08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 189

autism © 2001
The attitudes of teachers in SAGE Publications
and The National
Autistic Society
Scotland to the integration of Vol 5(2) 189–207; 017457
1362-3613(200106)5:2

children with autism into

mainstream schools

E V E LY N M C G R E G O R University of Dundee

ELAINE CAMPBELL University of Abertay

A B S T R AC T Around 4600 school-age children in Scotland fall within K E Y WO R D S

the spectrum of autistic disorders, of whom 780 have been identified autism;
in schools. This study sought the views of 23 specialist and 49 main- integration;
stream teachers, 22 with experience of autism, 27 without. They were teachers’
questioned about the advantages and disadvantages of integration into attitudes
mainstream for autistic children, their own ability to cope and predic-
tors of success. Questionnaires were issued to special units and to main-
stream primary and secondary schools. A minority of mainstream
respondents believed children with autism should be integrated where
possible. Mainstream teachers with experience of autism showed more
confidence to deal with the children than those without experience.
Many expressed concerns about effects on mainstream pupils but most
were willing to undertake more training. Specialist teachers were more
positive, although they acknowledged possible disadvantages for both
groups of children and stressed that the success of integration depends
on the individual child.
ADDRESS Correspondence should be addressed to D R E V E L Y N MCGREGOR,
Children in Scotland, 5 Shandwick Place, Edinburgh EH2 4RG

Introduction
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the attitudes, opinions
and ideas of specialist and mainstream teachers in Scotland regarding the
partial or full integration of children with autism into mainstream schools.
Integration of children with special educational needs has been attracting
increasing interest. However, while some have expressed the view that edu-
cation should have an inclusive approach to catering for such children
(Hall, 1996; Lusthaus et al., 1992; Stainback and Stainback, 1992) there is
also concern that this might not be in the best interests of every individual
child and that the teachers involved might not have the requisite skills or
189
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 190

AU T I S M5(2)
resources (Burack et al., 1997; Farrell, 1997; Mesibov and Shea, 1996). If
the philosophical ideal is to be reconciled with the real-life limitations, it
is necessary to examine the experiences of pupils and teachers involved in
its implementation.

Census information
The estimated number of school-age children in Scotland with autistic
spectrum disorder is around 4600 (Scottish Executive Statistics, 1999).The
estimated number with Kanner’s autism or Asperger syndrome is 2721
(Jordan and Jones, 1997). However, only 780 have been identified in
schools by survey. This may be because many others have Asperger syn-
drome and will be in mainstream education where data are sparse; other
older pupils within the autistic spectrum may have no diagnosis.

Integration policy and practice in Scotland

In 1998, specialist provision in Scotland comprised three specialist schools
and seven units attached to mainstream schools. Other children with autism
attended non-specialist schools or units. Of the 149 units attached to main-
stream primary schools, 74 included provision for language and com-
munication disorders and 43 for autistic spectrum disorders. The Scottish
Executive’s census for 1998 showed that there was a general policy of
graded integration of children with special educational needs into main-
stream primary schools. Of 13,802 children with special needs, 11,483
spent all their time in mainstream. Of the 2319 children attending special
units, 37 percent spent less than a third of the time in the unit; 25 percent
spent around half the time; 27 percent spent more than two-thirds of the
time; only 14 percent spent all their time in the unit.
Integration of children with autism has two clear goals. The first is to
honour the right of all members of a community to take full part in its day-
to-day life. The second goal is to improve the quality of children’s social
interaction and academic development through daily contact with typically
developing peers. Research reviews have considered the complexities of
achieving these goals. Burack et al. (1997) and Mesibov and Shea (1996)
have reviewed the literature on integration of children with autism and
Farrell (1997) has reviewed integration for children with severe learning
disability. All noted that the issue was originally raised in a political and
human rights context, in which segregation of children with learning dis-
abilities was considered a denial of equal opportunity. However, fully inclu-
sive schooling has sometimes been promoted as a fundamental right that
overrides the question of whether full mainstream education is the best
environment, educationally and socially, for all children with learning dis-
abilities (Hall, 1996). Two rights may be in conflict: the right to inclusion
190
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 191

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
versus the right to the most appropriate educational provision, which
might necessitate separation or only partial integration. Burack et al. (1997)
propose that empirical research findings should guide the acceptance or
modification of the full-inclusion model.

Evidence in support of integration

Several studies have indicated that children with autism may benefit both
socially and educationally from being in class with typically developing
children (Hoyson et al., 1984; Odom and Strain, 1986; Odom et al., 1985)
and some intervention programmes have incorporated this idea, though the
degree of peer involvement varies. Odom and Strain (1984) suggested
three ways of increasing socially reciprocal behaviour with peers: (1) prox-
imity alone; (2) a programme of prompting and reinforcing social behav-
iour; and (3) peer-initiation interventions. Roeyers (1996) studied
proximity and ‘reverse mainstreaming’, pairing typical children with 42
children with autism for 10 free-play sessions in their educational setting.
The peers were given only basic guidance on the nature of autism. Post-
intervention, the treatment group showed significantly more interactions
and responses than the control group and fewer self-stimulatory behav-
iours. Although the treatment group was no better at initiating interactions,
they showed significantly more social behaviours with an unfamiliar play-
mate, indicating some degree of generalization. Although Roeyers does not
advocate full integration for all, he proposes that segregated education
should include regular interaction with non-handicapped peers.
There are also a number of other small-scale studies of children with
autism indicating improvements in social and academic skills following
exposure to integrated teaching programmes (Barber, 1996; Kamps et al.,
1995; Pierce and Schreibman, 1997; Schwartz et al., 1998). However, the
lack of any control groups, the very small sample sizes (typically three or
less) and the mixture of methods used make conclusions difficult to draw.

