Introduction
The purpose of this research study is to describe the process of inclusion of special needs students into the general high school student population. In line with of the goals of the research study the following questions were asked: (1) How did parents and professionals including school administrators, professional special education staff, general education teachers, and state level special education consultants involved in the process of the inclusion of a student with severe disabilities in general high school classes define inclusion, (2) How did they characterize their attitudes toward it, (3) What role did each of them play in preparing for the student’s inclusion, (4) How did each of them describe their part in the process of inclusion, (5) Do the accounts of those individuals involved in the inclusion of the student with severe disabilities align or do they suggest tensions, and (6) What were the impact of these alignments or tensions in the inclusion process? (7) Does inclusion of students with learning disabilities into general classroom settings protect students’ human right to be educated with their peers, maximize their learning opportunities, and ultimately enable them to achieve their learning objectives and outcomes? The thesis statement then is what are the pros and cons of special education inclusion from the perspective of teachers who instruct this group of students with learning disabilities.

Summary
This study provides a basic background about the present types of programs and services offered by schools both private and public with respect to individual students with special needs. It also explores teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs in mainstream classroom settings. The data obtained from the questionnaire administered to teachers of special needs students, which targeted about 30% of the teachers involved in teaching of students with disabilities in private and public schools, indicated that participant teachers in the study were generally dissatisfied about the educational process of inclusion in their schools.
Inclusion as an intervention is different from mainstreaming of students in that it is a movement designed to bring special education services into the classroom. In such settings, students with disabilities are considered as rail members of the classroom learning community with their special needs met there (Friend & Bursuck, 1996, p4). This movement is a significant change form the traditional practice of having student pulled out of regular education environments to receive special education services in a separate resource room of a self contained special education classroom (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 1999). The author writes that some educators argue that it is extremely feasible to provide all necessary supports for students with disabilities in general classrooms when teachers and school professionals are effectively trained and well prepared to work with such students and related concerns are tackled. The inclusion philosophy is an alternative departure from the mainstreaming assumption which hypothesizes that settings not trained personnel determine the quality and quantity of service offered to students with learning disabilities.

Teachers’ primary dissatisfaction and concerns about the process of inclusion, according to survey results obtained in the study, were primarily due to the lack of financial support for resources and services for students with disabilities, a lack of qualified special education professionals, a lack of proper training for teachers in mainstream classrooms, and a lack of knowledge about the process of inclusion among senior level administrators within the school system. Some additional concerns of teachers in inclusive special education environments include: the time taken away form the general student population to address the needs of special education students, class sizes as they pertain to the ratio of the number of special needs students compared to the number of general population students, and the safety of all students included in the study especially the children with special needs.

A variety of legislations and laws have been passed in the last 50 years to address the problems and ensure a fair participation of students with disabilities in the educational process. However special needs educators have never reached agreement on the extent and nature of including students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Three major beliefs were proposed as a result of the debate among educators about inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream schools and they are: (1) restricted belief (resists inclusion), (2) least restricted belief (allows inclusion under certain conditions), and (3) unrestricted belief (accepts inclusion with no or few restrictions), (Friend and Bursuck, 2002). It is important to note that the participant schools used a continuum of educational placements ranging from the highly integrated setting of the general classroom to the highly segregated setting where instruction is delivered in special education classrooms or resource rooms. Therefore it is no surprise that the majority of private schools in the sample placed special needs students in the general classroom, because it is the least costing program and private schools cannot afford the expense for employing additional personnel or for providing supportive curricular services and facilities in their schools (Anati, 2012).

Critical Analysis
Teacher’s attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities are found to be the most critical factor in the inclusive practices. The participants in a study of inclusion included 26 teachers in 26 randomly selected inclusive schools, 9 of which were private and 17 public across all levels ranging from elementary schools, middle schools, and secondary schools. The sample also included 6 schools with female only students, 10 schools with male only students, and 10 schools that were co-educational. All teachers in all-inclusive schools received a letter inviting them to participate in the study and the sample was randomly chosen from the list of teachers who positively responded to the invitation. The majority of teachers and students in the selected schools have a diverse socio economic status.
Data collection was accomplished by administering surveys to teachers that asked the following questions: the schools name; location, sector-whether public or private, level-whether elementary, middle, or secondary school, and category-whether male, female, or co-educational.

