal on Disabilities,
5(1), 2–14.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Earle, C. (2006). Attitudes,
concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An interna-
tional comparison of novice pre-service teachers. International
Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 80–93.
Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and
concerns of pre-service teachers regarding inclusion of students
with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India. Asia Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319–331.
Singal, N. (2008). Working towards inclusion: Reflections from the
classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1516–1529.
Tiwari, A., Das, A. K., & Sharma, M. (2015). Inclusive education a
‘‘rhetoric’’ or ‘‘reality’’? Teachers’ perspectives and beliefs.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 128–136.
Winter, E. C. (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools
and classrooms. Support for Learning, 21(2), 85–91.