Limitations of integration research

Although some studies suggest that peer support, implicit or explicit, may
be of lasting value to some children with autism, it is difficult to establish
how well children across the spectrum may be integrated into mainstream
without such specialized programmes. Recent reviews (Burack et al., 1997;
Farrell, 1997; Mesibov and Shea, 1996) all identify methodological diffi-
culties inherent in research on integration: the virtual impossibility of using
matched control groups; the variety and range of disability, which makes
generalization difficult; the variety of integration models tested, and the
small samples that are limited mainly to high-functioning or preschool
children. There are additional concerns that typical peers do not tend to
191
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 192

5(2)
AU T I S M
choose disabled children as playmates at recess (Farrell, 1995; Sainato et al.,
1992) and close friendships are very rare.

The role of teachers

Burack et al. (1997) stress that teachers play a crucial role in the success of
integration programmes. Two specific criteria for success are teachers’
willingness to participate and the provision of appropriate training.Without
support and training one study reported only 33 percent of teachers were
willing participants in integration; with appropriate support this figure
increased to 86 percent (Myles and Simpson, 1989). Whinnery et al.
(1991) also found that mainstream teachers viewed themselves as less
competent to cope than specialist teachers.
Helps et al. (1999) surveyed the training provided in England for teach-
ing children with autism and evaluated teachers’ beliefs about the con-
dition. They found that whereas around half of specialist teachers had
received training in autism, only 5 percent of their mainstream sample of
22 had done so, although 70 percent had worked with children with
autism. Teachers reported a lack of practical advice and support; they also
tended to believe mistakenly that many children with autism have special
abilities and do not have learning difficulties.

Purpose of study
The present study investigated current forms of integration, training pro-
vision and support for teachers in Scotland. The main emphasis was on
teachers’ attitudes to integration and their perceived ability to cope. This is
because, whilst Scottish integration programmes have been expanding,
specialist teachers express concerns about unpreparedness and unease
among mainstream staff. Unless teachers believe there are benefits for chil-
dren with autism, are convinced that their typically developing pupils are
not disadvantaged, and that they can cope with such arrangements, no
national integration policy will be successful.
The views of both specialist and mainstream teachers were sought on
what they considered to be the advantages and disadvantages for the chil-
dren, and which factors they believed would most influence successful inte-
gration.

Method

Respondents
Questionnaires were issued to four special units and five mainstream
schools, three of which had had pupils with autism. Respondents were
192
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 193

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
classified as specialist staff or mainstream staff. This second category was
divided into those who had taught a child with autism and those who had
not. Twenty-three specialist staff in special schools or specialized units
attached to mainstream schools returned the questionnaires. Forty-nine
mainstream staff responded, of whom 22 had taught a child with autism,
27 had not done so. This response rate was approximately 1 in 3.

Questionnaires
Following initial piloting two questionnaires were developed, one for
specialist teachers and one for mainstream teachers (see Appendices 1 and
2). The questionnaires first focused on factual information, then explored
attitudes and beliefs about integration. There was some overlap to permit
direct comparison of outlook, but whereas the specialist questionnaire
asked about the frequency of different autistic behaviours in the classroom,
the mainstream questionnaire asked teachers how well they thought they
would cope with these behaviours.
For specialist teachers, questions 1 to 14 sought factual information
about experience, training and classroom support, the forms of integration
in place in their school and the integration preferences of their pupils’
parents. Questions 15 to 27 explored attitudes and opinions on factors that
would contribute to successful integration; the advantages and disadvan-
tages for autistic and mainstream pupils; curriculum difficulties; the preva-
lence of different autistic behaviours in the classroom; the best environment
for children with autism; advice to mainstream teachers; and the role of
psychologists.
For mainstream teachers, the first 10 questions sought factual infor-
mation about general experience, experience of special needs and children
with autism, and provision of support. Questions 11 to 22 explored atti-
tudes and beliefs about factors that would contribute to successful inte-
gration; how well the teacher thought they could cope with problem
behaviours; the advantages and disadvantages for autistic and mainstream
pupils, and the role of the educational psychologist.

Specialist staff responses

The questions are dealt with in the order given in Appendix 1.