Section two of the survey asked eight general questions about inclusion in schools and each question was followed by a number of choices to select with an answer to all questions ending with the choice of “other” allowing the respondents to add any further information if so needed. The following were the stems of the questions included in the survey (1) place a mark next to the kind of disability that the students in your classes have, (2) place a mark next to the type of inclusion services offered by your school, (3) place a mark next to staff that are responsible for the teaching of students with disabilities in your school, (4) place a mark next to the type of special education professionals employed by your school, (5) place a mark next to the type of educational tools, equipment or services available in your school, (6) place a mark next to the accommodations that are made in your school building to facilitate movement of students with disabilities, (7) place a mark next to the professional development courses or training programs that your school offers to teach students with disabilities, and (8) Place a mark next to the item that best describes your overall perspective toward inclusion as an educational philosophy.
After the data collection was completed it was analyzed qualitatively in four steps: (1) initial tabulation and coding, (2) separate analysis of individual and group questions, (3) counting and analyzing responses using designed tables, and (4) synthesis, interpretation, and discussion of results.

To enhance reliability and validity of the study appropriate sampling were used to build a trail of evidence: (1) collections of hard copies of the answered surveys with raw data, (2) schedules of visits to schools, (3) electronic messages with participants, (4) data reduction and data construction products, (5) soft copies of tables created for data analysis, and (6) repetition of data collection techniques were conducted for a second time to ensure reliability and validity of results (Anati, 2012).
The descriptive study was conducted to shed light on the nature of inclusive education in schools. The surveys covered five major areas to shed light on the nature of inclusive education in public and private schools: (a) existence of students with disabilities attending mainstream schools and the nature of their disabilities, (b) the availability of qualified teachers and special education professionals in inclusive schools, (c) the availability of the necessary learning tools, equipment, and technology, (d) the availability of school services and accommodations designed to facilitate mobility of students with disabilities, and the accessibility of professional development courses and training programs for staff to improve their experiences in inclusive settings(Anati, 2012).

Conclusion
Both opponents and proponents of inclusion can find convincing research to support their respective views. Generally speaking, the participant teachers in the study agree in principle with the concept of inclusion as an instructional tool to teach students with special needs yet they lack confidence, preparedness, and the training to work in inclusive settings. Concern was primarily focused on the lack of appropriate training for teachers in mainstream classrooms, ignorance about inclusion among senior level administrators, lack of funding for resources and training, and a lack of societal awareness regarding the issues they may face during the inclusion process. As the national educational system undergoes a radical period of change, changes in way we educate children with special needs will occur at break neck speed. Since inclusion has become a more frequent strategy used in the educational arena it will be insightful to conduct further research and study of how students with and without disabilities interact with one another in inclusive classroom settings. This is an important study because teaching strategies that utilize peer assistance are an integral part of inclusive environments. It is very clear from the information obtained and the data collected from the study that further research efforts need to be conducted about the technique of inclusion to achieve positive results and successful inclusion of students with disabilities into general school classrooms.

References
Aldridge, J., Goldman, R. (2007). Current Issues and Trends in Education, Pearson Education Inc., ISBN 0-205-48620-7.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC. ISBN: 10:1-4338-0561-8.
Friend, M.P., Bursuck, W. (2002). Including students with special needs: a practical guide for classroom teachers. Allyn and Bacon, ISBN 978-0-20533-192-5.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R., Algozzine, R. (2008). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities, Pearson, ISBN 978-0-20560-838-6.
McKee, Ann Marie (2011). A story of high school inclusion: an ethnographic case study. Dissertation, University of Iowa. htpp://www.ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1247.
Nistreen, Anati, (2012). The pros and cons of special education inclusion from the perceptions of teachers in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2 (1), 55-66.
Greene, A.E. (1998). Reclaiming the Future of Christian Education, Purposeful Design Publications, ISBN 978-1-58331-000-7.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms for all: effective and reflective practices (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/ Prentice-Hall.

Source: by Dr. Christopher D. Chandler | Dean of School of Education – Genesis University