Questions 1–14: factual information

All 23 respondents were female. Three were in the 21–30 age group; two
were 31–40; fourteen were 41–50; and four were 51–65.The mean number
of years of teaching was 12.6. Seven respondents taught at infant level (5-
to 7-year-olds), six taught at upper level (8- to 11-year-olds); six taught at
193
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 194

AU T I S M 5(2)
secondary level. Eighteen respondents were teachers, five were classroom
auxiliaries or assistants. The mean time in special needs was 8.2 years. Aux-
iliary assistance ranged from one half-time assistant to two full-time ones.
Seventeen staff had had special needs training. This ranged from in-service
courses to postgraduate qualifications, with 11 staff holding diplomas in
special education. Twelve staff had received training to teach children with
autism. This included in-service or ongoing classroom training as well as
full-time diplomas from specialist centres. Six staff had such diplomas.
The ratio of adults to children ranged from 2:3 to 1:6. Pupils had been
involved in all forms of integration listed in question 13: sports were identi-
fied in 20 instances, playground buddies in 18, music in 17 and partial
classroom integration in 15. Nine also listed full integration, presumably
because some children in special units had started school life in main-
stream. Other forms of integration identified were school assemblies,
lunchtime, canteen, library, parties, summer trips, lunchtime clubs,
fundraising events and dances. Seven respondents said parents preferred
their children to be integrated, seven said they preferred segregated edu-
cation and nine said that the parents varied in their views.

Questions 15–27: attitudes and opinions

Question 15: influences on integration On question 15 staff rated on
a five-point scale their degree of agreement with seven statements about
different factors that might contribute to successful integration. Table 1
shows the responses for the specialist teachers and the two groups of main-
stream teachers. Of the specialist staff, 47 percent were in favour of full inte-
gration where possible, and 39 percent thought able children were better
in mainstream. However, 39 percent disagreed that integration depends on
academic ability, believing that degree of autism (83 percent) and person-
ality (43 percent) were more important factors. A clear majority of 78
percent considered that successful integration depends on staff attitudes.

Questions 16–19: open questions on problems and benefits Ques-

tion 16 asked what problems a child with autism might encounter if inte-
grated into mainstream. The following problems were cited with number
of instances in brackets: lack of preparation of and understanding by main-
stream staff and children (10); insecurity and confusion because of the
changing circumstances of mainstream classrooms (10); problems with
concentration and pace of work (8); ridicule or bullying (7); sensory over-
load, noise level and lack of clear visual cues (7); difficulties cooperating,
communicating and socializing (4); isolation (2). Question 17 asked how
children with autism might benefit. The following were cited: being part
194
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 195

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
Table 1 Specialist and mainstream teachers’ beliefs concerning factors
contributing to successful integration

Factors affecting Teachers’ response

successful integration ———————————————————
% strongly agree % disagree or
or agreea strongly disagreeb
—————————————— ———————————–

SP M1 M2 SP M1 M2

Full integration where possible 47 47 27 4 20 31

Depends on auxiliary help 35 47 27 44 33 37
Depends on academic ability 18 20 16 39 40 48
Depends on degree of autism 83 60 58 4 13 11
Depends on child’s personality 43 26 37 22 14 10
Depends on staff attitudes 78 33 42 13 40 37
Able children better in mainstream 39 34 21 22 40 52
aRating 1 and 2.
bRating 4 and 5.
Neutral ratings (neither agree nor disagree) are omitted from the table.
SP = specialist staff; M1 = experienced mainstream staff; M2 = inexperienced mainstream staff.

of social interaction with peers (8); learning through cooperative play and
role models (7); learning to socialize (6); seeing ‘acceptable’ behaviour of
others (6); developing communication skills (3); access to broad curricu-
lum (4); life experience (2); greater self-esteem (2).
Question 18 asked what problems mainstream children might
encounter. Staff cited not understanding (6); aggression (6); coping with
the child’s behaviour (5); disruption caused by the autistic child’s lack of
cooperation or communication (5); fear (4); embarrassment (4); disrup-
tion to learning (3); noise (2). Question 19 asked what benefits main-
stream children might gain. The following were noted: valuing people for
what they are (10); tolerance and understanding of others (7); awareness
of others’ needs (5); a greater sense of self (2).

Questions 20–22: curriculum and impairments Question 20 asked

what parts of the curriculum staff found hardest to teach.The answers were:
anything that is not factual (4); all parts, because of language and com-
munication problems (4); social interactive skills or group activity (3);
topics involving future or past events or history (2); problem-solving (2).
Question 21 asked staff to rank the triad of impairments in order of diffi-
culty for coping in class, and the most common rating order was com-
munication, socialization and then imagination (10). Four staff rated
socialization as most difficult to deal with and three imagination.
195
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 196

AU T I S M 5(2)
Table 2 Specialist teachers’ mean frequency ratings for 10 behaviours common
in autism and mainstream teachers’ ratings of their perceived ability to cope
with these behaviours

Behaviours Specialist teachers’ Coping ratings by Coping ratings by

mean frequency M1 teachersb M2 teachersb
ratingsa

Language problems 1.2 2.5 2.9

Vulnerability 1.7 2.1 2.7
Emotional immaturity 1.8 1.9 2.7
Motivation 1.8 2.5 2.8
High anxiety 1.8 2.8 3.2
Lack of self-control 1.9 3.0 3.6
Inappropriate behaviour 2.0 2.7 3.3
Screaming 2.2 3.4 4.0
Aggression 2.4 3.4 3.9
Depression 4.3 3.2 3.7
a1 = most frequent; 5 = never.
b1 = can cope easily; 5 not able to cope at all.
M1 = experienced mainstream teachers; M2 = inexperienced mainstream teachers.

Questions 23–25: common behaviours On question 23 staff were asked

to rate 10 behaviours common in autism on a five-point scale. The mean
frequency rating for each behaviour is presented in Table 2. Depression and
aggression were considered the least frequent and language problems and
vulnerability the most. Question 24 asked about the most beneficial teach-
ing environment in autism. Staff suggested units attached to mainstream,
allowing some integration (8); high staff ratio and training (4); various
according to different needs (4); special needs school (2).
Question 25 asked what advice specialist staff would give to main-
stream teachers. Answers focused on the following: seek general infor-
mation from unit staff, parents, a specialist, reading material or through
in-service training (10); provide concise instructions with simple language
and learning in simple stages (7); structure the day (3); use positive re-
inforcement (3); be patient, giving time for responses (3); much of the
curriculum is manageable but teachers need to find alternative ways to
deliver it (3); get to know the child and learn to interpret the behaviour
(3); aim for consistency and continuity of staff and timetable (2); identify
strengths and build on them (2). Four respondents gave no response.

Questions 26 and 27: educational psychologist’s role Question 26

asked staff to rate the role of the educational psychologist in terms of
practical assistance (1 = very helpful and 5 = very unhelpful). No staff rated
196
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 197

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
1; 4 percent rated 2; 17 percent rated 3; 39 percent rated 4; and 30 percent
rated 5. The remaining 10 percent abstained.
Question 27 asked how educational psychologists could support children
with autism and their teachers. Staff suggested they could: offer practical
advice/strategies on teaching and behaviour (10); gain a working knowledge
of the child (7); work with the child in class regularly to share teachers’
experience and assess achievability of classroom aims (5); make more contact
or visit more than once a year (5); provide cognitive or behavioural analysis
or individual profiles to help management (4); give positive encouragement
(2); know more about autism (2). Four people did not respond.

Mainstream staff responses

The questions are dealt with in the order given in Appendix 2.

Questions 1–10: factual information

Forty-four respondents were female, 5 were male. Five were in the 21–30
age group; 13 were 31–40; 20 were 41–50; and 11 were 51–65.The mean
number of years of teaching was 15.6. Fifteen taught infants (5- to 7-year-
olds), 26 taught upper (8- to 11-year-olds), 8 taught secondary. Forty-six
staff had taught children with special needs. Two had done so in a special
school, 8 in a special unit and 37 in mainstream (2 did not specify).‘Special
needs’ included behavioural and emotional difficulties, cerebral palsy,
dyslexia, dysphasia, language delay, learning difficulties, hearing and visual
impairment. Thirty-three respondents had had auxiliary support, 13 did
not.Twenty-two teachers had taught a child with autism, 27 had not. In 12
of these cases the autism was mild, in 7 moderate and in 2 severe (one
respondent did not specify).

Questions 11–22: attitudes and opinions

The responses are now reported separately for mainstream teachers with
experience of autism and those without any experience.

Questions 11–13: influences on integration On question 11 staff were

asked to rate on a five-point scale their degree of agreement with seven
statements about different factors that might contribute to successful inte-
gration (see Table 1). A higher percentage of ‘experienced’ than ‘inexperi-
enced’ staff believed that children with autism should be integrated in
mainstream schools where possible, and that adequate auxiliary help was
important (47 percent compared with 27 percent). Otherwise, views were
similar.
197
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 198

AU T I S M 5(2)
In question 12 staff were asked to rank the triad of impairments accord-
ing to difficulty in class. Of the ‘experienced’ staff, 18 rated communication
most difficult and 4 rated socialization; in contrast,‘inexperienced’ staff were
more evenly split between communication (15) and socialization (11).
Imagination was almost always rated as least problematic.

Questions 14 and 15: skills and training Question 14 asked whether

teachers felt that they had the skills to teach an autistic child. Forty-six
percent of experienced staff said they had the skills, 50 percent said they
did not; 89 percent of inexperienced staff said they did not and the other
11 percent did not answer. Asked if they would attend a training day, 78
percent of experienced staff were willing or very willing compared with
56 percent of inexperienced staff.

Question 16: coping with behaviours Question 16 asked teachers to

rate their ability to cope with 10 behaviours common in autism on a five-
point scale (1 = could cope easily and 5 = could not cope at all). Table 2
shows the mean ratings for the experienced and inexperienced teachers. In
every instance, the mean was higher for those with experience of children
with autism. Each respondent was given an overall score for the 10 ratings,
so that coping easily throughout would render a score of 10 and not coping
at all a score of 50. Omitting those whose answers were incomplete, the
mean for the experienced group (N = 19) was 25.79 (SD = 6.07) and for
the inexperienced (N = 21) was 31.33 (SD = 6.74). A t-test showed a sta-
tistically significant difference between the two groups (t = 2.93, d.f. = 38,
p < 0.01). Individual t-tests were then calculated for each behaviour using
Bonferroni’s correction. The difference was significant for only one behav-
iour, ‘emotional immaturity’ (t = 3.69, d.f. =46, p < 0.05, two-tailed; see
Table 2).

Questions 17–21: problems and benefits Question 17 asked what prob-

lems a child with autism might encounter if integrated into mainstream. In
the experienced group, the following problems were cited by more than one
respondent: large class size so less attention (11); mixing with others (9);
unprepared or unsympathetic teacher (8); peer reactions to behaviour (8);
curricular constraints or pressure (8); anxiety/lack of confidence (4); bul-
lying (4); lack of flexibility (3); school and class organization (2); noise (2);
isolation (2). The inexperienced group cited the following problems:
socializing (7); bullying (6); communication (5); being accepted by other
children (5); group work/cooperation (4); isolation (3); accepting rules/
routines (3); teasing (3); anxiety/fear (3); curriculum problems (3); large
class size or less support (2).
198
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 199

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
Question 18 asked how children with autism might benefit from inte-
gration. The experienced staff cited good role models (11); opportunities
to socialize with peers (8); could gain academically from peers (6); belong-
ing/acceptance into ‘normal’ class (5); might help interaction with others
(4); stimulate/motivate talk and activities (4); greater awareness of others’
needs (2); friendship (2); encourage independence (2).The inexperienced
teachers cited: learning to socialize with peers (11); role models (4); moti-
vation to communicate (4); better access to curriculum (3); sense of
esteem/belonging (3); learning to cooperate (2); don’t know/none (6).
Question 19 asked what problems mainstream children might
encounter. Experienced staff cited understanding differences (7); coping
with the autistic child’s behaviour (7); communication (6); less adult atten-
tion (6); disruption (5); fear of outbursts/aggression (4); impatience (3);
knowing when to help/tell (2). Inexperienced staff noted understanding
autistic child’s behaviour (9); class disruption (7); lack of attention (5);
coping/behaving appropriately (4); no comment (3).
Question 20 asked what benefits mainstream children might gain.
Experienced staff noted: develop a more caring, understanding attitude to
others (10); accepting variety of ability and worth of others (8); develop
tolerance (5); understand complex disability (3); extra help from auxiliary
support (2). Inexperienced staff cited: developing understanding and
empathy (8); tolerance/understanding of others (5); very few/none (5);
increasing social and communication skills (3); learning to cope with
others’ needs (3); respect (2). Three did not respond.

Questions 21 and 22: educational psychologist’s role Question 21

asked how staff rated practical assistance from the educational psycholo-
gist. Of experienced staff, 14 percent rated 1 = very helpful; 5 percent rated
2; 18 percent 3; 27 percent 4; and 27 percent rated 5 = very unhelpful.
Question 22 asked how educational psychologists could support chil-
dren with autism and teachers. Teachers with experience listed: practical
advice and strategies (9); more observation and ‘hands on’ experience with
the children (8); regular contact/follow-ups with parents, teachers and
children (8); more time on advising teachers about individuals’ needs in
all areas of school life (5); in-service training to raise awareness at school
level (4); written general guidelines and information on courses (4); pro-
gramme of study for child (3); advice on interpreting language (2);
appreciating the needs of peers and teachers (2); exchange visits with other
schools.
Fifteen inexperienced teachers did not respond. The remainder cited:
practical advice and strategies (8); work in class, demonstrating strategies
and noting teacher demands (3); provide material on autism (2); help
199
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 200

5(2)
AU T I S M
teacher with individual action plan (2); make provision for more small
group and individual teaching (2).

Comparison of specialist and mainstream views

The questionnaires put the same questions to specialist and mainstream
teachers on influences on integration, problems and benefits for children,
the triad of impairments and the role of the educational psychologist,
allowing some comparison of viewpoint. The views of mainstream
teachers who had taught a child with autism were in line with those of
the specialist teachers regarding integration, and were somewhat more
positive than those who had never taught a child with autism, although
the difference was not statistically significant. All groups considered that
integration depended more on the degree of autism than on academic
ability or personality. However, one group difference was notable: the
specialist teachers believed far more strongly than mainstream teachers
that successful integration depended on the attitude of the staff. The
responses for the two main groups were collapsed into positive (1 or 2)
and negative (3–5) for the purposes of statistical analysis. A chi-squared
test showed the differences in response between specialist and mainstream
staff regarding the importance of attitude to be significant (2 = 9.31,
p < 0.01).
When asked about the problems and benefits of integration, the staff
groups identified similar integration problems for children with autism but
prioritized them differently. Specialist staff focused particularly on lack of
staff understanding.This ranked third for experienced mainstream staff but
was mentioned by only one teacher in the inexperienced mainstream
group. Both mainstream subgroups believed that problems with socializing
or mixing with peers would feature highly, whereas specialist staff were
concerned about children’s feelings of insecurity, confusion or sensory
overload in a bustling classroom.The groups’ views were similar about the
perceived benefits of integration, focusing particularly on the opportunity
for social interaction and role models.
Views about the problems for mainstream children were largely similar,
but disruption was ranked lower by experienced mainstream teachers than
by the other two groups. Although six specialist teachers cited aggression
as a possible problem, no experienced teachers did so. Specialist teachers
did not consider the problem of less adult attention for mainstream chil-
dren, whereas both mainstream groups did. Regarding benefits for main-
steam children, specialist and experienced mainstream teachers stressed
learning to value or accept people for what they are; by contrast, inexperi-
enced mainstream teachers placed emphasis on developing caring attitudes.
200
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 201

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
It was noticeable that five of the inexperienced mainstream teachers said
there would be few or no benefits and three made no comment.
Asked to rank problems associated with the triad of impairments, the
majority of specialist and experienced mainstream staff considered that
communication would cause most problems. Inexperienced staff were
equally divided between communication and socialization as the most
likely cause of problems. However, this difference was not statistically sig-
nificant.
The ratings of specialist and experienced mainstream staff regarding the
role of the educational psychologist were very similar.The majority in both
groups viewed them as ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’, but the specialist
staff were somewhat more negative, with 54 percent of experienced main-
stream staff and 69 percent of specialist staff giving these ratings.

Discussion
The study’s aims were to assess provision for integration in Scotland and
explore the experience and attitudes of specialist and mainstream teachers.
It is evident that some degree of integration is widespread and ranges from
full integration of able pupils with mild or moderate autism to partial inte-
gration programmes, including playground buddies and some mainstream
class inclusion. However, the literature has emphasized that appropriate
support and training are necessary for success (Burack et al., 1997) and,
although support is good in special education in Scotland, levels of train-
ing are low, with only 50 percent of specialist teachers having had specific
training in autism. Most mainstream teachers (33 out of 48) received aux-
iliary support for special needs pupils, but there was little guidance or train-
ing in autism for staff. Moreover, the majority of teachers considered that
support from educational psychologists was inadequate; many teachers
viewed them as unhelpful and believed they should spend more time in the
classroom and provide practical strategies for coping. These concerns echo
those of teachers in the survey of Helps et al. (1999).There would seem to
be a strong case for investing in more training for specialist staff, more
guidance for mainstream staff, restructuring the role of the psychologist to
increase class contact, and better in-service training, both theoretical and
practical, for managing children with autism at different ages and stages.
Although research has shown that some children with autism may
benefit socially and academically from full integration, this is dependent on
strong and knowledgeable support and, even then, researchers do not con-
sider it suitable for all children with autism (Mesibov and Shea, 1996;
Roeyers, 1996). The attitudes and opinions of teachers surveyed in this
study reinforce that view. Although nearly 50 percent of experienced
201
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 202

AU T I S M 5(2)
teachers agreed with full integration where possible, they were concerned
that it would have an adverse effect on some children.The bustle and unpre-
dictability of a mainstream class could be confusing or even distressing and
the learning styles of those with autism could not easily be accommodated.
Integration would require some reorganization of conventional class struc-
ture and teaching methods. Alternatively, or in addition, children would
need specialist teaching support and, as Mesibov and Shea (1996) pointed
out, this could create a different sort of segregation. The findings of this
study favour a range of integration provision, adapted to suit different chil-
dren’s educational and emotional interests, with opportunities wherever
possible for social contact with typical peers.
It is also clear that the success of any programme, partial or full, neces-
sitates careful preparation, expert guidance and sufficient support for staff
(Burack et al., 1997). Preparation and guidance are not adequate at present
although the literature indicates that staff attitudes are likely to be negative
without the investment of guidance and support. The importance of the
teachers’ role in the success of integration programmes is clear (Burack et
al., 1997; Helps et al., 1999) but positive attitudes and commitment are
likely to follow good provision rather than precede it. However, in the
present study, mainstream teachers who had taught a child with autism
were more positive than the inexperienced teachers, despite the fact that
they had not received training or specialized support and were aware of this
disadvantage. They were significantly more confident about coping with
typical autism behaviours and expressed more positive views about the ben-
efits of integration for both children with autism and mainstream children.
So perhaps there are two major influences on teacher attitudes: the confi-
dence that stems from being suitably prepared and supported and direct
contact with a child with autism. This difference in attitude between the
two mainstream subgroups indicates that wariness amongst teachers
without experience of autism may stem from a negative stereotype, which
can be noticeably reduced by contact. This problem could perhaps be
resolved with general information sessions for school staff. However, it has
to be remembered that those who took the time and interest to respond to
the survey were the minority of staff members.Their views may not be rep-
resentative of wider mainstream staff attitudes and responders may have
had a more positive attitude in the first place.
When specialist staff were asked to rate the frequency of behaviours in
autism, it was noticeable that the more common behaviours identified were
also those that mainstream staff rated as easier to cope with, such as vul-
nerability and emotional immaturity. It was also notable that, although
experienced mainstream teachers said they would not cope well with
screaming or aggression, they did not rate these behaviours as particularly
202
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 203

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
likely to give rise to problems in a mainstream class. Thus it appears that
the behaviours that are likely to reinforce a negative stereotype of autism
are actually relatively infrequent, at least amongst those children with autism
who are already integrated. Information of this sort could be most helpful
to general guidance sessions for mainstream teachers in clarifying the
central issues in integrated education.
All groups expressed a concern about the different needs of the chil-
dren in their care and a thoughtful attitude to the educational challenges.
Respondents’ views indicated that contact with children with autism
reduces anxiety and increases interest in knowing more about autism and
meeting the challenge of integration.These findings give grounds for opti-
mism that, with continued research on the reality of classroom life, and
increased information, training and support, mainstream schools may be
able to help pupils with autism, to widen their social understanding
through varied integration programmes. This would reconcile the philo-
sophical ideal of integration with the complex needs of children with
autism and those of their mainstream peers.

Appendix 1: questionnaire for specialist teachers

Please write brief answers in the space provided or circle where appropriate.
1 Are you male/female?
2 Age group: 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–65
3 Number of years of teaching experience:
4 Teaching experience is mainly: infant upper secondary
5 Is your post: permanent/temporary teacher/auxiliary/assistant?
6 How many years have you been teaching children with special needs?
7 If you are a teacher, what auxiliary assistance do you receive?
8 Have you been trained to teach children with special needs? yes/no
9 If so, what did the training involve?
10 Have you been trained to teach autistic children? yes/no
11 If so, what did the training involve?
12 What is the ratio of adults to autistic children in your class?
13 Please circle what forms of integration your autistic pupils have experienced,
and/or add any others: full classroom partial classroom
sports/music playground buddies other
14 In your experience, do parents of autistic children
prefer them to be integrated into mainstream or
segregated in specialist units? integrated segregated
15 Please circle a number according to the level of agreement with the following
statements, where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree:
Where possible, autistic children should be
integrated in mainstream 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends entirely on the
help of an auxiliary 1 2 3 4 5

203
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 204

AU T I S M 5(2)
Successful integration depends on the academic
ability of the child 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on the degree of
autism 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on the child’s
personality 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on attitudes in the
staffroom 1 2 3 4 5
A minority of able autistic children should be in
mainstream 1 2 3 4 5
16 What problems do you think an autistic child might encounter if integrated into
mainstream school?
17 What benefits do you think an autistic child would gain from being integrated?
18 What problems do you think mainstream children might encounter when in the
company of an autistic class member?
19 What benefits do you think mainstream children might gain from being in the
company of an autistic class member?
20 What parts of the curriculum do you find the most difficult to teach autistic chil-
dren?
21 The triad of impairments (absence or impairment of socialization, communi-
cation and imagination) characterizes the condition of autism. Please list these in
order of difficulty in terms of your ability to cope in the classroom (1 = most
difficult).
22 If you can, please explain the reasons for your choice.
23 Below is a list of behaviours sometimes displayed by autistic children. Please rate
in order of frequency (1 = most frequent and 5 = never). Please feel free to add
to the list if necessary.
Language problems 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of motivation 1 2 3 4 5
High levels of anxiety 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability 1 2 3 4 5
Emotional immaturity 1 2 3 4 5
Inappropriate emotional 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of self-control 1 2 3 4 5
Screaming 1 2 3 4 5
Aggression towards self/others 1 2 3 4 5
Depression 1 2 3 4 5
24 In your opinion, what would be the most beneficial teaching situation for chil-
dren with autism, considering the wide variety of autistic needs?
25 If you were to give mainstream teachers advice on how to teach a child with
autism, what advice would you give?
26 In your experience, how would you rate the role of educational psychologists in
terms of their practical assistance in helping you cope with the autistic children?
Please circle
(1 = very helpful and 5 = very unhelpful). 1 2 3 4 5
27 In general, list your suggestions as to what psychologists could do to support
children with autism and their teachers.

204
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 205

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
Appendix 2: questionnaire for mainstream teachers
Please write brief answers in the space provided or circle where appropriate.
1 Are you male/female?
2 Age group: 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–65
3 Number of years of teaching experience:
4 Teaching experience is mainly: infant upper secondary
5 Have you ever taught a child with special needs? yes/no
6 If so, where? (a) special school
(b) special unit within mainstream
(c) mainstream
7 Please give a description of the nature of the special need(s):
8 Did you have auxiliary assistance? yes/no
9 Have you ever taught a child/children with autism? yes/no
10 If so, how would you describe the extent of their autism?
mild/moderate/severe
11 Please circle a number according to the level of agreement with the following
statements, where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree:
Where possible, autistic children should be
integrated in mainstream 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends entirely on the
help of an auxiliary 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on the academic
ability of the child 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on the degree
of autism 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on the child’s
personality 1 2 3 4 5
Successful integration depends on attitudes in the
staffroom 1 2 3 4 5
A minority of able autistic children should be in
mainstream 1 2 3 4 5
12 Autism is characterized by a ‘triad of impairments’: the absence or impairment
of socialization, communication and imagination. Please list these in order of
what you anticipate would cause you most problems (1 = most difficult).
13 If you can, please explain the reasons for your choice.
14 Do you feel you have the skills to teach a child with autism? yes/no
15 How willing would you be to attend a training day? Please circle a number
(1 = very willing and 5 = very unwilling). 1 2 3 4 5
16 Below is a list of behaviours sometimes displayed by autistic children. Please circle
these according to how well you think you could cope with them
(1 = could cope easily and 5 = could not cope at all).
Language problems 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of motivation 1 2 3 4 5
High levels of anxiety 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability 1 2 3 4 5
Emotional immaturity 1 2 3 4 5
Inappropriate emotional 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of self-control 1 2 3 4 5
Screaming 1 2 3 4 5
205
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 206

AU T I S M 5(2)
Aggression towards self/others 1 2 3 4 5
Depression 1 2 3 4 5
17 What problems do you think an autistic child might encounter if integrated into
mainstream?
18 What benefits do you think an autistic child would gain in integrating into main-
stream?
19 What problems do you think mainstream children might encounter when in the
company of an autistic class member?
20 What benefits do you think mainstream children might gain from being in the
company of an autistic class member?
21 In your experience, how would you assess the role of educational psychologists
in terms of their practical assistance in helping mainstream teachers cope with
autistic children (or children with other special needs)? Please circle
(1 = very helpful and 5 = very unhelpful). 1 2 3 4 5
22 If appropriate, list your suggestions as to what psychologists could do to support
children with autism and their teachers.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the teachers who took part in the survey and the
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References
BARBER, C. (1996) ‘The Integration of a Very Able Pupil with Asperger Syndrome
into a Mainstream School’, British Journal of Special Education 23 (1): 19–24.
B U R A C K , J . , R O O T , R . & Z I G L E R , E . (1997) ‘Inclusive Education for Students
with Autism: Reviewing Ideological, Empirical and Community Considerations’, in
D . C O H E N & F . V O L K M A R (eds) Handbook of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2nd
edn. Chichester: Wiley.
F A R R E L L , P . (1995) ‘Who Likes To Be with Whom in an Integrated Nursery?’, British
Journal of Learning Disabilities 23 (4): 156–9.
F A R R E L L , P . (1997) ‘Integration of Children with Severe Learning Difficulties: A
Review of the Recent Literature’, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10
(1): 1–14.
H A L L , J . (1996) ‘Integration, Inclusion: What Does It All Mean?’, in J . C O U P E
O ’ K A N E & J . G O L D B A R T (eds) Whose Choice? Contentious Issues for Those Working with
People with Learning Difficulties. London: Fulton.
H E L P S , S . , N E W S O N - D A V I S , I . C . & C A L L I A S , M . (1999) ‘Autism: The
Teacher’s View’, Autism 3: 287–98.
H O Y S O N , M . , J A M I E S O N , B . & S T R A I N , P . (1984) ‘Individualized Group
Instruction of Normally-Developing and Autistic-Like Children: A Description and
Evaluation of the LEAP Curriculum Model’, Journal of the Division for Early Childhood 8:
157–72.
J O R D A N , R . & J O N E S , G . (1997) Educational Provision for Children with Autism in Scotland.
Interchange no. 46: A Report for the Research and Intelligence Unit. The Scottish
Office.
K A M P S , D . , L E O N A R D , B . , P O T U C E K , J . & G A R R I S O N - H A R R E L L , L . (1995)
‘Cooperative Learning Groups in Reading: An Integration Strategy for Students
with Autism and General Classroom Peers’, Behavioral Disorders 21 (1): 89–109.

206
08 McGregor (to/d) 9/4/01 4:04 pm Page 207

MCGREGOR & C A M P B E L L : AT T I T U D E S O F T E AC H E R S T O I N T E G R AT I O N
L U S T H AU S , E . , G A Z I T H , K . & L U S T H A U S , C . (1992) ‘Each Belongs: A
Rationale for Full Inclusion’, McGill Journal of Education 27: 293–309.
M E S I B O V, G . & S H E A , P . (1996) ‘Full Inclusion and Students with Autism’, Journal
of Autism and Develomental Disorders 26 (3): 337–46.
M Y L E S , B . & S I M P S O N , R . (1989) ‘Regular Educators’ Modification Preferences
for Mainstreaming Mildly Handicapped Children’, The Journal of Special Education 22:
479–92.
O D O M , S . & S T R A I N , P . (1984) ‘Peer-Mediated Approaches to Promoting
Children’s Social Interaction: A Review’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 54: 544–57.
O D O M , S . & S T R A I N , P . (1986) ‘A Comparison of Peer-Initiation and Teacher-
Antecedent Interventions for Promoting Reciprocal Social Interaction of Autistic
Preschoolers’, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 19: 59–71.
O D O M , S . , H O Y S O N , M . , J A M I E S O N , B . & S T R A I N , P . (1985) ‘Increasing
Handicapped Preschoolers’ Peer Social Interactions: Cross-Setting and Component
Analysis’, Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 19: 59–71.
P I E R C E , K . & S C H R E I B M A N , L . (1997) ‘Using Peer Trainers to Promote Social
Behavior in Autism: Are They Effective at Enhancing Multiple Social Modalities?’,
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 12 (4): 207–18.
R O E Y E R S , H . (1996) ‘The Influence of Nonhandicapped Peers on the Social
Interactions of Children with Developmental Disorder’, Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 26 (3): 303–20.
S A I N A T O , D . , G O L D S T E I N , H . & S T R A I N , P . (1992) ‘Effects of Self-Evaluation
on Preschool Children’s Use of Social Interaction Strategies with their Classmates
with Autism’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25: 127–41.
S C H W A R T Z , I . , S A N D A L L , S . , G A R F I N K L E , A . & B A U E R , J . (1998)
‘Outcomes for Children with Autism: Three Case Studies’, Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education 18 (3): 132–43.
S C O T T I S H E X E C U T I V E S T A T I S T I C S (1999) ‘Summary Results of the September
1998 School Census’, The Statistical Bulletin on Education.
S T A I N B A C K , S . & S T A I N B A C K , W. (1992) ‘Schools as Inclusive Communities’, in
S . S T A I N B A C K & W. S T A I N B A C K (eds) Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
W H I N N E R Y , K . , F U C H S , L . & F U C H S , D . (1991) ‘General, Special and
Remedial Teachers’ Acceptance of Behavioral and Instructional Strategies for
Mainstreaming Students with Mild Handicaps’, Remedial and Special Education 12: 6–13.

207